# Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?



## newpolitics

Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go. 

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails. 
The transcendental argument fails.
 ...

ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. 

Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't. 

Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


----------



## Mohamed

There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.

if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.

in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.


----------



## Rikurzhen

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.

Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.


----------



## newpolitics

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
Click to expand...


I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.

There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. This is how all claims are examined, and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading. As long as you can not demonstrate your god, all you have a is a personal belief, which means you are  not justified in evangelizing, or trying to influence the political realm with whichever theological doctrine you subscribe to. That is my point here. But, you actually seem rather reasonable. I'm  more after the truly arrogant theists who are certain of their belief being true, without argument. I am an agnostic atheists, and do not pretend to know that there is no god. I simply find the claim that there is a god unsupported and see no reason to believe it.


----------



## newpolitics

Mohamed said:


> There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
> i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.
> 
> if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.
> 
> in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.



I can see the sun. I can feel the sun. We can study the sun, its workings, its formation, and its effect on the solar system. 

Citing complexity is a horrible argument, as there is no standard you have that objectively demonstrates that a creator is required.


----------



## Rikurzhen

newpolitics said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
Click to expand...


I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.


----------



## Rikurzhen

newpolitics said:


> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.



Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.

What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.

So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?


----------



## I.P.Freely

Bacon, it bring you back from the dead.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
> 
> What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
> 
> So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
Click to expand...


There should be some Pink Floyd playing while people read that post


----------



## newpolitics

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
Click to expand...


You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?


----------



## newpolitics

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
> 
> What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
> 
> So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
Click to expand...



You are talking about an abstraction (a memory of a lover and the ensuing emotional reaction associated with it). I can easily draw an ontological distinction between this type of claim to and a concrete claim, or a claim about something that exists in objective reality.


----------



## Rikurzhen

newpolitics said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
Click to expand...


Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who is putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.

On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.


----------



## Rikurzhen

newpolitics said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
> 
> What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
> 
> So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about an abstraction (a memory of a lover and the ensuing emotional reaction associated with it). I can easily draw an ontological distinction between this type of claim to and a concrete claim, or a claim about something that exists in objective reality.
Click to expand...


You don't think that the religious experience resides in the realm of emotion?  Surely you don't believe religious people have come to their beliefs through cold, hard logic, do you?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

There's dogs aren't there? What more proof of God do you need than that?


----------



## TheOldSchool




----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

I don't see why people feel that arguing over the existence of God(s) is an intelligent thing to do.

If you disbelieve, good for you.  Go on disbelieving.  

Underestimate the power of belief at your own expense.​


----------



## S.J.

Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.  Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to).  You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

TheOldSchool said:


>



Wow, far out man. That was like...cosmic and stuff like that.


----------



## PratchettFan

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


 
Of course Atheism is justified.  It is as valid a belief as any other belief.


----------



## turzovka

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


 
Yes.  

People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.

Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.   

All because of their gods "time and chance."    

Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.


----------



## Pennywise

I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.


----------



## newpolitics

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.
> 
> On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.
Click to expand...


Essentially, I agree with you, that due to the nature of the claim of the existence of a metaphysical being that is


S.J. said:


> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.  Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to).  You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.


 
So you admit you have nothing. Just a belief.


----------



## BreezeWood

.

atheism does not answer what caused the emergence of life or the perimeters for its existence any more than any other belief and so is simply another ship on the oceans floor, for those answers in pursuit of the Everlasting.

.


----------



## S.J.

newpolitics said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.
> 
> On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially, I agree with you, that due to the nature of the claim of the existence of a metaphysical being that is
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.  Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to).  You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit you have nothing. Just a belief.
Click to expand...

Nothing that your one dimensional mind would be able to grasp.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



God exists. But maybe what 'God' is isn't as religionists describe it being? Or,

The ancients had incontrovertible proof of Gods' existence. The Jews fleeing Egypt had God with them. They had no doubts at all it existed. Yet they sought more and more from God. More food, more water, more favors. So having proof didn't do them much good. 

God is wise. God knows if He provided us with proof of its' existence we'd sit back and expect God to take care of every little thing. Our species would stagnate, cease innovation, as we relied more and more on God to fix all our problems. We'd likely still have numerous religions argueing over minutia. The world would be very different. Probably no global economy as business practices would be regulated by divine laws. Many would die from sheer neglect as leaders reasoned if they were worthy God would save them. 

God's existence remains an open question despite millenia of debate with no victors due to the above reaosns and many more. If we knew God existed as surely as we do the Sun does, we'd suffer, not prosper. The ancient Greeks were fairly convinced their pantheon existed yet still made war with one another. Being convinced of gods existing doesn't make things any better than they were prior. Adam and Eve knew God existed, didn't do them much good either.

Simplest most elegant proof of God existing I've discovered is the complete lack of evidence. Comparing this utter void of empiricism against the billions talking about God suggests to me at least that God does in fact exist, but is wise enough to conceal it. It used to prove itself, and we factionalized and made war with one another just as we do now without proof. So if nothing changes for the better with such proof, why prove it?

God does test the faithful. 

3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
- Deuteronomy 13

The test we all must take involves whether we obey divine law even absent a single ounce of proof that that deity exists.


----------



## BreezeWood

Delta4Embassy said:


> The test we all must take involves whether we obey divine law even absent a single ounce of proof that that deity exists.




generically speaking is the test obeying laws or accomplishing goals, the latter being discoveries prior to death enabling a future existence ... such that atheism is only a half equation empty of substantive resolution but a direction away from worship to goals and accomplishments - God being only relevant to a final result ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.




Behold the inherently contradictory, self-negating irrationally of relativism: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false. No crash and burn there. That brick never even gets off the ground. In other words, even the relativist can't explain how two diametrically opposed propositions could possibly be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.​
This observation serves as the jumping off point in grasping the actual nature of the irrefutably sound transcendental argument for God's existence.  Make no mistake about it:  the atheist merely misapprehends the nature of logic's ontological origin and, consequently, its eternal immutability.  He tricks himself when he imagines that logic is a created thing, when in fact the essence of perfect logic is God Himself.  For those who may still be scratching their heads, I'd be more than happy to show why the atheist's allegation does not hold up from first principles, though it would be a much simpler matter for newpolitics to begin by telling us why he thinks the transcendental argument fails. 

Also, let us all understand what the atheist is actually doing when he alleges that the classical arguments (or their more scientific forms, for example, the Kalam cosmological argument) for God's existence fail.  He's merely equates his subjective experience of not being convinced via his alleged defeaters with the issue of dialectical soundness in spite of the various arguments' powerful counter-defeaters.  In my experience, the atheist habitually misapprehends the defeater-structure of rational discourse as he conflates the essence of logical proofs with the concerns of empirical demonstrations due to his unwitting presupposition—or is it his unwitting superimposition?—of metaphysical naturalism, i.e., his scientifically unfalsifiable apriority. 

Who thinks I can't demonstrate the rather obvious fallacy in the following critique of Dr. Craig's argument?  Hint:  straw man.



In the meantime, know this:  the problem of the infinite regression of origin (a variation of the ontological argument, akin to what newpolitics may have in mind regarding "the modal ontological argument") does not merely demonstrate the possibility of God's existence.  It demonstrates the rationally untenable assertion that atheism given the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the construct of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it:  Prufrock s Cave.

In the light of the infinite regression of origin, the honest intellect should concede that the assertion of atheism defies the conventions of standard logic, while the assertion of theism is _not_ inherently contradictory, whether it be, objectively speaking, ultimately true or not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Delta4Embassy said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God exists. But maybe what 'God' is isn't as religionists describe it being? Or,
> 
> The ancients had incontrovertible proof of Gods' existence. The Jews fleeing Egypt had God with them. They had no doubts at all it existed. Yet they sought more and more from God. More food, more water, more favors. So having proof didn't do them much good.
> 
> God is wise. God knows if He provided us with proof of its' existence we'd sit back and expect God to take care of every little thing. Our species would stagnate, cease innovation, as we relied more and more on God to fix all our problems. We'd likely still have numerous religions argueing over minutia. The world would be very different. Probably no global economy as business practices would be regulated by divine laws. Many would die from sheer neglect as leaders reasoned if they were worthy God would save them.
> 
> God's existence remains an open question despite millenia of debate with no victors due to the above reaosns and many more. If we knew God existed as surely as we do the Sun does, we'd suffer, not prosper. The ancient Greeks were fairly convinced their pantheon existed yet still made war with one another. Being convinced of gods existing doesn't make things any better than they were prior. Adam and Eve knew God existed, didn't do them much good either.
> 
> Simplest most elegant proof of God existing I've discovered is the complete lack of evidence. Comparing this utter void of empiricism against the billions talking about God suggests to me at least that God does in fact exist, but is wise enough to conceal it. It used to prove itself, and we factionalized and made war with one another just as we do now without proof. So if nothing changes for the better with such proof, why prove it?
> 
> God does test the faithful.
> 
> 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
> - Deuteronomy 13
> 
> The test we all must take involves whether we obey divine law even absent a single ounce of proof that that deity exists.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. I see that your mind is still as closed as a slammed-shut door, unwilling to rid itself of irrelevancies obscuring the readily self-evident implications of first principles, which overwhelmingly favor the conclusion that God must be. 

For powerfully sound reasons the overwhelming majority of humanity has held and will always hold that God exists. Enough of this crap that humanity has not decisively asserted which of the two alternatives has the stronger case.  LOL!

No proof? Logical proofs and the concerns empirical demonstration are not the same thing, and sentient beings do not experience reality in terms of sensory phenomena alone. Ultimately, sentient beings process reality in accordance to the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness . . . in spite of the fact that some behave as if they were congenital slogan spouters rather than unexamined lives.


----------



## Big Black Dog

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



I'm thinking that you will know that God exists very shortly after you die.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who is putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.
> 
> On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.
Click to expand...



Indeed, in my experience it's pointless to engage the sloganeering of the atheist's purely faith-based notion, unless he actually steps out and attempts to make a real argument.  In that case, it becomes a worthwhile exercise, an opportunity to demonstrate just how full of it the new atheism really is.

Rikurzhen, theism is not a faith-based assertion.  That's nonsense.  It doesn't take any faith to recognize that God must be or to believe that God is.  Theism rests on reason.  It's a rational assertion predicated on universally self-evident first principles.  Faith arises at the moment of committing to any given system of thought regarding the intent/purpose of existence relative to divinity, not before. 

If you think the new atheism's allegation that the classical arguments for God's existence asserted by history's greatest philosophical, theological and scientific minds have been overthrown, then you've been playing in the post-modern, pseudointellectual world of make believe.  You've been consorting with straw men and have never faced the real thing in terms of rebuttal.

Once again, I'm laying down the gauntlet for those of you who think the new atheism has overthrown these arguments to step into the ring.  Tell me all about how the new atheism has raised startlingly new objections never considered or anticipated by the great theistic apologists of history and watch what I do to your straw men, more at, watch what a learned apologist does to your logical fallacies and misapprehensions of things.

I'm not holding my breath, though, for all I've ever gotten on this forum from atheists is sloganeering, but perhaps *newpolitics* has something more than just the bald assertions that the various arguments fail.  The fact that you're still operating under the impression that theism is a faith-based assertion demonstrates that you've never beat your head against anything but amateur hour.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> *Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.*
Click to expand...


And while the statement in bold is partially on the mark, you're making the mistake of thinking that theism is based on faith, when in fact it is based on reason.

Enter his realm?  

That would be a change in pace, i.e., an atheist on this forum entering into the realm of logic against the actualities of the classical arguments for God's existence so that a real apologist might disabuse him of his misapprehensions.

I've been waiting for an atheist to back his guff with something more than platitudes for years on this forum.  It's his OP.  He's the one making the claim that these arguments fail in the face of logic or reason or evidence or whatever, and then tells Mohamed that he need not justify his alleged refutation of the teleological argument beyond what is in fact nothing more than a counter teleological argument unwittingly predicated on an empirically indemonstrable apriority.  But frankly the cosmological, ontological and transcendental arguments are more interesting and more powerful. 

Faith, not Logic?!  LOL!  We're not talking about any given theological system of thought, my friend.  We're not talking about Delta4's irrelevancies, for example.  We're talking about the first principles of being.  You think I can't demolish newpolitics' yet to be heard justifications for the bald claims in his OP?  Think again.  It's the atheist who is spouting logically errant and empirically indemonstrable rubbish.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold the inherently contradictory, self-negating irrationally of relativism: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false. No crash and burn there. That brick never even gets off the ground. In other words, even the relativist can't explain how two diametrically opposed propositions could possibly be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.​
> This observation serves as the jumping off point in grasping the actual nature of the irrefutably sound transcendental argument for God's existence.  Make no mistake about it:  the atheist merely misapprehends the nature of logic's ontological origin and, consequently, its eternal immutability.  He tricks himself when he imagines that logic is a created thing, when in fact the essence of perfect logic is God Himself.  For those who may still be scratching their heads, I'd be more than happy to show why the atheist's allegation does not hold up from first principles, though it would be a much simpler matter for newpolitics to begin by telling us why he thinks the transcendental argument fails.
> 
> Also, let us all understand what the atheist is actually doing when he alleges that the classical arguments (or their more scientific forms, for example, the Kalam cosmological argument) for God's existence fail.  He's merely equates his subjective experience of not being convinced via his alleged defeaters with the issue of dialectical soundness in spite of the various arguments' powerful counter-defeaters.  In my experience, the atheist habitually misapprehends the defeater-structure of rational discourse as he conflates the essence of logical proofs with the concerns of empirical demonstrations due to his unwitting presupposition—or is it his unwitting superimposition?—of metaphysical naturalism, i.e., his scientifically unfalsifiable apriority.
> 
> Who thinks I can't demonstrate the rather obvious fallacy in the following critique of Dr. Craig's argument?  Hint:  straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, know this:  the problem of the infinite regression of origin (a variation of the ontological argument, akin to what newpolitics may have in mind regarding "the modal ontological argument") does not merely demonstrate the possibility of God's existence.  It demonstrates the rationally untenable assertion that atheism given the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the construct of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it:  Prufrock s Cave.
> 
> In the light of the infinite regression of origin, the honest intellect should concede that the assertion of atheism defies the conventions of standard logic, while the assertion of theism is _not_ inherently contradictory, whether it be, objectively speaking, ultimately true or not.
Click to expand...

 
The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out." 

We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.


----------



## asaratis

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, if Atheism is justified, then so is belief in God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.



You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
Click to expand...

 
Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, if Atheism is justified, then so is belief in God.
Click to expand...

 
Absolutely.  In the absence of information, any guess is as good as another.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, if Atheism is justified, then so is belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In the absence of information, any guess is as good as another.
Click to expand...

That is why any argument regarding the existence of God is futile.  It may be enlightening in regard to practicing one's debating skills and may change the minds of some readers but it will never prove one way or the other.

Whether or not Atheism is a religion is another story.  There just has to be agreement on the definitions of  words.


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, if Atheism is justified, then so is belief in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  In the absence of information, any guess is as good as another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why any argument regarding the existence of God is futile.  It may be enlightening in regard to practicing one's debating skills and may change the minds of so readers but it will never prove one way or the other.
> 
> Whether or not Atheism is a religion is another story.  There just has to be agreement on the definitions of  words.
Click to expand...

 
It's why I never debate the existence of God.  I fully concede your guess is as good as mine, but I don't concede it's better than mine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
Click to expand...


Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.

Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
Click to expand...

 
You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.
Click to expand...

IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.

That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.

My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical.   Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.

Ridiculously simplistic, but a start.  Shoot me down with your version.  What caused the big bang?


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

The epic battle of Marduk vs Tiamat​


----------



## PratchettFan

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that both sides of this issue are attempting to demonstrate their position with logic alone.  Logic is like a hammer without nails or wood, a good tool but useless under the conditions.  The statement "Humans have large, fluffy ears.  I am a human.  Therefore I have large, fluffy ears" is perfect logic but it only takes a glance in the mirror to demonstrate the maxim "Garbage in.  Garbage out."  In this particular discussion you can change that to "Nothing in.  Nothing out."
> 
> We are operating in a total informational vacuum.  There is no evidence to support either side.  All we have is belief and assumption.  You apply your unsupported assumptions to logic to demonstrate your point, they apply their unsupported assumptions to demonstrate theirs.  What you end up with is lots of words and not a single supported conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.
> 
> That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
> 
> My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical.   Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
> 
> Ridiculously simplistic, but a start.  Shoot me down with your version.  What caused the big bang?
Click to expand...

 
I have no idea what caused it.  I have no information upon which to base a conclusion.  However, my ignorance is not a demonstration of your knowledge.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your beliefs.  But that does not make them anything more than belief.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

asaratis said:


> IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.
> 
> That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
> 
> My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical.   Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
> 
> Ridiculously simplistic, but a start.  Shoot me down with your version.  What caused the big bang?



Presumably you're referring to the 1 Planck time singularity that existed just before the inflationary period, but before matter, energy, space and time, the quantum field existed from which the singularity emerged as a result of a vacuum fluctuation in energy.


----------



## asaratis

PratchettFan said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there's no evidence of God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.
> 
> That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
> 
> My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical.   Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
> 
> Ridiculously simplistic, but a start.  Shoot me down with your version.  What caused the big bang?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what caused it.  I have no information upon which to base a conclusion.  However, my ignorance is not a demonstration of your knowledge.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your beliefs.  But that does not make them anything more than belief.
Click to expand...

Quite so.  As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion.  I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.

All I'm saying is that there was an outside cause to the expansion of the universe from a condensed starting point.

Again, this is conjecture on my part....not to be taken as positing that you are wrong if you don't agree.

God existed before time started.  God set off the big bang.


----------



## Thunderbird

newpolitics said:


> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...


More likely you fail to understand these arguments.

Some arguments for the existence Of God:
Teleological arguments

What is the fine-tuning of the universe and how does it serve as a pointer to God BioLogos

Why is the universe so beautiful? If you don't believe in Design you think the universe is a random mess, and how can a random mess be beautiful?

Why can the physical world be described by elegant equations?  Here's John Polkinghorne: "We are so familiar with the fact that we can understand the world that most of the time we take it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos."
Cosmological argument
Other
Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?


----------



## Carla_Danger

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
> 
> What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
> 
> So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
Click to expand...



This ex-girlfriend of yours, did you ever meet her in person, have physical contact, or did you just read about her in a book?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pennywise said:


> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.



The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.

For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.

Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
Click to expand...

 
I agree.  In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you.  That is a perfectly reasonable approach.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.



I failed to do no such thing. The existence of the universe_ is_ the evidence of God's existence as understood by the implications of first principles objectively and universally apparent to all. Period. Mindless rocks don't reason. The phenomena of existence don't interpret themselves. Sentience reasons, interprets, deciphers processes, confers meaning. We wouldn't be talking about the ultimate origin of the universe if the universe didn't . . . you know . . . exist. LOL!

Of course it's a belief about the ultimate origin of the universe's existence.  So?  The evidence and the pertinent logic is not subject to the whims of your unwitting imposition of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority on the fact that the ultimate origin of the universe's existence is either some configuration of inanimateness or sentience. The latter belief is predicated on solid evidence and reason, and not only that, the latter has the better argument.


----------



## Pennywise

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you.  That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
Click to expand...


Thanks for both of these responses. The older I get, the more questions I have, and the more I wonder if my inability to have faith is something lacking in my own mind. I know many people with real and deep faith, and I envy them. Perhaps by the time I am ready to cross over, I will have clarity.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pennywise said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you.  That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for both of these responses. The older I get, the more questions I have, and the more I wonder if my inability to have faith is something lacking in my own mind. I know many people with real and deep faith, and I envy them. Perhaps by the time I am ready to cross over, I will have clarity.
Click to expand...


   I am a firm believer that each of us is our own denomination because we are individual people and how we think, perceive, feel, experience, process our existence will have some commonality with others but is a totally unique existence just the same.

You are already 90% there by keeping the door open.  I really believe that if you invite God to make himself known and put no emotional or intellectual or time restrictions on what that would be like or look like or feel like, you will have your clarity.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you.  That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
Click to expand...


Sometimes it is indeed that gut feeling that you have hit on a point of truth.  But just as often it is accepted as logical or reasonable simply because there is no reason to question the motive of the one providing the information as being anything other than honest and honorable.  But one cannot be a student of history or the Bible or scientific theory and read all the differing opinions and/or accounts and/or speculations and realistically believe that all are correct.

How does one believe in the big bang theory?  None of us were there.  Probably none of us have ever done the scientific research or observations or calculations that have made that the most popular theory for how the universe came to be the way it is.  So most of us, having nothing else to base an opinion on, go with the most popular theory as presented in text books or scientific journals or via lectures or whatever.  Reason and logic tells us that all those people are probably basing their conclusions on sound scientific principle and therefore we CHOOSE to accept those conclusions.

But we do so strictly on faith.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
Click to expand...


But with all due respect, Foxfyre, the issue in this OP is not the personal experiences of fellowship with divinity, but the charge that the following arguments relative to the facts of existence and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not cogent: 

The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.  —newpolitics​
That charge, as I, and now Thunderbird, have averred, is false, bottomed on the new atheism's logical fallacies and misapprehensions of things.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But with all due respect, Foxfyre, the issue in this OP is not the personal experiences of fellowship with divinity, but the charge that the following arguments relative to the facts of existence and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not cogent:
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.  —newpolitics​
> That charge, as I, and now Thunderbird, have averred, is false, bottomed on the new atheism's logical fallacies and misapprehensions of things.
Click to expand...


I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend.  I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them.  All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it.  The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.

So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God?  Yes and no.

I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion.  I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.

I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:

1.  God is
2.  God loves me
3.  We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
And that is based on empirical evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



Are you aware that you cannot provide a syllogistic argument that absolutely proves that the universe exists? Yet, despite the obvious flaws in logic, you think that the mere fact that you can ignore it somehow proves something you want to believe.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend.  I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them.  All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it.  The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.
> 
> So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God?  Yes and no.
> 
> I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion.  I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.
> 
> I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:
> 
> 1.  God is
> 2.  God loves me
> 3.  We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
> And that is based on empirical evidence.




I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the _Imago Dei_, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that you cannot provide a syllogistic argument that absolutely proves that the universe exists? Yet, despite the obvious flaws in logic, you think that the mere fact that you can ignore it somehow proves something you want to believe.
Click to expand...


Correct. He doesn't grasp the difference between the logical proofs of justification and the cognitive limits of human justification.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

asaratis said:


> Quite so.  As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion.  I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.
> 
> All I'm saying is that there was an outside cause to the expansion of the universe from a condensed starting point.
> 
> Again, this is conjecture on my part....not to be taken as positing that you are wrong if you don't agree.
> 
> God existed before time started.  God set off the big bang.



Agree!


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am agnostic because although I cannot perceive the possibility of a God, I can also not fathom the workings of the universe as being a random series of blips and explosions. If nothing else, carbon and all other elements exist, they are real. If you can't tell me from whence they sprang, you cannot possibly proclaim a higher power does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most intelligent response on the thread.   The response of one who has no empirical experience with such higher power but who, like Einstein, could see with his own eyes wonderful things for which science has no explanation or answer for at this time.  Thus an open mind leaving the door open for all possibilities.
> 
> For me, and millions, even billions, like me, the existence of God is a reality because of experience with God.  It does require faith to believe that what I/we have experienced was indeed God of course.
> 
> Without empirical experience, without doing the work, research, testing, etc. ourselves, everything we believe about anything whether science or history or flying spaghetti monsters is faith based.  It is based on faith that what we read, hear, are taught, or sometimes even what we witness is the real deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  In the absence of evidence you might as well go with what feels right to you.  That is a perfectly reasonable approach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes it is indeed that gut feeling that you have hit on a point of truth.  But just as often it is accepted as logical or reasonable simply because there is no reason to question the motive of the one providing the information as being anything other than honest and honorable.  But one cannot be a student of history or the Bible or scientific theory and read all the differing opinions and/or accounts and/or speculations and realistically believe that all are correct.
> 
> How does one believe in the big bang theory?  None of us were there.  Probably none of us have ever done the scientific research or observations or calculations that have made that the most popular theory for how the universe came to be the way it is.  So most of us, having nothing else to base an opinion on, go with the most popular theory as presented in text books or scientific journals or via lectures or whatever.  Reason and logic tells us that all those people are probably basing their conclusions on sound scientific principle and therefore we CHOOSE to accept those conclusions.
> 
> But we do so strictly on faith.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend.  I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them.  All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it.  The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.
> 
> So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God?  Yes and no.
> 
> I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion.  I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.
> 
> I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:
> 
> 1.  God is
> 2.  God loves me
> 3.  We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
> And that is based on empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the _Imago Dei_, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.
Click to expand...


You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God.  To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true.  How do you know?  Because it says so.

However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here:  that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all.  At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace as a possibility.  Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.



I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'

For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
Click to expand...


Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?

You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
Click to expand...


Oh I do apologize.  I thought you were interested in having a civil discussion rather than making a flat statement that you expected everybody to accept as gospel.   (Non-Christian gospel of course.)  My mistake.  I won't misunderstand again.  Do have a pleasant evening.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Thunderbird said:


> Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?



What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"


----------



## Foxfyre

Rikurzhen said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"
Click to expand...


True.  Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.  The only ones with hard evidence are those who have experienced it.  It is affirmed when others testify to the same kind of experience.  Should those who have not experienced just accept it?  Nope.  Nor should they discount it for no other reason than they do not wish to believe that cloud of witnesses.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend.  I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them.  All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it.  The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.
> 
> So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God?  Yes and no.
> 
> I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion.  I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.
> 
> I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:
> 
> 1.  God is
> 2.  God loves me
> 3.  We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
> And that is based on empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the _Imago Dei_, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God.  To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true.  How do you know?  Because it says so.
> 
> However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here:  that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all.  At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace.  Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.
Click to expand...


But again, with all due respect, that's not right, Foxfyre, that is to say, the first paragraph of your post is not right, either factually or biblically.  There's really  nothing heavy duty about the readily self-evident imperatives regarding the problem of origin.  The rational faculty of the _Imago Dei _was not corrupted by the Fall.  That is the one thing that was left intact, "so that they are without excuse."  Even the relativist, for example, cannot explain _how_ two mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed ideas could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Even if reality, in spite of all apparent indications, beyond the confines of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (which entail the inherent laws of logic:  the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) _were_ irrational:  we wouldn't know the difference, as our minds and our perception of things are bound by these absolutes.  (In post #57, Quantum Wingbag gets at something profoundly true:  the apparent world beyond our minds is filtered through our senses.  The best we can do is operate on the logical proofs of justification and the apparent results of systematic falsification, but such, objectively speaking, cannot be said to be the stuff of absolute certainty.)

But I need not bring the Bible into the fray with regard to the problem of origin.  I only mentioned the various biblical figures to let you know that everyone of the classical arguments for God's existence have been made in scripture.  They are not to be spurned by the Christian, as they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics.  I need not appeal to any authority at all!  Once again, the imperatives regarding the problem of origin are readily and universally apparent to all.  The initial problem of origin is not theological, but philosophical.

Errors in logic are not necessarily the same thing as closed-mindedness, but closed-mindedness will certainly get in the way of recognizing errors in logic.

For example, what is this resistance to the uncomplicated notion that the existence of the universe coupled with the imperatives of human consciousness _are_ the evidence for God's existence?  What?  A mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe, albeit, beautifully arrayed and systematically well-ordered, or so it seems, is _not_ evidence for a Sentient origin?!  LOL!  What folks are doing here is merely confounding the distinction between absolute certainty and the logical proofs of justification derived when reason is brought to bear on the evidence, and that is precisely what the classical arguments for God's existence do.  "The shallow think" of the new atheism and the normative relativism of the post-modern world has merely obscured the implications of these arguments via logical fallacy and misapprehensions.

I have no power to convince anyone that God exists, but there is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the ultimate origin of the universe is an eternally self-subsistent something that is either Sentient or inanimate.  There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the idea of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it.  There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the following observation universally apparent to all:

For the idea of God—which contains within itself its own specific nature and attributes—imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, the idea objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily acknowledges this every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

. . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a Being Who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent Being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes an absolute proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.

I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.   —M.D. Rawlings​
The notion that the existence of the universe does not constitute evidence for God's existence is silly. The notion that the assertion of God's existence is not based on reason is silly. The notion that the inherently contradictory assertion of atheism carries as much or more power than the argument for God's existence is silly.

For those still struggling to clear the cobwebs from your minds, ask yourselves this question: What exactly is the evidence for atheism? The existence of the universe is evidence that God _doesn't_ exist. How does that work? Why is that rationally problematical, oddly startling in an almost visceral sense?


----------



## Thunderbird

Rikurzhen said:


> What is it that mothers are fond of saying "If all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you?"


I understand your point, but I'm talking about testimony rather than opinion.

Courts of law don't just dismiss testimony do they?

Interesting webpage: Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft Ronald K. Tacelli


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spent four intense years, among other things, studying all those arguments my friend.  I read with interest the scholarly agreement with them and the disagreement with them.  All that commentary I judged to be presented via honorable and learned people who possessed no ulterior motives in presenting it.  The student is left to choose the argument that makes the most sense to the student.
> 
> So can syllogism be used to make an argument for the existence of God?  Yes and no.
> 
> I did my damndest for most of two decades to explain away everything I had ever heard or been taught about religion.  I studied all the great religions and found that every single one of them contains kernels of truth and every one of them comes up lacking when it comes to answering the great cosmic questions that we probably aren't intended to know.
> 
> I stripped away every component of Christian beliefs/teaching that did not absolutely have to be there and arrived at the bare bones of what, for me, is truth:
> 
> 1.  God is
> 2.  God loves me
> 3.  We are not intended to fully understand it at least for now.
> And that is based on empirical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you. Nevertheless, the classical arguments for God’s existence are not about religion or faith as such. They're about the "science" of logic and the universal first principles of ontology that God imparted to mankind, the _Imago Dei_, by which we may all know that God is and that mankind is morally accountable to Him. These arguments have been variously asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, David, Christ and the Apostle Paul in scripture, and they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics. While they have been asserted by others, including the pagan, natural philosopher Aristotle, they are not extra-biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're getting into the area of really heavy duty theology here, though, and such is foolishness to the non believer who doesn't believe those figures you listed even existed, much less that they had any particular insight into the ways of God.  To use their arguments as authoritative is as futile as saying the Bible is true.  How do you know?  Because it says so.
> 
> However, Einstein and Spinoza before him latched onto the basic principle you are bringing up here:  that the logical mind that observes the universe and all the wonders in it with an open mind almost has to have a sense of some sort of intelligence behind it all.  At least such a concept is logical and reasonable to embrace.  Only the most close minded deny such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, with all due respect, that's not right, Foxfyre, that is to say, the first paragraph of your post is not right, either factually or biblically.  There's really  nothing heavy duty about the readily self-evident imperatives regarding the problem of origin.  The rational faculty of the _Imago Dei _was not corrupted by the Fall.  That is the one thing that was left intact, "so that they are without excuse."  Even the relativist, for example, cannot explain _how_ two mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed ideas could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.  Even if reality, in spite of all apparent indications, beyond the confines of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (which entail the inherent laws of logic:  the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) _were_ irrational:  we wouldn't know the difference, as our minds and our perception of things are bound by these absolutes.  (In post #57, Quantum Wingbag gets at something profoundly true:  the apparent world beyond our minds is filtered through our senses.  The best we can do is operate on the logical proofs of justification and the apparent results of systematic falsification, but such, objectively speaking, cannot be said to be the stuff of absolute certainty.)
> 
> But I need not bring the Bible into the fray with regard to the problem of origin.  I only mentioned the various biblical figures to let you know that everyone of the classical arguments for God's existence have been made in scripture.  They are not to be spurned by the Christian, as they go to the concerns of evangelistic apologetics.  I need not appeal to any authority at all!  Once again, the imperatives regarding the problem of origin are readily and universally apparent to all.  The initial problem of origin is not theological, but philosophical.
> 
> Errors in logic are not necessarily the same thing as closed-mindedness, but closed-mindedness will certainly get in the way of recognizing errors in logic.
> 
> For example, what is this resistance to the uncomplicated notion that the existence of the universe coupled with the imperatives of human consciousness _are_ the evidence for God's existence?  What?  A mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe, albeit, beautifully arrayed and systematically well-ordered, or so it seems, is _not_ evidence for a Sentient origin?!  LOL!  What folks are doing here is merely confounding the distinction between absolute certainty and the logical proofs of justification derived when reason is brought to bear on the evidence, and that is precisely what the classical arguments for God's existence do.  "The shallow think" of the new atheism and the normative relativism of the post-modern world has merely obscured the implications of these arguments via logical fallacy and misapprehensions.
> 
> I have no power to convince anyone that God exists, but there is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the ultimate origin of the universe is an eternally self-subsistent something that is either Sentient or inanimate.  There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the fact that the atheist necessarily concedes the ontologically independent existence of the idea of God in his very denial that their be any substance behind it.  There is nothing mysteriously heavy duty about the following observation universally apparent to all:
> 
> For the idea of God—which contains within itself its own specific nature and attributes—imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, the idea objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily acknowledges this every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> . . . This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a Being Who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent Being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.
> 
> That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes an absolute proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.
> 
> I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.​
> The notion that the existence of the universe does not constitute evidence for God's existence is silly. The notion that the assertion of God's existence is not based on reason is silly. The notion that the inherently contradictory assertion of atheism carries as much or more power than the argument for God's existence is silly.
> 
> For those still struggling to clear the cobwebs from your minds, ask yourselves this question: What exactly is the evidence for atheism? The existence of the universe is evidence that God _doesn't_ exist. How does that work? Why is that rationally problematical, oddly startling in an almost visceral sense?
Click to expand...


My first paragraph is factually wrong?  Biblically wrong?      Okay how, since I haven't disputed or challenged your argument in any way?  I have only pointed out that your argument is seen as foolishness to the non believer if he even understands it.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
Click to expand...


I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..

So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.

Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.

Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.

Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.

What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.

But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.


----------



## sealybobo

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.

Example:

God talked to Adam
God talked to Noah
God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
So god is real

Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up.  Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.
> 
> Example:
> 
> God talked to Adam
> God talked to Noah
> God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
> So god is real
> 
> Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up.  Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.



Kinda the way you assume your blithering idiocy is intelligent?

FYI, no ontological argument stacks up in the real world, which is why no one uses them outside philosophical debates.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.    You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.



So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.  

Science went outside the box and challenged what our uneducated and imaginative & fearful & superstitious ancestors made up.  

_“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They assume and want you to assume those stories in their bibles are true.
> 
> Example:
> 
> God talked to Adam
> God talked to Noah
> God sent Jesus and Jesus did miracles
> So god is real
> 
> Never crosses their mind that these stories might be made up.  Ask too many questions and you'll be told you just have to have faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda the way you assume your blithering idiocy is intelligent?
> 
> FYI, no ontological argument stacks up in the real world, which is why no one uses them outside philosophical debates.
Click to expand...


What's your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.



Perhaps he understand the difference between your misuse of the word proof and the real definition of it.

By the way, what makes you think he doesn't have proof? Other than your personal ignorance and bias?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> What's your point?



Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.

You are an uneducated ignoramus who doesn't understand anything.

Does that help, or should I use smaller words?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he understand the difference between your misuse of the word proof and the real definition of it.
> 
> By the way, what makes you think he doesn't have proof? Other than your personal ignorance and bias?
Click to expand...


Because you and he can't provide any.  If you have some proof, show it.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> You are an uneducated ignoramus who doesn't understand anything.
> 
> Does that help, or should I use smaller words?
Click to expand...


Do you talk to the lord with that mouth or that attitude?  God just told me you are a ****.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.    You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.
> 
> Science went outside the box and challenged what our uneducated and imaginative & fearful & superstitious ancestors made up.
> 
> _“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Click to expand...

God does not reveal himself up close to people like you, whose only interest in discussions like this is to mock and ridicule those who have seen and recognized his presence.  I base my belief on what I've seen and experienced and I won't hang those very personal experiences out for ridicule by arrogant and condescending people such as yourself.  I don't need to convince you.  If I thought you were truly interested in finding God, I would indulge you but I know that's not your objective,


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, *an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.*  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
Click to expand...


Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.   

PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.

Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.    You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.
> 
> Science went outside the box and challenged what our uneducated and imaginative & fearful & superstitious ancestors made up.
> 
> _“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”_ – Tim Minchin
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God does not reveal himself up close to people like you, whose only interest in discussions like this is to mock and ridicule those who have seen and recognized his presence.  I base my belief on what I've seen and experienced and I won't hang those very personal experiences out for ridicule by arrogant and condescending people such as yourself.  I don't need to convince you.  If I thought you were truly interested in finding God, I would indulge you but I know that's not your objective,
Click to expand...


Don't worry, it won't be anything I haven't already heard.  No god, angel, demon or ghost ever talked to you dumb ass. 

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias, Cherry Picking.


----------



## sealybobo

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.


----------



## sealybobo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.



When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Because you and he can't provide any.  If you have some proof, show it.



FYI, the definition of proof.

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:​
In other words, all I have to do is provide any of the arguments that the OP dismissed as proof of the existence of god. I could also provide other forms of evidence/proof, including multiple examples of unexplained healing that people attribute to god, personal testimony of billions of people who have had a personal experience with a god, and even examples from history where people say god intervened in events. So, not only can I supply proof, I can supply more than one proof. I won't bother because you will dismiss all of them, but that would not make you right, it would just show why I dismiss you as uneducated and ignorant. It would also demonstrate your bigotry.

By the way, the fact that I can cite multiple, completely valid, logical arguments to prove the existence of god is why I dismiss logic as a tool of idiots, and why I hold nothing but contempt for the people who, being less than idiots, do not understand the limitations of logic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sealybobo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Click to expand...

Your soul? Really you have a soul?

*1soul*
_noun_\ˈsōl\
: the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever

: a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature

: the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.

Again it's not my place to give you absolution for your disbelief


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Do you talk to the lord with that mouth or that attitude?  God just told me you are a ****.



Newsflash, idiot. God knew I am an asshole years ago. So did I.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you and he can't provide any.  If you have some proof, show it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, the definition of proof.
> 
> Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:​
> In other words, all I have to do is provide any of the arguments that the OP dismissed as proof of the existence of god. I could also provide other forms of evidence/proof, including multiple examples of unexplained healing that people attribute to god, personal testimony of billions of people who have had a personal experience with a god, and even examples from history where people say god intervened in events. So, not only can I supply proof, I can supply more than one proof. I won't bother because you will dismiss all of them, but that would not make you right, it would just show why I dismiss you as uneducated and ignorant. It would also demonstrate your bigotry.
> 
> By the way, the fact that I can cite multiple, completely valid, logical arguments to prove the existence of god is why I dismiss logic as a tool of idiots, and why I hold nothing but contempt for the people who, being less than idiots, do not understand the limitations of logic.
Click to expand...


I don't buy any saw a ghost, exorcist, angel, talked to god stories.


----------



## sealybobo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your soul? Really you have a soul?
> 
> *1soul*
> _noun_\ˈsōl\
> : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
> 
> : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Again it's not my place to give you absolution for your disbelief
Click to expand...


I'll buy 2 and 3

a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature

: the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sealybobo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your soul? Really you have a soul?
> 
> *1soul*
> _noun_\ˈsōl\
> : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
> 
> : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Again it's not my place to give you absolution for your disbelief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll buy 2 and 3
> 
> a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
Click to expand...

It's also the spritual part of a person. So how can you say that you have a soul and not believe in God?


----------



## sealybobo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your soul? Really you have a soul?
> 
> *1soul*
> _noun_\ˈsōl\
> : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
> 
> : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Again it's not my place to give you absolution for your disbelief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll buy 2 and 3
> 
> a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's also the spritual part of a person. So how can you say that you have a soul and not believe in God?
Click to expand...


A dog has this same soul.  A fish.  Hell, a Tardigrade has this "soul".  So what?  That doesn't prove a god exists?  Especially not the jesus mohammad moses noah abraham gods.  

Glad you brought that up.  Great point.  A person who believes in god but not any of the organized religions should realize that when our ancestors were very uneducated and before all the organized religions were started, we pondered these things for thousands of years.  After 148,000 years someone finally decided to capitalize on god(s) and religion so they designed a well crafted story that could be used to control the masses.  

The Pharoahs used religion to get their slaves to worship them and build the pyramids.  The average life span of a slave was 32 years old.  But don't worry that this life is short.  The next life will be much better.  DUMBASSES!

Anyways, the people who believe in god(s), not because of the bible or koran but because of their "spirit", need to realize that this is the question our ancient ancestors pondered long before the jesus story was invented.  LONG before.


----------



## sealybobo

In 1 second I bet over 1 million animals all over the planet just died.  Some got eat by a shark, some life died at 80 years old, a bug just got squashed, a mosquito, a deer got shot, a lion, an elephant.  A dingo at you baby.  Etc.  So on and so on.  Where are all those souls going?  No where.  I love human arrogance they think they are better than the dolphins and crows and they think they'll live forever with gramma and great gramma and great great great great great great great gramma.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sealybobo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless his heart someone looking for absolution for his doubt in God.
> Sorry pal it isn't my place to give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.
> 
> I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.
> 
> There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
> 
> My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.
> 
> -Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your soul? Really you have a soul?
> 
> *1soul*
> _noun_\ˈsōl\
> : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever
> 
> : a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Again it's not my place to give you absolution for your disbelief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll buy 2 and 3
> 
> a person's deeply felt moral and emotional nature
> 
> : the ability of a person to feel kindness and sympathy for others, to appreciate beauty and art, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's also the spritual part of a person. So how can you say that you have a soul and not believe in God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A dog has this same soul.  A fish.  Hell, a Tardigrade has this "soul".  So what?  That doesn't prove a god exists?  Especially not the jesus mohammad moses noah abraham gods.
> 
> Glad you brought that up.  Great point.  A person who believes in god but not any of the organized religions should realize that when our ancestors were very uneducated and before all the organized religions were started, we pondered these things for thousands of years.  After 148,000 years someone finally decided to capitalize on god(s) and religion so they designed a well crafted story that could be used to control the masses.
> 
> The Pharoahs used religion to get their slaves to worship them and build the pyramids.  The average life span of a slave was 32 years old.  But don't worry that this life is short.  The next life will be much better.  DUMBASSES!
> 
> Anyways, the people who believe in god(s), not because of the bible or koran but because of their "spirit", need to realize that this is the question our ancient ancestors pondered long before the jesus story was invented.  LONG before.
Click to expand...

Once again a soul is God given why do you think you have a soul but don't believe in God?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you talk to the lord with that mouth or that attitude?  God just told me you are a ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash, idiot. God knew I am an asshole years ago. So did I.
Click to expand...

Me too I knew I was an asshole when I started walking back in 1962


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I don't buy any saw a ghost, exorcist, angel, talked to god stories.



Thanks for confirming that, unlike you attempting to tell me what I believe, I actually understand your position.


----------



## S.J.

God would probably consider me a maverick, but as a Christian I have never felt compelled to try to win over atheists or to convince them of God's existence.  They are arrogant and childish little pricks and having to live in the same world with them in the afterlife would probably be more like Hell than Heaven.  I'm perfectly content to leave them to their own ignorant and one-dimensional thinking so that they end up on a lower plane.
What's funny to me is how they think they're intellectually superior than everyone else because of their beliefs, when in fact THEY are the ones who lack the ability to even consider the possibility that they might not be the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe.  Maybe they're too stupid to know that science has made great progress because it leaves the door open to ALL possibilities, not just the ones their tunnel vision allows them to see.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, *an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.*  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.
> 
> PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.
> 
> Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
> 
> This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .
Click to expand...


I don't really think he is MDR.  My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere.  But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place.  And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit.    Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> My first paragraph is factually wrong?  Biblically wrong?      Okay how, since I haven't disputed or challenged your argument in any way?  *I have only pointed out that your argument is seen as foolishness to the non believer if he even understands it.*



Please, don't be sore at me, but I and Thunderbird are trying to establish the realities of the issue, the proper foundation for discussing the central topic of the OP, particularly for the purpose of refuting the routine objections to the classical arguments for God's existence should newpolitics return to give us something more than just bald assertions to chew on.

I love you, FoxFyre. You know that, right? But now I must be blunt.

You're confounding an important distinction due to what appears to me to be a serious case of closed-mindedness.

You're the one making a simple matter more complex than it actually is, not I. You're the one unnecessarily appealing to biblical authority regarding a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the intimate things of God that are foolishness to the nonbeliever. You're the one dragging an utterly irrelevant and complex aspect of Christian epistemology into the fray, contributing to the very confusion that is nothing more than the failure on the part of some to dispense with the conventional slogans of post-modern popular culture and to bear down, perhaps for the first time in their lives, on the obvious.

The universally self-evident imperatives of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which entail the fundamental laws of logic and the delineations of the problem of origin are _*not*_ foolishness to the nonbeliever!

*1.*  Everybody, the believer and the nonbeliever alike, _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.

*2.*  Everybody _knows_ that the prospect of something arising from out of nothing is an apparently inexplicable absurdity and, consequently, recognizes the concomitant exigency that something or another must have always existed.***

*3.*  Everybody _knows_ that there are but two ontological categories of things pertinent the problem of ultimate origin: inanimateness and sentience.

*4.*  Everybody _knows_ that the construct of God imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, everybody _knows_ that the idea of an eternally self-subsistent Sentience objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily concedes this to be true every time he denies there be any substance behind the idea. Even *newpolitics* concedes this, which is refreshing given the baby talk of so many other atheists on this forum who stupidly argue that the idea of God is merely a fabrication of human culture in the face of this undeniable fact of human cognition.  But, then, such atheists are cognitive sociopaths or pathological liars.

*5.*  Everybody _knows_, in spite of what some have thoughtlessly asserted on this thread, that the problem of origin necessarily presupposes that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidence for the existence of a Sentient First Cause, whether or not, objectively speaking, such a Being actually exists.  For crying out loud! The existence of the universe _is_ the very essence of the problem of origin, and it's not merely an empirical problem, but, ultimately, a rational problem.

Even atheists necessarily concede that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidentiary substance of the arguments for God’s existence. (Aside: *PratchettFan*, get real!) What _is_ the intrinsic substance of the arguments that atheists are compelled to refute? Answer: the existence of the universe and its rational constituents!***  *
*
Hawking might be smarter than all of us put together, but none us are so dumb that we cannot recognize what he recognizes:  the evidentiary substance of the problem of origin and the arguable existence of God is the apparent fact of the universe's existence:  material, physical, empirical evidence.  

6.*  And now everybody who has read this _knows_ that those who allege that there is no empirical evidence from which God's existence may be reasonably inferred needs to stop being stupid.

_These_ are the pertinent, universally recognized facts of human consciousness regarding the problem of origin. _These_ are the foundational imperatives of the classical arguments for God's existence, which are nothing more than the cosmological, ontological, teleological and transcendental ramifications of the very same imperatives.

There's no appeal to authority here. There's nothing theologically heavy duty about any of these facts of human consciousness touching on the problem of origin. Neither the teachings of the Bible nor the teachings of any other putatively sacred text you care to name has any relevance whatsoever! Belief in Christianity or belief in any other religion of divinity has no relevance whatsoever! Indeed, as atheists and agnostics routinely demonstrate, a _lack_ of belief in God or any given system of religious thought has absolutely no relevance to the universal recognition of these imperatives whatsoever!

Everybody recognizes these things! That's what I’m telling you!

Whether one is ultimately convinced of God's existence by these imperatives or their subsequent formal arguments is up for grabs.
_______________________________________________

***  The likes of Hawking et al. have not discovered anything new that would overthrow these imperatives of human consciousness or raised any new objections that the classical arguments for God‘s existence cannot account for insofar as they are properly understood. The guff of Hawking et al. is the stuff of logical fallacy and cognitive illusions. While the likes of Hawking may fool the naïve minds of unexamined lives, everyone of the their supposed refutations of the cosmological argument, for example, come down to a variation of the following conceptual sophistries which beg the question:

*1*. The quantum vacuum is a metaphysical nothingness.

*2.* Nothing residing beyond the space-time continuum can be the cause of the universe's existence in any conventional sense as causation can only occur in the medium of space-time; that is, there is only potential existence, not actual existence or causation "before" the existence of the cosmic singularity.

*3.* The cosmic singularity, like the spontaneous emergence of virtual particles in quantum fields, has no cause, as such are produced by random vacuum fluctuations; hence, the quantum vacuum eliminates the necessity of a transcendent First Cause.

*4.* The delineations of the problem of origin and the concomitant, empirical arguments for God's existence are ordinary commonsense assertions, not universally absolute imperatives of human consciousness contingently grounded in the mind of God.​
The atheist apologist in the video attached to my post in the above does not waste our time with the first objection, which is why I chose it.  The fact of the matter is that the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, quantum physics and the Big Bang scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity, but I digress.

**** In fact, the reason that all of the historically prominent counterarguments against the classical arguments for God’s existent invariably fail for paradoxically irresolvable reasons goes to the very fact of existence itself, except in the case of the purely ontological argument or perhaps in the case of the teleological argument, which, properly understood, are merely conditional/incidental justifications, not absolute logical proofs of justification. Also, the argument from the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, an absolute logical proof, is a cosmological-ontological hybrid.


----------



## MaryL

We are all adults, we all know  Santa or Allah is a mythological figure. But, nobody is crashing planes into buildings or chopping off heads in the name of the Easter Bunny or Fairies. That is what religion does., at least ONE religion. We can't  name THAT one, because it defies the whole issue of diversity. The Muslims, opps, can I say that?, they defy liberalism and would  stone, shoot, burn or decapitate liberals in their tracks. But, liberals, they champion freedom and weird self destructive causes. That is why I will never ever vote democratic liberal ever again.EVER.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, *an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.*  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.
> 
> PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.
> 
> Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
> 
> This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think he is MDR.  My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere.  But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place.  And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit.    Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.
Click to expand...


Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure.  But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The Cosmological Argument is the argument regarding the First Cause of what?

The universe!


The ontological argument is the argument for the actual existence of what?

The idea of a Being of unparalleled perfection that _exists_ in the human mind!


The argument from the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin is the argument for the universal reality of what?

The non-contingency of the idea of God that _exists_ in the human mind!


The teleological argument is the argument for the fine-tuned composition of what?

The universe!


The transcendental argument is the argument for the necessity of a non-contingent ground for what?

The existence of the universally absolute laws of logic/the universally absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.


----------



## House Mouse

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You take issue with asking that people support their own claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally I find it pointless to engage a person who is putting forth a faith-based proposition and demanding that he provide evidence in support of his faith. Such an encounter is operating at two different levels. I learned this after about 6 months of arguing with Religious Believers and then I tired of beating my head against the wall.
> 
> On the other hand though, we all get different needs met by engaging in debate. Go with what works.
Click to expand...


And I find it pointless to engage a person that denies God, or to ask them to please show proof that He doesn't exist.  I know as well as anyone else, that it cannot be done... so why waste my time with a mind as closed as a sprung bear trap??

If someone chooses to not believe, well let them not believe.  My job here on earth is to present the Gospel and let each individual have the opportunity into either accepting the free gift of Salvation, or reject it.  Just because a person rejects the gift of Salvation, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people,,,,It's the people that demean others for their belief or disbelief that I feel are troublesome....

What is logical and real to me is that I can see God working all around me every day... I see the results of the work of His hands....and I see the most wonderful and remarkable positive changes in those that actually accept Christ as Lord of their life,,
I mean accept and believe with all of their heart, not just go through the motions, or mouth the words...

Have a nice evening


----------



## ninja007

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



look up. Have you read the bible? If not (I doubt you have) as even many Believer's haven't you will see the heavens declare the glory of God. And whether you believe it or not does not matter one bit. Btw- that breath you are currently taking as you read my reply OP? Thank God for it because He is the only one sustaining your fragile life. If you do not accept Jesus as your Savior before you draw your last breath? You will be lost forever and suffering in eternity for rejecting your God.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Science has provided powerful evidence of God's existence.  The more we learn about life from microbiology, the more we find staggering complexity that we can't even begin to match with modern technology.  There are bio-machines whose technology we can only envy.

And this staggering complexity raises a fatal question for evolution: How could "natural selection" have selected so many components (1) that provided no advantage in and of themselves, (2) that would only be useful later on, and (3) and that would only be useful later on in bio-machines that would perform functions that did not even exist at the time the components were supposedly "selected" by "natural selection"?

Of course, the humanist response is that Lady Luck ("natural selection") was unbelievably lucky, over and over and over again, for not only did "natural selection" supposedly repeatedly choose worthless components that would later be used for bio-machines that performed previously non-existent functions, but "somehow" those components were magically assembled in just the right order so as to enable the bio-machines (such as the flagellum) to function.  Amazing!

_That_ is "blind faith."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.



Well, it would take a book to explain to you in detail why your attempt to overthrow the teleological argument is so . . . unnecessarily convoluted, that is, elaborately complex. While your second paragraph succinctly summarizes the complex, albeit, redundantly obtuse objections raised by critics in the past, theists have already swept all that noise away, and your allusion to the God in the gaps fallacy is not relevant to the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument in spite of what the Christian naturalist Henry Drummond mistakenly imagined as he foolishly lent credence to the atheist's erroneous criticisms, which have been subsequently quashed.

Hence, we need not bother with the _dated_ misapprehensions of your second paragraph in any detail, as the debate has moved on to—or is it back to?—what the teleological argument is ultimately all about: the fact that our universe is finely tuned for sapient life. The argument's concern with the cosmos' finely arranged complexity is the subordinate concomitant, not the argument's culmination. Your critique of the argument on the basis of its allegation of a finely arranged complexity, without grasping/addressing the ultimate point, is the non sequitur here. You're nearly two-hundred years behind the same eight ball as was Drummond.

Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

Hence, unlike the absolute logical proofs of justification—the Cosmological and transcendental arguments, and the argument from the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, which unambiguously settle on a transcendent Sentience—the teleological argument is arguably, at first blush, a conditional/propositional proof regarding the ultimate origin for the existence of sapient life on Earth. But when its ultimate thrust is finally apprehended, after the cobwebs of misapprehension are cleared away, especially in the context of the absolute logical proofs serving as the foundation: it's implications are powerfully relevant.

Still not convinced as to why that is so?

What's wrong with your suggestion, *sealybobo*, regarding the undeniable potentiality of a non-transcendent extraterrestrial intelligence being responsible for the existence of sapient life on Earth? Why does it fail to undermine the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument?

Answer: Because the existence of such an extraterrestrial intelligence would be no less contingent to the origin of the very same singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions. The initial appearance of sapient life, whether it occurred here on Earth or somewhere else in the universe, doesn't undermine the teleological argument's transcendent implications after all.

Don't feel too bad about this though, as we methodological theists have simply been doing the logic of deep apologetics longer than theistic naturalists and atheists. . . .

I wish that you would rather opt to apprehend the reasons why God must be, but if you must go on conflating agency with the physical laws of the cosmos, I strongly suggest that you lose the passé counter-apologetics of the Nineteenth-Century and adopt the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe _is_ fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable precursors of life: namely, *the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias.*

Mind you, this still doesn't in any way undermine the construct of a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Sentience of ultimate origin, or for that matter, the transcendent implications of the teleological argument, as, no doubt, most of the aforementioned cosmologists and physicists imagine.  Illusion.  On the contrary, if true, if subject to scientific falsification, a questioned yet to be answered, it would underscore the construct of God as a Being of unlimited power and genius, though in the end, for our purposes here, it would merely mean that some universes would not be contemplated . . . at least not by any indigenous residents.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

S.J. said:


> God would probably consider me a maverick, but as a Christian I have never felt compelled to try to win over atheists or to convince them of God's existence.  They are arrogant and childish little pricks and having to live in the same world with them in the afterlife would probably be more like Hell than Heaven.  I'm perfectly content to leave them to their own ignorant and one-dimensional thinking so that they end up on a lower plane.
> What's funny to me is how they think they're intellectually superior than everyone else because of their beliefs, when in fact THEY are the ones who lack the ability to even consider the possibility that they might not be the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe.  Maybe they're too stupid to know that *science has made great progress because it leaves the door open to ALL possibilities, not just the ones their tunnel vision allows them to see.*



This article is right up your alley:  Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can t explain the universe without God Daily Mail Online

On the other hand, I do care very much for those ensnarled in the fallacious objections to God's existence, and it's worthwhile to address their concerns as honestly and civilly as possible on their terms.  The fact of the matter is that there are three or four atheists on this thread who are reasonable persons who simply may not have had the opportunity to reconsider their options given the rash of secular thought that pervades popular culture and academia.  The tone on this thread is rare on this forum.  Most of the atheists on this forum fill our pages with name-calling and sneer, never getting to anything substantive.  Why?  Because most of the atheists on this forum don't Jack about Jill when it comes to the science, let alone anything about the pertinent history of ideas and events that have shaped the arguments.    

The new atheism's bald claim that these arguments have been overthrown is absurd.  On the contrary, extant cosmology and physics dramatically support the inference of God's existence as they scream the metaphysics of Christianity, but most atheists are not going to know enough about Christian metaphysics, for example, to see that.  Many are operating on scientifically dated or mangled understandings of the arguments for God's existence, not even realizing that these arguments are adaptable and have been adapted to address our current understanding of things.  That's where today's atheist is.  Do a search as I did about a year ago for atheistic counterarguments and you'll see what I mean.  They're everywhere!  Attacking dated expressions of/poorly formulated expressions of these arguments in many cases.  99% of them are based on misconceptions or undetected logical errors, even those presented by the likes of Hawking.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, *an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.*  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.
> 
> PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.
> 
> Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
> 
> This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think he is MDR.  My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere.  But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place.  And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit.    Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure.  But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.
Click to expand...


Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else.  To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing.  Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin.   What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.

All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been.  He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all.  A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed.  Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.

So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see.  All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked.  And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

House Mouse said:


> And I find it pointless to engage a person that denies God, or to ask them to please show proof that He doesn't exist.  I know as well as anyone else, that it cannot be done... so why waste my time with a mind as closed as a sprung bear trap??
> 
> If someone chooses to not believe, well let them not believe.  My job here on earth is to present the Gospel and let each individual have the opportunity into either accepting the free gift of Salvation, or reject it.  Just because a person rejects the gift of Salvation, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people,,,,It's the people that demean others for their belief or disbelief that I feel are troublesome....
> 
> What is logical and real to me is that I can see God working all around me every day... I see the results of the work of His hands....and I see the most wonderful and remarkable positive changes in those that actually accept Christ as Lord of their life,,
> I mean accept and believe with all of their heart, not just go through the motions, or mouth the words...
> 
> Have a nice evening



I agree with this, but would point out one thing. The classical arguments for God's existence, though formally asserted during the Classical and Scholastic eras by natural philosophers and Christian theologians, are in the Bible, variously expressed in prophetic pronouncements, proverbs, parables, poetry, rather than in any formal syllogistic fashion.  The Book of Job, however, comes very close to making formal expressions of them.  In fact, it asserts all of them in the process of dealing with the problem of evil and God's absolute prerogative regarding the affairs of His creation.   I have no problem engaging atheists or agnostics where they're at insofar as they wish to discuss the matter in good faith.  These arguments are pertinent to the imperatives of human reason endowed by God, and God equips some to annunciate the apologetics touching on His existence.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
Click to expand...


Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.    You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe in this spiritual existence without proof?  Science says it's all in your head and that we made it all up because we have wild imaginations, we have a healthy fear of the unknown, we are curious and we want to believe.
Click to expand...


Science says that a transcendent realm of being doesn't exist?  Hmm.  I know of a number of works written by prominent atheist scientists which contain philosophical arguments to that effect, but I don't know of any formal scientific theory that proposes such a thing.  Can you provide a link for that?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.



Two more items of interest. . . .

First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.

It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.

While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.

Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MaryL said:


> We are all adults, we all know  Santa or Allah is a mythological figure. But, nobody is crashing planes into buildings or chopping off heads in the name of the Easter Bunny or Fairies. That is what religion does., at least ONE religion. We can't  name THAT one, because it defies the whole issue of diversity. The Muslims, opps, can I say that?, they defy liberalism and would  stone, shoot, burn or decapitate liberals in their tracks. But, liberals, they champion freedom and weird self destructive causes. That is why I will never ever vote democratic liberal ever again.EVER.


There is not such animal as a we with you and me
Speak for you on fucking self.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

What happen to thew OP? i I guess his argument has een met and defeated.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Derideo_Te said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.
Click to expand...


I'm an Atheist moron and I don't believe in the Religion of Liberalism, you though do. You've replaced one religious belief with another. You therefore have no more of a legitimate claim to call yourself an Atheist than does a Christian who abandoned Christianity for Islam.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
Click to expand...


I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it. 

Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.

Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.

So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.

Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first paragraph is factually wrong?  Biblically wrong?      Okay how, since I haven't disputed or challenged your argument in any way?  *I have only pointed out that your argument is seen as foolishness to the non believer if he even understands it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, don't be sore at me, but I and Thunderbird are trying to establish the realities of the issue, the proper foundation for discussing the central topic of the OP, particularly for the purpose of refuting the routine objections to the classical arguments for God's existence should newpolitics return to give us something more than just bald assertions to chew on.
> 
> I love you, FoxFyre. You know that, right? But now I must be blunt.
> 
> You're confounding an important distinction due to what appears to me to be a serious case of closed-mindedness.
> 
> You're the one making a simple matter more complex than it actually is, not I. You're the one unnecessarily appealing to biblical authority regarding a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with the intimate things of God that are foolishness to the nonbeliever. You're the one dragging an utterly irrelevant and complex aspect of Christian epistemology into the fray, contributing to the very confusion that is nothing more than the failure on the part of some to dispense with the conventional slogans of post-modern popular culture and to bear down, perhaps for the first time in their lives, on the obvious.
> 
> The universally self-evident imperatives of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which entail the fundamental laws of logic and the delineations of the problem of origin are _*not*_ foolishness to the nonbeliever!
> 
> *1.*  Everybody, the believer and the nonbeliever alike, _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.
> 
> *2.*  Everybody _knows_ that the prospect of something arising from out of nothing is an apparently inexplicable absurdity and, consequently, recognizes the concomitant exigency that something or another must have always existed.***
> 
> *3.*  Everybody _knows_ that there are but two ontological categories of things pertinent the problem of ultimate origin: inanimateness and sentience.
> 
> *4.*  Everybody _knows_ that the construct of God imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, everybody _knows_ that the idea of an eternally self-subsistent Sentience objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily concedes this to be true every time he denies there be any substance behind the idea. Even *newpolitics* concedes this, which is refreshing given the baby talk of so many other atheists on this forum who stupidly argue that the idea of God is merely a fabrication of human culture in the face of this undeniable fact of human cognition.  But, then, such atheists are cognitive sociopaths or pathological liars.
> 
> *5.*  Everybody _knows_, in spite of what some have thoughtlessly asserted on this thread, that the problem of origin necessarily presupposes that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidence for the existence of a Sentient First Cause, whether or not, objectively speaking, such a Being actually exists.  For crying out loud! The existence of the universe _is_ the very essence of the problem of origin, and it's not merely an empirical problem, but, ultimately, a rational problem.
> 
> Even atheists necessarily concede that the existence of the universe constitutes the evidentiary substance of the arguments for God’s existence. (Aside: *PratchettFan*, get real!) What _is_ the intrinsic substance of the arguments that atheists are compelled to refute? Answer: the existence of the universe and its rational constituents!***  *
> *
> Hawking might be smarter than all of us put together, but none us are so dumb that we cannot recognize what he recognizes:  the evidentiary substance of the problem of origin and the arguable existence of God is the apparent fact of the universe's existence:  material, physical, empirical evidence.
> 
> 6.*  And now everybody who has read this _knows_ that those who allege that there is no empirical evidence from which God's existence may be reasonably inferred needs to stop being stupid.
> 
> _These_ are the pertinent, universally recognized facts of human consciousness regarding the problem of origin. _These_ are the foundational imperatives of the classical arguments for God's existence, which are nothing more than the cosmological, ontological, teleological and transcendental ramifications of the very same imperatives.
> 
> There's no appeal to authority here. There's nothing theologically heavy duty about any of these facts of human consciousness touching on the problem of origin. Neither the teachings of the Bible nor the teachings of any other putatively sacred text you care to name has any relevance whatsoever! Belief in Christianity or belief in any other religion of divinity has no relevance whatsoever! Indeed, as atheists and agnostics routinely demonstrate, a _lack_ of belief in God or any given system of religious thought has absolutely no relevance to the universal recognition of these imperatives whatsoever!
> 
> Everybody recognizes these things! That's what I’m telling you!
> 
> Whether one is ultimately convinced of God's existence by these imperatives or their subsequent formal arguments is up for grabs.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> ***  The likes of Hawking et al. have not discovered anything new that would overthrow these imperatives of human consciousness or raised any new objections that the classical arguments for God‘s existence cannot account for insofar as they are properly understood. The guff of Hawking et al. is the stuff of logical fallacy and cognitive illusions. While the likes of Hawking may fool the naïve minds of unexamined lives, everyone of the their supposed refutations of the cosmological argument, for example, come down to a variation of the following conceptual sophistries which beg the question:
> 
> *1*. The quantum vacuum is a metaphysical nothingness.
> 
> *2.* Nothing residing beyond the space-time continuum can be the cause of the universe's existence in any conventional sense as causation can only occur in the medium of space-time; that is, there is only potential existence, not actual existence or causation "before" the existence of the cosmic singularity.
> 
> *3.* The cosmic singularity, like the spontaneous emergence of virtual particles in quantum fields, has no cause, as such are produced by random vacuum fluctuations; hence, the quantum vacuum eliminates the necessity of a transcendent First Cause.
> 
> *4.* The delineations of the problem of origin and the concomitant, empirical arguments for God's existence are ordinary commonsense assertions, not universally absolute imperatives of human consciousness contingently grounded in the mind of God.​
> The atheist apologist in the video attached to my post in the above does not waste our time with the first objection, which is why I chose it.  The fact of the matter is that the implications of the theories of special and general relativity, quantum physics and the Big Bang scream the metaphysics of Judeo-Christianity, but I digress.
> 
> **** In fact, the reason that all of the historically prominent counterarguments against the classical arguments for God’s existent invariably fail for paradoxically irresolvable reasons goes to the very fact of existence itself, except in the case of the purely ontological argument or perhaps in the case of the teleological argument, which, properly understood, are merely conditional/incidental justifications, not absolute logical proofs of justification. Also, the argument from the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, an absolute logical proof, is a cosmological-ontological hybrid.
Click to expand...


Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
Click to expand...


The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.
Click to expand...


I don't see how it is obvious.

What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?


----------



## S.J.

There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.


----------



## PratchettFan

S.J. said:


> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.



Why?  What are you comparing it to?


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is obvious.
> 
> What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?
Click to expand...


I'd say that M.D.R.  pretty much hammered that nail.  I don't mean to be impolite.  But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said.  I'd put the question to him.  He's better qualified.  I'm a beginner.  I read through the thread.  Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before.  I try to keep an open mind on this stuff.  I think its fascinating.


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is obvious.
> 
> What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that M.D.R.  pretty much hammered that nail.  I don't mean to be impolite.  But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said.  I'd put the question to him.  He's better qualified.  I'm a beginner.  I read through the thread.  Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before.  I try to keep an open mind on this stuff.  I think its fascinating.
Click to expand...


I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here.  Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.


----------



## S.J.

PratchettFan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  *What are you comparing it to?*
Click to expand...

Chaos.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is obvious.
> 
> What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that M.D.R.  pretty much hammered that nail.  I don't mean to be impolite.  But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said.  I'd put the question to him.  He's better qualified.  I'm a beginner.  I read through the thread.  Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before.  I try to keep an open mind on this stuff.  I think its fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here.  Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I had to go back and find the posts again.  Read posts #99 and #106.   He's talking about a lot more than that.  You apparently missed them. They're killer posts, especially #106, at least for me because it cleared up some things for me that I had been wondering about.  Also, I've never heard anything about the anthropic principle before as it relates to the idea of a multiverse.  But sure enough, I google it.  Makes a lot of sense to me.  The teleological argument is a whole lot more compelling than I thought, and I didn't realize before reading his post that the arguments are organic in a scientific sense.  This stuff is cool.  I liked one of your posts a lot too.  Also, QW, S.J. and Fox said some pretty cool things.  There were others I liked too.  These are just the ones that stick out in my mind.  The key is understanding the link between the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligence in the universe.  In other words, the link between the first and the contemplations of the second.


----------



## ninja007

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.


----------



## ninja007

God created science. God is proved BY science every day.


----------



## PratchettFan

S.J. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  *What are you comparing it to?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chaos.
Click to expand...

 
What chaos?


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The connection is obvious.  Try creator, creation or universe, cause.  But it doesn't look like you really want to acknowledge the connection.  You mentioned evidence and objectivity, then you reduce everything to the subjective.  You start with an open mind and then close it.  But maybe I don't get what you're saying because you say that "there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe".  Evidence of what?  Evidence that the universe exists?  You don't really say.  You just say its not valid.  Why wouldn't evidence of the universe's existence not be valid evidence for an intelligent cause?  You don't really tell us anything about that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how it is obvious.
> 
> What evidence can you present that the universe required a creator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that M.D.R.  pretty much hammered that nail.  I don't mean to be impolite.  But I'm new here and I wouldn't want to repeat what's already been said.  I'd put the question to him.  He's better qualified.  I'm a beginner.  I read through the thread.  Your post just struck me as being a little odd in its logic, but I thought maybe you were getting at something I've never thought about before.  I try to keep an open mind on this stuff.  I think its fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did read it and the only evidence presented was that the universe is here.  Unless there is some evidence to indicate there must be a creator, then the only thing the universe's existence proves is that it exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I had to go back and find the posts again.  Read posts #99 and #106.   He's talking about a lot more than that.  You apparently missed them. They're killer posts, especially #106, at least for me because it cleared up some things for me that I had been wondering about.  Also, I've never heard anything about the anthropic principle before as it relates to the idea of a multiverse.  But sure enough, I google it.  Makes a lot of sense to me.  The teleological argument is a whole lot more compelling than I thought, and I didn't realize before reading his post that the arguments are organic in a scientific sense.  This stuff is cool.  I liked one of your posts a lot too.  Also, QW, S.J. and Fox said some pretty cool things.  There were others I liked too.  These are just the ones that stick out in my mind.  The key is understanding the link between the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligence in the universe.  In other words, the link between the first and the contemplations of the second.
Click to expand...

 
I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.

But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.



Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.  

*1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?

Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?


*2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."

We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
Click to expand...

 
Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Rikurzhen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not looking for evidence either, since I don't need to assert a counter-claim for your positive claim to fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't make a claim, I pointed out some issues. I'm an Atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Pastor Rikurzhen is just a liar. He lies about atheists and claims that they believe in the "Religion of Liberalism". He has zero credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an Atheist moron and I don't believe in the Religion of Liberalism, you though do. You've replaced one religious belief with another. You therefore have no more of a legitimate claim to call yourself an Atheist than does a Christian who abandoned Christianity for Islam.
Click to expand...


No, you are just a liar who has been exposed multiple times in several threads. Your fictional "Religion of Liberalism" only exists in your own feeble mind and those of your fellow conservative theists who preach this absurdity. You know absolutely nothing about atheism whatsoever because if you did you wouldn't be making that ridiculous allegation in the first place.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?



The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.

One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.

But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?

The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.

The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.    

But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.   

(By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)

The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.

In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.

For example:

What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?

What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​

*Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:

1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
Click to expand...


Why are you trolling this?


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
Click to expand...


What objectively absolute standard of morality?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
Click to expand...


Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
Click to expand...

 
I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What objectively absolute standard of morality?
Click to expand...


Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is *morally* bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your *moral code* were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .

Why are you asking me that question?  Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is?  Are you stupid or something?  You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true.  Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it.  No justification required?  No explanation required?  Really?  You're asking me?  Do you need me to wipe your ass too?  Change your diapers?  Blow your nose?  Murder is not murder?  Rape is not rape?  Theft is not theft?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
Click to expand...


Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. 

A circle is a square? 

A rectangle is a triangle?

Black is white?

Something is nothing?


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, seriously.  Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject.  I would recommend against that.  Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is *morally* bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your *moral code* were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .
> 
> Why are you asking me that question?  Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is?  Are you stupid or something?  You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true.  Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it.  No justification required?  No explanation required?  Really?  You're asking me?  Do you need me to wipe your ass too?  Change your diapers?  Blow your nose?  Murder is not murder?  Rape is not rape?  Theft is not theft?
Click to expand...


I'm asking you a very simple question.  What objectively absolute standard of morality?

You made the claim.  I want you to detail it. 

1.  Show us the standard, by examples.
2.  Show us that they are objective.
3.  Show us that they are absolute.
4.  Then,

Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
Click to expand...


Does the presumably universal agreement among humans that 1 + 1 = 2 need divine intervention to be a fact?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, seriously.  Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject.  I would recommend against that.  Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?
Click to expand...


I've given you objective evidence.  The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification.  The classical laws of logic are all of those things.  Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.  

So, apparently, _your_ idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable. 

Hence, what is _your_ idea of objective evidence? You _are_ obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true.  I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.  

If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two more items of interest. . . .
> 
> First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.
> 
> It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.
> 
> While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.
> 
> Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.
Click to expand...


Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?  

Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.



The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> I'm asking you a very simple question.  What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> You made the claim.  I want you to detail it.
> 
> 1.  Show us the standard, by examples.
> 2.  Show us that they are objective.
> 3.  Show us that they are absolute.
> 4.  Then,
> 
> Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.



You're concession that you cannot account for the fact of the universally absolute, rational forms and logical categories of human conscious if God doesn't exist or provide anything more than an utterly arbitrary and subjective rationale for normative relativism is duly noted.   `


----------



## Derideo_Te

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two more items of interest. . . .
> 
> First, your suggestion that "obvious defects" in biological systems detracts from the notion of a divine origin for terrestrial life is a teleological assertion. It presumes to known something about the manifestations that would be allowed to occur within a complex system created by a transcendentally supreme entity whose actuality you deny.
> 
> It's refreshing to see that we now have at least two atheists on this thread, one consciously, newpolitics, the other unwittingly, you, conceding that you do in fact recognize the independently existent idea of God as a Being of perfection universally apparent to all. That is to say, you concede your awareness of the fact that the idea of God objectively exists/imposes itself on our minds independent of our will when we contemplate the problem of origin.
> 
> While I appreciate your help in driving that point home, neither "obvious defects" in biological systems nor even the supposed mechanisms of evolution would have any bearing on the existence or nonexistence of a perfect transcendent Being. In fact, any being that would be subject to obey your utterly arbitrary and irrelevant teleological meanderings in its formulations of things or in its governance of things wouldn't be God.
> 
> Second, if you would provide a link showing that the hypothesis of abiogenesis has been verified via observation in accordance with “simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years”, I'd be thrilled to update my knowledge on that score.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
Click to expand...


Comes back to the omnipotence paradox. Can a "perfect creator" create an imperfect being? Does the creation of an imperfect being mean that the "creator" is not perfect because what it "created" was imperfect? Notice that none of the theists dare to address these glaring paradoxes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Ther eIs Not  One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument Against The Existence Of God?*


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, seriously.  Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject.  I would recommend against that.  Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've given you objective evidence.  The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification.  The classical laws of logic are all of those things.  Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.
> 
> So, apparently, _your_ idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable.
> 
> Hence, what is _your_ idea of objective evidence? You _are_ obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true.  I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.
> 
> If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.
Click to expand...

 
No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.

In this context, objective is defined by Webster's as:  of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

If I drop an object (assuming no other outside influences) it will move toward the center of the planet.  It will not move up nor in a direction other than towards the center.  I can demonstrate this repeatedly and within the perception of other observers.  That is objective evidence of the existence of gravity.

Can you present objective evidence of the existence of God?  If, as you claim, you have already done so then doing it again should not be a problem.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking you a very simple question.  What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> You made the claim.  I want you to detail it.
> 
> 1.  Show us the standard, by examples.
> 2.  Show us that they are objective.
> 3.  Show us that they are absolute.
> 4.  Then,
> 
> Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're concession that you cannot account for the fact of the universally absolute, rational forms and logical categories of human conscious if God doesn't exist or provide anything more than an utterly arbitrary and subjective rationale for normative relativism is duly noted.   `
Click to expand...


Your jibberish is duly noted.

Name ONE example of a moral absolute.  Prove that it's absolute.  Prove that it's objectively absolute.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, seriously.  Asking me questions is not presenting evidence, unless you want to stipulate I am a qualified expert on the subject.  I would recommend against that.  Now, can you or can you not present actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've given you objective evidence.  The standard definition of objective evidence is something that is universally apparent, reliably consistent, propositionally or tautologically axiomatic, rationally and/or empirically predicative or subjective to rational and/or empirical falsification.  The classical laws of logic are all of those things.  Moreover, collectively, they are the necessarily presupposed and singularly indispensable infrastructure for the enterprises of moral delineation, mathematics, geometry and science.
> 
> So, apparently, _your_ idea of objective evidence is something nonstandard or inscrutable.
> 
> Hence, what is _your_ idea of objective evidence? You _are_ obliged to either falsify the laws of logic, which everybody with a sound and developmentally mature mind knows you can't do, or provide an objectively valid, alternative definition for objective evidence, if your claim that you are discussing the matter in all seriousness and in good faith is true.  I'm not obliged to accommodate ignorance, obtuseness, irrationality or dishonesty.
> 
> If you can't or won't do either of those two things the fact of your erroneous baby talk is duly noted.
Click to expand...

 
BTW, logic is a set of rules - nothing more.  In the absence of evidence it can get rather silly.  For example...  All humans can flap their arms and fly.  I am a human.  Therefore, I can flap my arms and fly.  This is perfect logic.  It is an example of a computer programmer's axiom... garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
Click to expand...


Thank you for accepting my apology.  Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one.  I was entirely out of line.  

I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities.  To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.

Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls.  We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.

I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."   Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles.  So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?

I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution.  Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this.  So am I ignorant to  conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest?  I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion.  Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god./QUOTE]
> Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defect
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The [URL='http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design#Counter_arguments']Teleological argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> , or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization']self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.[/URL]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
> [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design']
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> s .[/URL][/URL]
Click to expand...

[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design']consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization']self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’


M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did read them.  In neither of them was there a single objective fact.  Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind.  Multi-syllabic words are not a substitute for evidence.
> 
> But please prove me wrong.  Go back into those posts and find me just one piece of objective evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you guys are talking about my posts, I think it makes sense for me to address your objections.
> 
> *1.*  I didn't state a single objective fact?!  Whaaaa?  How about we start with the objectively absolute and universal second law of logic?
> 
> Everybody _knows _that it's humanly impossible to explain _how_ two mutually exclusive/diametrically opposed propositions could both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame reference.​
> Caveat:  this expression of the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction assumes the minds of normal, developmentally mature persons.  Is it your contention that the objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction is not an objectively absolute and universa fact of human consciousness, as you yourself necessarily assert this  objectively absolute and universal law of contradiction it in the above, i.e., assert a mutually exclusive claim of contradiction that neither one of my posts contain "a single objective fact"?
> 
> 
> *2.*  "Only statements which were to be taken as true without objective support of any kind."
> 
> We need an example here from you coupled with an objectively discernible justification so that we may assess the credibility of your claim, please.  We can't possibly know what you're thinking unless you tell us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I can address both of your issues in one.  In your "Everybody knows" comment you are just making a statement which I am apparently supposed to accept as "objectively absolute and universal".  You are presenting no evidence of any kind.  As to your issue #2, I reference you back to your quote in issue #1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you trolling this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not trolling, I'm responding.  You engaged me in the discussion, not the other way round.  I referred to your posts only because someone else did so.  Would you care to present some actual objective evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Then explain to us _how_ two mutually exclusive propositions are both true, at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> A circle is a square?
> 
> A rectangle is a triangle?
> 
> Black is white?
> 
> Something is nothing?
Click to expand...


Why do you suppose humans need a supernatural power to be able to distinguish between a circle and a square,

and thus identify and name them accordingly?[/URL][/URL]


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is *morally* bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your *moral code* were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .
> 
> Why are you asking me that question?  Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is?  Are you stupid or something?  You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true.  Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it.  No justification required?  No explanation required?  Really?  You're asking me?  Do you need me to wipe your ass too?  Change your diapers?  Blow your nose?  Murder is not murder?  Rape is not rape?  Theft is not theft?
Click to expand...


My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.  Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,

but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.

The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, *an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.*  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.
> 
> PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.
> 
> Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
> 
> This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think he is MDR.  My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere.  But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place.  And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit.    Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure.  But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else.  To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing.  Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin.   What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.
> 
> All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been.  He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all.  A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed.  Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.
> 
> So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see.  All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked.  And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.
Click to expand...


If we had to be designed by a Creator, why didn't God have to be designed by a Creator?

You start with a rule that all things complex had to have been designed, but then you summarily abandon that rule when the question of God's existence comes up.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt I am in any way qualified to judge the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe and it really doesn't impact me.  I don't believe any of those theories even address the issue of a deity, let alone provide any answers.  I will leave the question of the origins of the universe to those who have prepared themselves for that study.
> 
> That being said, there is nothing wrong with faith.  There is nothing wrong with belief.  Ultimately, the only person you need satisfy is yourself.  If it feels right to you, then it is only right you accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for accepting my apology.  Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one.  I was entirely out of line.
> 
> I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities.  To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.
> 
> Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls.  We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.
> 
> I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."   Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles.  So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?
> 
> I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution.  Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this.  So am I ignorant to  conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest?  I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion.  Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?
Click to expand...

 
Ignorance, as I am applying it, is just being uninformed.  I would not suggest that either Spinoza or Einstein were uneducated.  But as to the question of God, or whatever word one wants to use, we are all ignorant and neither of those gentlemen were an exception.  According to the Pew survey in 2009, 46% of physicists are Atheists.  Clearly highly educated people with more than a passing understanding of Einstein.  If Einstein actually presented evidence in support of God, don't you think that number might be a bit lower?

I like to consider myself educated and capable.  I have rebuilt car engines, repaired scuba equipment, I can interpret contractual language and wax poetic on the subject of sovereign immunity until I bore you to tears.  But if someone needs brain surgery asking me to attempt it would be tantamount to murder.  In that arena I am ignorant, and dangerously so.  However, I recognize my ignorance and will refrain from picking up a scalpel.  Along those lines and in response to your question I can only say....  I don't know.  But I do think it highly likely critters engage in critical thinking.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist.  They cannot provide the factual evidence.  Keep asking them.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> *You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.*  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful, Fox.  There _is_ scientific evidence for God's existence: the universe! including its contents, its formulations, its processes, its mechanics and its physical laws.
> 
> PratchettFan's woefully confused.  In his mind, he's unwittingly superimposing what is in fact a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority, a purely metaphysical presupposition on the pertinent evidentiary concerns regarding the problem of origin.  He's unwittingly playing at scientism, not science.
> 
> Instead, _the substance_ of a transcendent First Cause resides beyond the limits of scientific verification.  That's all.  But the substance of the evidence for a transcendent First Cause _is_ material, physical, empirical, accessible to the scrutiny of science and the imperatives of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
> 
> This assertion of his that there is no empirical evidence for God's existence is mindless sloganeering.  He's simply never stopped long enough to think about the absurd and, by the way, contradictory implications of what he's alleging.  More on why his assertion is manifestly false in a moment. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really think he is MDR.  My initial response to his post you quoted here was a knee jerk response probably triggered by debating something close to this topic with some major league numbnuts elsewhere.  But after reconsidering the point I think he is making here, I may or may not agree with it after some careful consideration, but I think he is coming from a reasoned place.  And I think he meant no personal insults by his comments that initially ruffled my feathers a bit.    Which prompted my apology to him in a subsequent post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, he meant no insult, I'm sure.  But if he is asserting, as it seems to me, that there is no evidence for God's existence . . . see my post below for why that's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking into account your lengthy and scholarly post preceding this one, it is not absurd at all when it comes to convincing somebody else.  To you, to me, to Einstein, to billions, reason and logic tell us that all of this had to come from something as we rationally deduce that nothing comes from nothing.  Reason tells us that there was some kind of intelligence involved in the origin.   What that origin is however is undiscernible and unknowable UNLESS one has experienced the Creator that we choose to call God.
> 
> All your education, all your explanations, all your scholarly concepts and theological semantics--that is not criticism but only one admirer's observation --will not convince another soul that God is or has ever been.  He/she who is determined not to believe will not see that you have presented any evidence at all.  A closed mind is closed to all reason or logic or different possibilities and we Christians (and all other faiths) are not given power to open a mind determined to be closed.  Only the possessor of that closed mind can do that.
> 
> So in my opinion, we do the Lord no favors by criticizing or condemning those who will not see.  All we can do is put the idea, the vision, the truth out there in hopes that a light bulb will come on or curiosity will be peaked.  And those who choose to be blind will be able to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we had to be designed by a Creator, why didn't God have to be designed by a Creator?
> 
> You start with a rule that all things complex had to have been designed, but then you summarily abandon that rule when the question of God's existence comes up.
Click to expand...


I have never said we had to be designed by a Creator.

I have only argued that it is observable and reasonable to believe in the possibility of some form of intelligence guiding the origins and processes of the universe.  I do not pretend to know the origin of that intelligence.  But I call it God.  I really don't think God cares what we call it however.


----------



## PratchettFan

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist.  They cannot provide the factual evidence.  Keep asking them.


 
Don't ask me.  I've got nothing.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I really do appreciate where you're coming from--I always appreciate the open mind --but I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'feels right' theory.  There is a big huge pile of ignorance embracing a lot of nonsense out there just because it 'feels right' to somebody.  And I am convinced that there is a huge traffic jam on the road to hell created purely by those who subscribe to the idea that 'if it feels right, do it.'
> 
> For me it has to make sense and it has to make more sense than whatever arguments are launched against it.  For instance, an argument that it doesn't exist because there is no scientific evidence for it is a very ignorant statement.  I think those utilizing such an argument were taught poorly in logic and even more poorly in science.    But for them, it 'feels right' to say it because that is what they have been coached by somebody to say and they have no other argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for accepting my apology.  Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one.  I was entirely out of line.
> 
> I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities.  To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.
> 
> Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls.  We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.
> 
> I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."   Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles.  So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?
> 
> I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution.  Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this.  So am I ignorant to  conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest?  I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion.  Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, as I am applying it, is just being uninformed.  I would not suggest that either Spinoza or Einstein were uneducated.  But as to the question of God, or whatever word one wants to use, we are all ignorant and neither of those gentlemen were an exception.  According to the Pew survey in 2009, 46% of physicists are Atheists.  Clearly highly educated people with more than a passing understanding of Einstein.  If Einstein actually presented evidence in support of God, don't you think that number might be a bit lower?
> 
> I like to consider myself educated and capable.  I have rebuilt car engines, repaired scuba equipment, I can interpret contractual language and wax poetic on the subject of sovereign immunity until I bore you to tears.  But if someone needs brain surgery asking me to attempt it would be tantamount to murder.  In that arena I am ignorant, and dangerously so.  However, I recognize my ignorance and will refrain from picking up a scalpel.  Along those lines and in response to your question I can only say....  I don't know.  But I do think it highly likely critters engage in critical thinking.
Click to expand...


Okay, point understand and accepted.  Let's go with your definition of ignorance as being uninformed.  I am comfortable with that.

But inability to fully understand or execute something is not the same thing as being ignorant.  You accept that brain surgery is a reality and you know  what it is for and possess at least some sense of what it is intended to accomplish.  Ignorance in HOW to do brain surgery is not the same thing as being ignorant about brain surgery.

Now let's say you are a strong skeptic about whether we have ever been visited by beings from other parts of the universe.  You hear a number of people who reported sightings of what they described as flying saucers, but you shrug that off as them most likely seeing something they mistook for a flying saucer or whatever.   But you are truly ignorant of whether what they reported is the real deal or not.

But one day you are out walking in the fog and you witness what for want of a better explanation is a saucer shaped craft landing in the distance.  You see it.  You hear it.  Your vision is partially obscured by the fog so you can't make out detail clearly, but you see what appears to be some kind of living things moving around the craft.  And then like a flash it is gone.

If you witnessed such a thing, you still don't know whether to believe what you saw was an alien spacecraft or there is some other practical explanation.  But you are now curious.  You no longer so easily dismiss the testimony of others.  You are likely more open to the possibilities.  You are less ignorant.  And yet you have absolutely zero way to prove to any other soul what you witnessed.  And if they are skeptics or disbelievers, they'll probably dismiss your testimony too.

For me God is like that.  Something that is not really understood but is made known to me through up close and personal experience.  And since none of us can prove to another soul what it is that we experience, it is something that has to be experienced in order to be understood at all, however poorly.  And once it is experienced, the testimony of others relating the same kinds of experience becomes much more credible.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.



My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.

Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.

The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:

1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.

2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is someone else's deeply held belief.  Who is to say who got it right?  Not me.  And what is the alternative?  To only do it if it feels wrong?
> 
> You cannot apply reason and logic in the absence of evidence.  The only thing you have to go on is your own sense of what you believe.  There is nothing else.  Everyone is going to approach that differently.  I take it you are a Christian.  In my entire life I have never been able to comprehend why anyone would be a Christian.  It makes no sense to me at all.  But you are and I doubt you're crazy.  It is unreasonable for me to expect other people are just going to believe as I believe.  You are not an extension of me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I may owe you a serious apology for my Post #65.  I very possibly misread your response as a personal attack kind of thing instead of an intended reasoned argument.  I just read again what you posted and saw it in a very different light.  I'm arguing a similar theme as this one elsewhere and am holding off about six very contentious posters who simply were not able to grasp the concept being argued. Getting a bit punchy at this point,  I most likely relegated you to that group and now think I was probably very wrong about that by reading intended generic pronouns as personally directed..
> 
> So, if you will forgive me, let's try again.
> 
> Our problem may be in how we are each defining a term.  For me 'feels right' is based on emotionalism rather than logic.  The quasi-socialist person hears 'tax the rich more because they use more' mantra and nods approvingly because it just 'feels right' to him/her.  It fits the ideology of the person and therefore is emotionally satisfying. He/she does not consider nor care about any unintended consequences of actually doing it.  He/she will block that out of his/her mind.  The more complex 'science' of economics is unimportant.  Those who object are all greedy people who don't care about others.
> 
> Likewise the AGW proponent hears that a colder-than-usual winter is the result of global warming and because it fits his/her particular belief system about that, he/she doesn't even question it.  It 'feels right'.  He/she is not interested in hearing, much less looking for, a different explanation.  In her mind, those who consider a different explanation are all deniers who don't care about the planet.
> 
> Note to others:  I do NOT want to debate economics or climate change on this thread, but use these as illustration only.
> 
> What you, PratchettFan, seem to be arguing however is that going with what makes sense, what is reasonable, what appears to be obvious is what 'feels right' to you to do.  In that I would agree as I think I did in my reference to Einstein and Spinoza.
> 
> But there are those who discount such human ability to observe and draw one's one reasoned conclusions.  For them the textbook science or that which fits their ideological perspective is all that is worthy considering.  Such people I see as making a religion of science or whatever.  And that is what requires them, I suppose, to reject the experience/observation/reasoned conclusions of those who at least accept the possibility that there is a God or some kind of higher power or cosmic intelligence in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was taken aback by your response.  I never intended to offend, only to express my opinion that none of us has a monopoly on answers  I appreciate the apology and certainly accept it.
> 
> Words can often be insufficient to express meaning.  So I will try this another way.
> 
> Evidence must be both objective and valid.  Objective is pretty simple.  Valid is a bit tricky.  I can point to a pencil on my desk and it is certainly objective.  But in terms of it being evidence that a particular apple tree exists in a field three states from my desk it is worthless because it is not valid. There is no demonstrable connection between the two things.  So while there is a multitude of objective evidence in the universe, I have yet for anyone to point any that is valid in terms of the existence of God, higher power or cosmic intelligence.  That does not mean there isn't.  I personally believe there is.  But the connection has yet to be demonstrated.
> 
> So what we are left with is belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  Or, if you will, ignorance.  I am ignorant and it is absurd for me to claim otherwise.  I accept that.  However, since there is simply nothing upon which to base a valid conclusion, one might as well take the conclusion which feels right to them.  For while there may be no valid evidence to support that conclusion, there is equally no valid evidence to indicate it is a false conclusion.  Given that my conclusion is no more valid than yours, I am in no position to criticize yours.
> 
> Einstein and Spinoza were certainly entitled to their own conclusions.  Ultimately, however, they were no less ignorant than the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for accepting my apology.  Your post here certainly illustrates that you deserved one.  I was entirely out of line.
> 
> I am not sure I can agree that Spinoza and Einstein were as ignorant as those who close their minds to possibilities.  To observe and draw reasoned conclusions or to be curious or to consider possibilities is about as scientific as it gets.
> 
> Even defining ignorance has its pitfalls.  We can go with some definitions that describe ignorance as lack of knowledge or information which, I believe, is how you intended it.
> 
> I tend to view ignorance by its broader definition of . "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."   Spinoza and Einstein were not unaware of what they were observing nor were either uneducated in the world of science and were not uninformed in the concept of basic scientific principles.  So can we conclude that their observations and conclusions drawn were ignorant?
> 
> I can observe a cat or dog or squirrel or bird contemplating a problem and working out a solution.  Probably all of us who enjoy and appreciate critters have observed this.  So am I ignorant to  conclude that there is a form of intelligence there rather than pure instinct driving the process as some scientists would suggest?  I have no way to test it or authenticate my conclusion.  Or is that a reasoned conclusion based on my observation and experience even if it should subsequently be proved to be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance, as I am applying it, is just being uninformed.  I would not suggest that either Spinoza or Einstein were uneducated.  But as to the question of God, or whatever word one wants to use, we are all ignorant and neither of those gentlemen were an exception.  According to the Pew survey in 2009, 46% of physicists are Atheists.  Clearly highly educated people with more than a passing understanding of Einstein.  If Einstein actually presented evidence in support of God, don't you think that number might be a bit lower?
> 
> I like to consider myself educated and capable.  I have rebuilt car engines, repaired scuba equipment, I can interpret contractual language and wax poetic on the subject of sovereign immunity until I bore you to tears.  But if someone needs brain surgery asking me to attempt it would be tantamount to murder.  In that arena I am ignorant, and dangerously so.  However, I recognize my ignorance and will refrain from picking up a scalpel.  Along those lines and in response to your question I can only say....  I don't know.  But I do think it highly likely critters engage in critical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, point understand and accepted.  Let's go with your definition of ignorance as being uninformed.  I am comfortable with that.
> 
> But inability to fully understand or execute something is not the same thing as being ignorant.  You accept that brain surgery is a reality and you know  what it is for and possess at least some sense of what it is intended to accomplish.  Ignorance in HOW to do brain surgery is not the same thing as being ignorant about brain surgery.
> 
> Now let's say you are a strong skeptic about whether we have ever been visited by beings from other parts of the universe.  You hear a number of people who reported sightings of what they described as flying saucers, but you shrug that off as them most likely seeing something they mistook for a flying saucer or whatever.   But you are truly ignorant of whether what they reported is the real deal or not.
> 
> But one day you are out walking in the fog and you witness what for want of a better explanation is a saucer shaped craft landing in the distance.  You see it.  You hear it.  Your vision is partially obscured by the fog so you can't make out detail clearly, but you see what appears to be some kind of living things moving around the craft.  And then like a flash it is gone.
> 
> If you witnessed such a thing, you still don't know whether to believe what you saw was an alien spacecraft or there is some other practical explanation.  But you are now curious.  You no longer so easily dismiss the testimony of others.  You are likely more open to the possibilities.  You are less ignorant.  And yet you have absolutely zero way to prove to any other soul what you witnessed.  And if they are skeptics or disbelievers, they'll probably dismiss your testimony too.
> 
> For me God is like that.  Something that is not really understood but is made known to me through up close and personal experience.  And since none of us can prove to another soul what it is that we experience, it is something that has to be experienced in order to be understood at all, however poorly.  And once it is experienced, the testimony of others relating the same kinds of experience becomes much more credible.
Click to expand...

 
I don't discount what you are saying.  I have been practicing meditation for many years and I have experienced certain mind states which go beyond normal experience.  Was I in contact with some higher plane of existence?  I don't know.  To be honest, I don't really care.  Perhaps I should, but I don't.

All I can say is from an objective standpoint, experiences of this nature are only evidence that we experience some things we don't understand.  They might well be just the way our brains work, or they might be something else.  Until we eliminate the internal solution (its all biochemistry) it can't be held out as evidence of outside influences without other objective evidence to support it. 

This in no way reduces the experience or should defer belief.  Quite the contrary.  Belief is a reasonable and rational response to such things - within moderation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.  Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,
> 
> but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.
> 
> The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.




If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence.  Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute.  The laws of logic are irrefutable:  A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).  

I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God.  It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo.  Check?

Normative relativism/universal subjectivism:  there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.  Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism.  If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.

And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists.  They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies. 

*Foxfyre*, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness.  The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives.  Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds.  .


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.  Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,
> 
> but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.
> 
> The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence.  Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute.  The laws of logic are irrefutable:  A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).
> 
> I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God.  It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo.  Check?
> 
> Normative relativism/universal subjectivism:  there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.  Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism.  If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.
> 
> And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists.  They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies.
> 
> *Foxfyre*, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness.  The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives.  Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds.  .
Click to expand...


All I asked for was what you believe is  a genuine example of a purely objective  moral absolute,

 and further, what your proof that is a moral absolute.

You need to clear that hurdle even before you get to the rest of your flawed argument.


----------



## Rikurzhen

NYcarbineer said:


> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.



Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:

“Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal _PLoS ONE_.

Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.

Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.​Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Comes back to the omnipotence paradox. Can a "perfect creator" create an imperfect being? Does the creation of an imperfect being mean that the "creator" is not perfect because what it "created" was imperfect? Notice that none of the theists dare to address these glaring paradoxes.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense.  If you had the smarts to grasp what has been written by me on this thread you would know that your objections are conceptual misapprehensions of divine perfection and teleological assumptions touching on soteriological matters that you know nothing about due to a mind that is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  We are not interested in engaging you on the issues because in addition to that you are a known pathological liar who does not discuss anything in good faith.  Check?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.



You are correct, just not for the reasons you think.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.



None of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Comes back to the omnipotence paradox. Can a "perfect creator" create an imperfect being? Does the creation of an imperfect being mean that the "creator" is not perfect because what it "created" was imperfect? Notice that none of the theists dare to address these glaring paradoxes.



First off, I challenge you to show me where the God of Abraham ever said He was perfect. 

That said, what is your definition of perfect? Is it possible for something to be perfect when looked at for a specific purpose, and imperfect for another? For example, a pair of pliers is pretty much perfect for what it is designed for, but we still have needle nosed pliers to use when regular pliers just don't work, does that make regular pliers any less useful? Does the fact that we cannot use needle nose pliers for some of the things we use regular pliers for make them imperfect?

It appears to me that you are not actually thinking things through here, you are just spouting things you heard from other people, and not really considering all possibilities. That is pretty typical since most people never learn to think outside their belief system.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> BTW, logic is a set of rules - nothing more.  In the absence of evidence it can get rather silly.  For example...  All humans can flap their arms and fly.  I am a human.  Therefore, I can flap my arms and fly.  This is perfect logic.  It is an example of a computer programmer's axiom... garbage in, garbage out.



Bravo. 

It amazes me how few people understand this simple fact. Logical arguments can be valid even if the premises are false and the conclusion is also false. That is why any challenge, like the OPs, to provide an example of a valid argument is so stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist.  They cannot provide the factual evidence.  Keep asking them.



Actually, they both can provide such evidence. The real question is how we evaluate the evidence both for, and against, the existence of god, not whether or not it exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Don't ask me.  I've got nothing.



C'mon.

Many people argue that evolution is evidence against the existence of god because the process doesn't need anyone to step in and guide each step of the ladder. Then we have the fact that no one has recently been turning water into wine, or healing people who are paralyzed. That all counts as evidence against the existence of god. The problem here is that people forget that evidence, or proof, does not always lead to the same conclusion. They should really look into forensics so they understand how evidence works.

For example, if the police find you fingerprints at a murder scene they can use that to suggest you had something to do with the murder. You can then point out that you were at that place a week before because you bought a used computer from the murder victim, and that you were actually in another city at the time of the murder. That doesn't make your fingerprints at the scene go away, but it does show how evidence can exist, yet not actually mean what people think it means.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.
Click to expand...


What makes it a valid argument?  That is having a sound basis in logic or fact?  If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.  

The fact is every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Are you trying to suggest that Mary being a virgin and Jesus rising from the dead and Noah living 350 years are facts?  None of these things have a sound basis in logic or fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist.  They cannot provide the factual evidence.  Keep asking them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they both can provide such evidence. The real question is how we evaluate the evidence both for, and against, the existence of god, not whether or not it exists.
Click to expand...


I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes it a valid argument?  That is having a sound basis in logic or fact?  If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.
Click to expand...


The rules of logic which state that, as long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. Since the premises of the teleological argument lead to the conclusion that the universe was made, the argument is valid, even if you can prove that the premises are false. This is why I always mock idiots, like you, that assume that logic is applicable to the universe.



> An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.
> 
> An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".
> 
> An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
> 
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
> *What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. *The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.



Validity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any other stupid questions? 

By the way, the rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I made that the argument is actually valid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.



I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.

Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct, just not for the reasons you think.
Click to expand...


Then list the reasons you think I think.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote "prove positively", and no they cannot provide such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that evidence actually exists, and that we can evaluate it if we look at it. That, believe it or not, means we can actually "prove positively" that god does, or does not, exist. What we cannot do is prove it conclusively, which is why the debate rages on.
> 
> Funny thing, even if God set up a throne in DC and started answering petitions sent to him through a website, some people would still deny his existence.
Click to expand...


Been through this hundreds of times with folks like you.

Your argument is false, but you are certainly fitting the stereotype of the person you illustrate in your last paragraph.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_As long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically And assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. _And neither extreme can provide conclusively with factual evidence that proves the truth of the conclusion, which then conclusively undermines the truth of the premises.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rikurzhen said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:
> 
> “Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal _PLoS ONE_.
> 
> Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.
> 
> Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.​Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.
Click to expand...


Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention  is wholly unnecessary.


----------



## Rikurzhen

NYcarbineer said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:
> 
> “Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal _PLoS ONE_.
> 
> Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.
> 
> Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.​Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention  is wholly unnecessary.
Click to expand...


The morality you create is constrained by the biological machine in your head.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither M. D. can prove positively that God exists, nor Pratchettfan can prove that God does not exist.  They cannot provide the factual evidence.  Keep asking them.



With no evidence for the existence of God, then the lack of proof of the non-existence of God simply puts the idea of God into the same category of every other possible being or thing that we have no evidence of existing.

God then becomes the equivalent of Big Foot.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rikurzhen said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so fast with this Ghost in the Machine business:
> 
> “Utilitarian moral judgments are those that save a bigger number of people even if it means an innocent person might be harmed in the process,” explains Marsh, the first author of the study published today in the online journal _PLoS ONE_.
> 
> Marsh and her team found that people with a long allele of a particular gene (a serotonin transporter) rated unintentionally harming someone as more acceptable than did people with short allele carriers of the same gene.
> 
> Study participants who carry the short allele version of the gene were reluctant to endorse actions resulting in foreseen harm to an innocent individual.​Your mind, from which morals spring, is grounded by the constraints of biology. The world you know is constrained by biology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then if it's all biological that is substantial evidence that a supernatural being's intervention  is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The morality you create is constrained by the biological machine in your head.
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position.  The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


*The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
The Fine-Tuning Argument 

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. 

_“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger

_“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would take a book to explain to you in detail why your attempt to overthrow the teleological argument is so . . . unnecessarily convoluted, that is, elaborately complex. While your second paragraph succinctly summarizes the complex, albeit, redundantly obtuse objections raised by critics in the past, theists have already swept all that noise away, and your allusion to the God in the gaps fallacy is not relevant to the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument in spite of what the Christian naturalist Henry Drummond mistakenly imagined as he foolishly lent credence to the atheist's erroneous criticisms, which have been subsequently quashed.
> 
> Hence, we need not bother with the _dated_ misapprehensions of your second paragraph in any detail, as the debate has moved on to—or is it back to?—what the teleological argument is ultimately all about: the fact that our universe is finely tuned for sapient life. The argument's concern with the cosmos' finely arranged complexity is the subordinate concomitant, not the argument's culmination. Your critique of the argument on the basis of its allegation of a finely arranged complexity, without grasping/addressing the ultimate point, is the non sequitur here. You're nearly two-hundred years behind the same eight ball as was Drummond.
> 
> Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.
> 
> Hence, unlike the absolute logical proofs of justification—the Cosmological and transcendental arguments, and the argument from the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin, which unambiguously settle on a transcendent Sentience—the teleological argument is arguably, at first blush, a conditional/propositional proof regarding the ultimate origin for the existence of sapient life on Earth. But when its ultimate thrust is finally apprehended, after the cobwebs of misapprehension are cleared away, especially in the context of the absolute logical proofs serving as the foundation: it's implications are powerfully relevant.
> 
> Still not convinced as to why that is so?
> 
> What's wrong with your suggestion, *sealybobo*, regarding the undeniable potentiality of a non-transcendent extraterrestrial intelligence being responsible for the existence of sapient life on Earth? Why does it fail to undermine the ultimate thrust of the teleological argument?
> 
> Answer: Because the existence of such an extraterrestrial intelligence would be no less contingent to the origin of the very same singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions. The initial appearance of sapient life, whether it occurred here on Earth or somewhere else in the universe, doesn't undermine the teleological argument's transcendent implications after all.
> 
> Don't feel too bad about this though, as we methodological theists have simply been doing the logic of deep apologetics longer than theistic naturalists and atheists. . . .
> 
> I wish that you would rather opt to apprehend the reasons why God must be, but if you must go on conflating agency with the physical laws of the cosmos, I strongly suggest that you lose the passé counter-apologetics of the Nineteenth-Century and adopt the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe _is_ fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable precursors of life: namely, *the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias.*
> 
> Mind you, this still doesn't in any way undermine the construct of a transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Sentience of ultimate origin, or for that matter, the transcendent implications of the teleological argument, as, no doubt, most of the aforementioned cosmologists and physicists imagine.  Illusion.  On the contrary, if true, if subject to scientific falsification, a questioned yet to be answered, it would underscore the construct of God as a Being of unlimited power and genius, though in the end, for our purposes here, it would merely mean that some universes would not be contemplated . . . at least not by any indigenous residents.
Click to expand...


Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,

I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?


----------



## Rikurzhen

NYcarbineer said:


> That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position.  The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.



To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.


----------



## Rikurzhen

NYcarbineer said:


> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?



I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​


----------



## JakeStarkey

M. D. believes one can create absolute morality and absolute deity out of nothing.

Why not?   God created our existence out of nothing, or so the story goes.

One the other hand, no one can disprove that God exists.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non of that changes the fact that, logically, it is a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes it a valid argument?  That is having a sound basis in logic or fact?  If your argument did that science wouldn't argue with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules of logic which state that, as long as the truth of the premises, which is automatically assumed, entails the truth of the conclusion, the argument is valid. Since the premises of the teleological argument lead to the conclusion that the universe was made, the argument is valid, even if you can prove that the premises are false. This is why I always mock idiots, like you, that assume that logic is applicable to the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion and each step, sub-argument, or logical operation in the argument is valid. Under such conditions it would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.
> 
> An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".
> 
> An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
> 
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
> *What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. *The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:
> 
> All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Validity - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Any other stupid questions?
> 
> By the way, the rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I made that the argument is actually valid.
Click to expand...


Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
Click to expand...


The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?

But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance

So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.


----------



## sealybobo

JakeStarkey said:


> M. D. believes one can create absolute morality and absolute deity out of nothing.
> 
> Why not? :Lol:  God created our existence out of nothing, or so the story goes.
> 
> One the other hand, no one can disprove that God exists.



*Definition of Belief says: Belief* is a state of the mind in which a subject roughly regards a thing to be true.

Roughly?

traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief". The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is _true_, and if the believer has a _justification_ (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true.

You guys have no evidence a virgin gave birth after being impregnated by god.  

A false belief is not considered to be knowledge, even if it is sincere. A sincere believer in the flat earth theory or any of the organized religions does not _know_ that the Earth is flat or that Jesus did miracles.

The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition). So, like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind, whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.

Us atheists explain in great detail why your god is all in your minds but you guys just can't seem to get it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met

You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
Click to expand...


Just a couple of points here.  Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life.  The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.

There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed.  That presupposes the intent of the designer.  Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .



That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg


Rikurzhen said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
Click to expand...


It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,

just because it looks impressive.

The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rikurzhen said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position.  The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.
Click to expand...


Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.

One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.


----------



## Rikurzhen

NYcarbineer said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it's subjective, in fact you may be reinforcing my position.  The Rawlings guy claims there is objective absolute morality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To go all Clintonian on you, that depends on how we define subjective. I took you to mean that you could create a morality out of whole cloth. There is evidence that this is not so, your biology limits and guides your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.
> 
> One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.
Click to expand...


And that continues today with the practice of abortion. Right? A lot of why some think it's OK and others don't could well be attributed to genetics.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a couple of points here.  Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life.  The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.
> 
> There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed.  That presupposes the intent of the designer.  Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.
Click to expand...


True but this planet is not much more than a grain of sand compared to all of the universe.  Again whom among us wise to enough to know what is out there beyond our feeble ability to explore or investigate?  It is as naïve to believe that we have all the science we will ever have or know as it is to believe that scientists 100 or 200 hundred years ago knew and understand more than a small fraction of what we know now.

Of course a universe hostile to life could be as much by design as one teeming with life put here with a purpose.  And both could be by happenstance.

The anti-scientist type shrugs and says there is no way to know and lacks the curiosity or intellect to even wonder.  He/she might even make snarky, unkind, or rude comments to those who do wonder. 

IMO the science religionist looks at the most popular theories/conclusions and says that is the way it is and nobody with a brain would even challenge it.

And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
Click to expand...


So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
Click to expand...


I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Then list the reasons you think I think.



No.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?



Did I say that?

No, I said that the argument is valid, you asked me why, and I laid out the reasons that make it valid, and even took the time to provide a link that explained the rules of logic. If you can't follow a simply conversation, and read the explanation included in it, I see no reason to treat you as anything but a close minded idiot.

Fun fact about logic, you can have it both ways.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> *Definition of Belief says: Belief* is a state of the mind in which a subject roughly regards a thing to be true.



Where the fuck do you get your definitions from?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,



What makes you think intelligent people cannot understand Rawling's writing?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.
> 
> One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.



Or you could argue that they were trading one for many, which would make it absolutely moral under your personal morality where the many always gets to tell the one what to do.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then list the reasons you think I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


So you can't defend your statement with anything of substance?

Dog bites man.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think intelligent people cannot understand Rawling's writing?
Click to expand...


Because I'm smarter than you are.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human sacrifice was a part of the religion of many cultures at one time, which effectively made it a part of their moral code.
> 
> One might argue, on the other hand, that human sacrifice is absolutely immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could argue that they were trading one for many, which would make it absolutely moral under your personal morality where the many always gets to tell the one what to do.
Click to expand...


So there's no absolute moral standard on the issue of human sacrifice.

You should be arguing with Rawlings then, not me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> So you can't defend your statement with anything of substance?
> 
> Dog bites man.



I can defend it, I just refuse to let you dictate what I meant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Because I'm smarter than you are.



I know you think you are, but I bet you can't prove it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't defend your statement with anything of substance?
> 
> Dog bites man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can defend it, I just refuse to let you dictate what I meant.
Click to expand...


All I did is ask you what you meant.  You claimed to know why I said what I said.  All I would like to hear is why you think I said it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> So there's no absolute moral standard on the issue of human sacrifice.
> 
> You should be arguing with Rawlings then, not me.



People view a man who jumps on a grenade to save his friends as a hero. Funny thing, I bet you can't find a single person on this forum who will disagree with that, including you.

Maybe you should be arguing with yourself.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm smarter than you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think you are, but I bet you can't prove it.
Click to expand...


My proof, to my own satisfaction, is that I am right on the issues more often than you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> All I did is ask you what you meant.  You claimed to know why I said what I said.  All I would like to hear is why you think I said it.



I suggest you go back and reread your post, you never asked what I meant.

After that, you can reread mind and discover I never said I knew why you said what you did.

Don't worry though, you are still more intelligent than I am, which is why I can't confuse you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there's no absolute moral standard on the issue of human sacrifice.
> 
> You should be arguing with Rawlings then, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People view a man who jumps on a grenade to save his friends as a hero. Funny thing, I bet you can't find a single person on this forum who will disagree with that, including you.
> 
> Maybe you should be arguing with yourself.
Click to expand...


The issue is whether or not there are moral absolutes.  Try to focus.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> My proof, to my own satisfaction, is that I am right on the issues more often than you are.



If by right, you mean refusing to acknowledge the reality that you are wrong, I cannot argue with you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> The issue is whether or not there are moral absolutes.  Try to focus.



I just provided an example, try to focus.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I did is ask you what you meant.  You claimed to know why I said what I said.  All I would like to hear is why you think I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you go back and reread your post, you never asked what I meant.
> 
> After that, you can reread mind and discover I never said I knew why you said what you did.
> 
> Don't worry though, you are still more intelligent than I am, which is why I can't confuse you.
Click to expand...


You said

"You are correct, just not for the reasons you think".

you're claiming you know my reasons.

State them.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is whether or not there are moral absolutes.  Try to focus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just provided an example, try to focus.
Click to expand...


Whether or not there are moral absolutes is a yes or no question.

Your failure to answer yes or no means you don't know.

So which is it?  Yes, no, or you don't know.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The practitioners of human sacrifice believed that God, or the gods, demanded such behavior.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> You said
> 
> "You are correct, just not for the reasons you think".
> 
> you're claiming you know my reasons.
> 
> State them.



No, I am claiming that you are correct, but still wrong. If you want to know why you are wrong, ask.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
Click to expand...


I think I get it now.  When the atheist tries to argue with the proof by demanding an answer to something or questioning the major premise he's actually claiming to know something the rest of us don't.  But how can that be right?  If he foolishly denies the obvious existence of the rules of logic then he's arguing that there is no basis to claim anything is true in science, math, morality or anything else.  So why is he arguing? The only logical option for him is to stop pestering the rest of us and go live in a cave.  But that can't be right because we know lots of things in common about math, morality and science, so there has to be a universal basis for how we know these things.  He's just lying for some weird reason.  That's sick.  If he honestly admits that the rules of logic exist, his denial of God's existence presumably means he can give an account for their existence without God.  So what is that account?  Basically, he's making himself a little god telling everybody else who disagrees with him that he's right and they're wrong, but he's really arguing with God or the idea of God that he admits to be aware of in his denial.  This is what you mean when you say that "The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us."  So the atheist really has no legitimate basis to demand anything from theists.  The theist's premise automatically accounts for a reliable basis for universal knowledge that's absolute, not subjective.  The atheist is the one who either way is hinting at something secretively subjective or mysterious, but the more sensible theist just got through saying that the logical rules are absolute.  That's a contradiction.  The atheist's position is wack either way.  Is this right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Whether or not there are moral absolutes is a yes or no question.
> 
> Your failure to answer yes or no means you don't know.
> 
> So which is it?  Yes, no, or you don't know.



Still not paying attention.

Try rereading my post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> The practitioners of human sacrifice believed that God, or the gods, demanded such behavior.



Not really.

They usually viewed the gods as angry at them for some reason, and decided that a sacrifice of one, or more, persons would be better than the gods killing everyone.


----------



## sealybobo

JakeStarkey said:


> We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met
> 
> You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.



Great!  If you aren't trying to convince anyone your invisible friend is real and you keep it to yourself, we don't have any problems with you.  

Remember, we aren't the ones saying you'll go to hell if you don't believe us.


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years,* the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence. *
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in your approach is that you're tackling an issue, faith, and asking the faithful to enter your realm and provide logical proof. If they had logic, then they wouldn't need faith.
> 
> Secondly, you're overlooking the issue of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the lack of evidence of a God is no different than the lack of evidence of dozens of Gods, or thousands, or trillions.
Click to expand...


There is evidence.  You just won't admit it.  That's sick.


----------



## MrDVS1

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



Some time ago it came to my attention, that post-resurrection Jesus is a Zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no body temperature, not breathing, walking around with all the unhealed fatal injuries.......if that's not a Zombie I don't know what is.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
Click to expand...


The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.



Why are they not equally probable? What makes one position more valid than the other if you insist there is no real evidence either way?

By the way, you just expressed a belief, again. Are you going to claim, again, that you don't have any beliefs about the existence of god?


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is *morally* bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your *moral code* were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .
> 
> Why are you asking me that question?  Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is?  Are you stupid or something?  You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true.  Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it.  No justification required?  No explanation required?  Really?  You're asking me?  Do you need me to wipe your ass too?  Change your diapers?  Blow your nose?  Murder is not murder?  Rape is not rape?  Theft is not theft?
Click to expand...


Some truth to what you say.  Cons think libs are evil because we murder millions of unborn babies every year and from an atheists perspective, those unborn seeds are no more important than a turtle who gets gobbled up when it first hatches from the egg and starts walking towards the ocean on the sand, all to get eaten at the last second before it makes it to the ocean.  Do you cry for the baby turtle?  Then why cry for a fetus in the first trimester?  I also don't have a problem with late term abortion.  It would be sad but you can't force a couple to raise a retarded child especially when you don't want your government to have to help pay for that retard.

And then I think it is evil to go to war for $ and have that many people die over it but you guys seemed to defend the Iraq war even when it was realized that's exactly what Bush (Shell) and Chaney (Haloburton) did.  Letting people go hungry because your unregulated free market capitalism says throw the unsold food out before you give it away other wise it will lower prices.  

Anyways, I think you cons are evil and I know you guys think we are godless.  Guess what?  A lot of us are godless.  Don't believe a word of it.


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently whatever standard floats your boat every time you open your mouth and claim that conservatism, for example, is *morally* bad, evil, wrong, unjust, oppressive, racist, fascistic, irrational, dishonest, hateful, abusive, usurpative . . . as if your *moral code* were objectively self-evident, absolute, axiomatic, indisputable, unassailable, indubitable, unquestionable. . . .
> 
> Why are you asking me that question?  Don't you know what the objectively absolute standard of your morality is?  Are you stupid or something?  You can't tell me why these things are unimpeachably true.  Oh, we're just supposed to take your word for it.  No justification required?  No explanation required?  Really?  You're asking me?  Do you need me to wipe your ass too?  Change your diapers?  Blow your nose?  Murder is not murder?  Rape is not rape?  Theft is not theft?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm asking you a very simple question.  What objectively absolute standard of morality?
> 
> You made the claim.  I want you to detail it.
> 
> 1.  Show us the standard, by examples.
> 2.  Show us that they are objective.
> 3.  Show us that they are absolute.
> 4.  Then,
> 
> Show us why HUMANS could not reach such an objective consensus on their own if there were not an invisible, unrevealed, supernatural power in control of human thought.
Click to expand...


What the rules of logic tell us when we apply them is the substance youre demanding.  M.D.R. answered that question way back in this thread.  You're just playing like you don't get the rules of logic, and demand that he repeat what you already know is true.  Man, that's sick.  You're the one claiming to have some secretive knowledge about why there is common knowledge about lots of things but you pretend not to see the only thing that would account for this at the human level.  What hard basis do you have to claim anything?  Some of you guys are just crazy or something.


----------



## JakeStarkey

sealybobo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met
> 
> You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  If you aren't trying to convince anyone your invisible friend is real and you keep it to yourself, we don't have any problems with you.
> 
> Remember, we aren't the ones saying you'll go to hell if you don't believe us.
Click to expand...


No one, sealy, has to keep their belief to themselves.

Understand that and you and your friends won't have any problems.

Same applies to believers of whatever.


----------



## sealybobo

ninja007 said:


> God created science. God is proved BY science every day.



Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.

The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. 

...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history

Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.


----------



## ninja007

sealybobo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created science. God is proved BY science every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
> 
> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.
> 
> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.
> 
> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.
Click to expand...


God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they not equally probable? What makes one position more valid than the other if you insist there is no real evidence either way?
> 
> By the way, you just expressed a belief, again. Are you going to claim, again, that you don't have any beliefs about the existence of god?
Click to expand...


be·lief
biˈlēf/
_noun_
noun: *belief*; plural noun: *beliefs*

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

synonyms:opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"

synonyms:ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon;
doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
you are right


----------



## sealybobo

ninja007 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created science. God is proved BY science every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
> 
> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.
> 
> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.
> 
> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.
Click to expand...


From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted.  From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet.  Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.  

So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes.  We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future.  IT IS WRITTEN!  

Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests?  They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago.  In fact it looks as though that's what happened.  Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12.  Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people.  Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists.  Do you people hear yourselves?


----------



## ninja007

sealybobo said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created science. God is proved BY science every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
> 
> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.
> 
> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.
> 
> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted.  From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet.  Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.
> 
> So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes.  We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future.  IT IS WRITTEN!
> 
> Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests?  They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago.  In fact it looks as though that's what happened.  Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12.  Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people.  Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists.  Do you people hear yourselves?
Click to expand...


The Holy Spirit (God) wrote the Bible friend.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a couple of points here.  Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life.  The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.
> 
> There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed.  That presupposes the intent of the designer.  Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but this planet is not much more than a grain of sand compared to all of the universe.  Again whom among us wise to enough to know what is out there beyond our feeble ability to explore or investigate?  It is as naïve to believe that we have all the science we will ever have or know as it is to believe that scientists 100 or 200 hundred years ago knew and understand more than a small fraction of what we know now.
> 
> Of course a universe hostile to life could be as much by design as one teeming with life put here with a purpose.  And both could be by happenstance.
> 
> The anti-scientist type shrugs and says there is no way to know and lacks the curiosity or intellect to even wonder.  He/she might even make snarky, unkind, or rude comments to those who do wonder.
> 
> IMO the science religionist looks at the most popular theories/conclusions and says that is the way it is and nobody with a brain would even challenge it.
> 
> And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.
Click to expand...


I heard the other day that we might exist so that the universe can know itself, or something like that.  That's deep.  

I wouldn't consider myself a science religious or I wouldn't think one would say their theories can't be challenged.  That doesn't sound like science to me.  What a science religious might do is reject organized religions nonsensical stories.   

And I do notice a lot of "christians" admit all the stories in the bible are not real historical events.  They admit they are just stories.  Do you?

But then even if they are, then I ask them if Mary was a virgin and Jesus rose from the dead and they say they do believe those stories are historical events.  

Either way they believe things that can't possibly be true.  Unless you can show us scientifically how He turned 5 loaves and 2 fish into  thousands of fish and pieces of bread. In fact, there were twelve baskets of leftovers.


----------



## sealybobo

ninja007 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created science. God is proved BY science every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
> 
> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.
> 
> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.
> 
> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God didn't want it to be that way, but man has free will and sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what we hear about Adam, man can't be trusted.  From what we hear about the times of Noah, every human on earth except Noah and his family were pieces of shit and needed to be cleansed from the planet.  Theists talk about Soddom & Gamora and say the world is going to shit and the end days are coming because we are turning away from god.
> 
> So in every situation, man sucks and we are doomed again one day when the rapture comes.  We failed in the past, are failing now and will fail in the future.  IT IS WRITTEN!
> 
> Anyways, if man is so bad, what makes you believe the corrupt churches and their pedophile priests?  They could have made the entire thing up 1900 years ago.  In fact it looks as though that's what happened.  Jesus didn't write the bible and neither did any of the 12.  Even if they did, that's a pretty small cult of only 12 people.  Talking snakes, 350 Noah, Virgin births, rising from the dead, ghosts, angels, devils, exorcists.  Do you people hear yourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit (God) wrote the Bible friend.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
Click to expand...


All I know is this.  None of the stories in any of the Abraham religions are true.  Are you a Christian, Jew or Muslim?  Then you believe people lived to be 350 years old, god talked to them, through snakes, Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale, angels, devils,

Just like you don't believe Zeus exists, right?  

Other than that, I don't know what your point was.  It went right over my head.  Do you believe in any particular god?  Because all you did was reply like you caught me in some fuck up, but then I read on and you forget to put how exactly I screwed up.  What was the "gocha" moment?  I can't wait to find out.  

Is it that the whole god is eternal thing or the thing where you theists can't believe we came from nothing?  The first cause argument?  Please explain because I have no idea what is going on around me.  It must be pretty lonely being god that he's so bored he's always watching all of us and he gets so angry when people don't worship him.  Why doesn't he pay us a visit like he use to?


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
Click to expand...


You aren't going with what's probable but you are going with what "might" be possible.  That's called wishful thinking.

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
Click to expand...


All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.
Click to expand...


I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.  

So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is this.  None of the stories in any of the Abraham religions are true.  Are you a Christian, Jew or Muslim?  Then you believe people lived to be 350 years old, god talked to them, through snakes, Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale, angels, devils,
> 
> Just like you don't believe Zeus exists, right?
> 
> Other than that, I don't know what your point was.  It went right over my head.  Do you believe in any particular god?  Because all you did was reply like you caught me in some fuck up, but then I read on and you forget to put how exactly I screwed up.  What was the "gocha" moment?  I can't wait to find out.
> 
> Is it that the whole god is eternal thing or the thing where you theists can't believe we came from nothing?  The first cause argument?  Please explain because I have no idea what is going on around me.  It must be pretty lonely being god that he's so bored he's always watching all of us and he gets so angry when people don't worship him.  Why doesn't he pay us a visit like he use to?
Click to expand...


I'm a Christian, a relatively new believer who likes science.    I'm not trying to do gocha.  All I did was point out a misconception that you have about the idea of God and the question of origin.  What's wrong with that?  There's also a hint of scientific ignorance in your post.  As for my personal beliefs, I agree with guys like QW, M.D.R. and I think Rizurzhen.  They're not relevant to the OP, and your dismissal of "miracles" and the existence of transcendent creatures is nonsensical.  You've already said you're an atheist.  Now you're repeating yourself, though I don't think you get that either.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is this.  None of the stories in any of the Abraham religions are true.  Are you a Christian, Jew or Muslim?  Then you believe people lived to be 350 years old, god talked to them, through snakes, Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale, angels, devils,
> 
> Just like you don't believe Zeus exists, right?
> 
> Other than that, I don't know what your point was.  It went right over my head.  Do you believe in any particular god?  Because all you did was reply like you caught me in some fuck up, but then I read on and you forget to put how exactly I screwed up.  What was the "gocha" moment?  I can't wait to find out.
> 
> Is it that the whole god is eternal thing or the thing where you theists can't believe we came from nothing?  The first cause argument?  Please explain because I have no idea what is going on around me.  It must be pretty lonely being god that he's so bored he's always watching all of us and he gets so angry when people don't worship him.  Why doesn't he pay us a visit like he use to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a Christian, a relatively new believer who likes science.    I'm not trying to do gocha.  All I did was point out a misconception that you have about the idea of God and the question of origin.  What's wrong with that?  There's also a hint of scientific ignorance in your post.  As for my personal beliefs, I agree with guys like QW, M.D.R. and I think Rizurzhen.  They're not relevant to the OP, and your dismissal of "miracles" and the existence of transcendent creatures is nonsensical.  You've already said you're an atheist.  Now you're repeating yourself, though I don't think you get that either.
Click to expand...


What misconception?  You mean because you believe your invisible friend is the beginning and the end and eternal?  Nothing and I mean NOTHING lives forever.  Does anything else live forever?  Well then why are we to believe your invisible friend does?  

So instead of accepting that it is possible that the universe came from nothing, or at least not a "god" who intelligently designed us, you would rather believe that a god created us, cares about you, made heaven for you to live forever, blabla?  I mean when I put it that way, sounds pretty stupid huh?

And this god doesn't have a friend or a spouse?  But we are made in his image?

So you are a new christian?  Do you take the Noah and Jonah stories literally or are they allegories?  If they are allegories, maybe so are the Jesus stories too huh?    

Oh yea, because you too want to live forever, in heaven after you die.  Wishful thinking is all that is.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.
> 
> So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?
Click to expand...


I don't believe you.  A learned believer knows that _blind_ faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible.  You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear.  And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience.  Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.



I love it when people use words they don't understand.



sealybobo said:


> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.



Funny thing, there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support the theories of dark matter or dark energy, yet science still insist that they exist. Can you explain that? 



sealybobo said:


> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.



Dawkins is hostile to all religion because he is an idiot, just like you. 

Did you  know that it was clerics that first supported Darwin, and scientists that thought he was crazy?



sealybobo said:


> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.



That is historically inaccurate, and directly contradicted by multiple facts. Then again, I really don' expect anyone that insist the Dark Ages really happened to understand facts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> you are right



I knew that before you told me, I only argue when I am right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> All I know is this.  None of the stories in any of the Abraham religions are true.  Are you a Christian, Jew or Muslim?  Then you believe people lived to be 350 years old, god talked to them, through snakes, Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale, angels, devils,
> 
> Just like you don't believe Zeus exists, right?
> 
> Other than that, I don't know what your point was.  It went right over my head.  Do you believe in any particular god?  Because all you did was reply like you caught me in some fuck up, but then I read on and you forget to put how exactly I screwed up.  What was the "gocha" moment?  I can't wait to find out.
> 
> Is it that the whole god is eternal thing or the thing where you theists can't believe we came from nothing?  The first cause argument?  Please explain because I have no idea what is going on around me.  It must be pretty lonely being god that he's so bored he's always watching all of us and he gets so angry when people don't worship him.  Why doesn't he pay us a visit like he use to?



None of them?

There is a story in Islam about how Mohammad led an army to take out a city, and lost. Funny thing, there are multiple historical references to that very thing.

That means that, once again, you are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.
> 
> So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?



Stop lying.

No one who is educated in religion would ever tell you you need to have blind faith.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I think I get it now.  When the atheist tries to argue with the proof by demanding an answer to something or questioning the major premise he's actually claiming to know something the rest of us don't.  But how can that be right?  If he foolishly denies the obvious existence of the rules of logic then he's arguing that there is no basis to claim anything is true in science, math, morality or anything else.  So why is he arguing? The only logical option for him is to stop pestering the rest of us and go live in a cave.  But that can't be right because we know lots of things in common about math, morality and science, *so there has to be a universal basis for how we know these things.  *He's just lying for some weird reason.  That's sick.  If he honestly admits that the rules of logic exist, his denial of God's existence presumably means he can give an account for their existence without God.  So what is that account?  Basically, he's making himself a little god telling everybody else who disagrees with him that he's right and they're wrong, but he's really arguing with God or the idea of God that he admits to be aware of in his denial.  This is what you mean when you say that "The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us."  So the atheist really has no legitimate basis to demand anything from theists. * The theist's premise automatically accounts for a reliable basis for universal knowledge that's absolute, not subjective. * The atheist is the one who either way is hinting at something secretively subjective or mysterious, but the more sensible theist just got through saying that the logical rules are absolute.  That's a contradiction.  The atheist's position is wack either way.  Is this right?



You've got it!  And of course the universal basis for this is "hardwired" in the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system. In addition to that, you and I believe that there exists a soul (or spiritual mind) that inter-dimensionally interfaces with the former.

And the ultimate thrust of the seemingly unqualified major premise is even more apparent in the light of the kinds of objections that are raised by the more sensible atheists who of course recognize/concede the objective existence or universally apparent nature of the various imperatives pertinent to the problem of origin ("Everybody knows") and the universally absolute laws of logic. These objections are infinitely more interesting than the silliness of relativists who fail to realize that they are necessarily affirming the existence of these things every time they open their mouths to assert anything, as if their declaration that human cognition is relativistically subjective actually makes that so in reality, as if they escape the imperative of identity. Cognitive psychopath. Talk about false consciousness. Their objections are inherently self-negating baby talk.

Now does any of this absolutely prove that God exists? I don’t think so. But what it does demonstrate is that even the seemingly unqualified assertion of God's existence is not inherently contradictory while the assertion of atheism is. It appears that there's something wrong with it, at least as far as the laws of logic are concerned at the proscriptive level of apprehension. May we fairly assert that the teleological argument demonstrates that theism has the better argument? I think so, but there remains the potentially valid objection implied by selection bias relative to the physical laws and conditions of the cosmos at the descriptive level of apprehension, which is a staggeringly complex issue, though I still think theism has the stronger argument as the same kind of contradiction appears to spill over into the contemplation of that aspect of existence.  Unfortunately, there are only two or maybe three atheists on this thread that I'm aware of who have the intellectual firepower and integrity to challenge the argument at the higher level of criticism.  That would be instructive.  One of them is AWOL, the guy who started the OP.  Rizurzhen is another.  I don't know if Wingbag is a theist or not.  Unless he emphatically told us somewhere on this OP where he stands, his arguments are not necessarily indicative of where he's at.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  *What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Correct.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> We don't have to prove God exists for our satisfaction to be met
> 
> You can't prove that God does not exist, and that is your issue, not that of the believer.



Yes, that is correct.

Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.

Believers on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead. 

However if believers want to convince atheists then they will need to provide hard evidence for the existence of their God.

It is the believers who feel the need to convince atheists, not the other way around. 

For atheists there is nothing to lose if they are wrong and they are under no compulsion.

For believers there is a compelling need to prove themselves right. 

The believers are the ones who have the burden of proof since they have to prove that the atheists are wrong.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Derideo_Te said:


> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> *Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers *that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.



Now that we've excluded you from the category of Atheist all of us can see that your constant attacks on Theists are motivated by your religious Liberalism, your attacks are part of a war between faiths, your Liberalism versus their Christianity. As you admitted, an Atheist wouldn't be taking battle to Theists, and so because all you do is take battle to Christians while pretending to be an Atheist in order to give cover to your religious Liberalism, you just paint us authentic Atheists in a bad light. 

Now that you've left the mask slip and finally come around to admitting that you're not an Atheist, please stop with the masquerade.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I provide you with anything, first let me know where you stand.  Are you a christian?  Do you believe adam and eve, noah & moses stories are literal stories or just made up stories to teach right and wrong?  Then do you admit Mary wasn't a virgin?  The other day on a bible show I heard Noah lived 350 years.  Do you believe that?
> 
> Argument from poor design - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
> Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
> Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a couple of points here.  Despite cataclysmic events, this particular planet is certainly not hostile to life.  The place has been teeming with life for quite some time.
> 
> There is also a basic flaw in an argument that a universe being hostile to life means it is not designed.  That presupposes the intent of the designer.  Life may very well be a byproduct the designer considers an annoyance, like a house with termites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but this planet is not much more than a grain of sand compared to all of the universe.  Again whom among us wise to enough to know what is out there beyond our feeble ability to explore or investigate?  It is as naïve to believe that we have all the science we will ever have or know as it is to believe that scientists 100 or 200 hundred years ago knew and understand more than a small fraction of what we know now.
> 
> Of course a universe hostile to life could be as much by design as one teeming with life put here with a purpose.  And both could be by happenstance.
> 
> The anti-scientist type shrugs and says there is no way to know and lacks the curiosity or intellect to even wonder.  He/she might even make snarky, unkind, or rude comments to those who do wonder.
> 
> IMO the science religionist looks at the most popular theories/conclusions and says that is the way it is and nobody with a brain would even challenge it.
> 
> And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.
Click to expand...




> And some of us do observe the complexities, the symmetry, the unanswered questions and reason that an intelligence capable of designing the universe we live in could also be that spark of wonder and curiosity and ability to comprehend that intelligence.



That "spark of wonder and curiosity" is our own spirituality and intelligence. We know they exist because we experience them for ourselves. We have studied our intelligence to a greater extent because it is measurable but our sense of wonder, our spirituality, is a great deal harder to measure. 

However we can measure our brains when in a state of spirituality and we can measure similar brain states in other creatures. Spirituality does exist because we can both experience it and measure it. What each of us experiences individually can only be shared through words. The words we choose to explain what we experience depend largely on how it was described to us originally.

So what to me is a sense of wonder to you could be a sense of holiness even though we are both in the same measured brain state.  

The dichotomy arises when we anthropomorhise that experience and try to ascribe it to something for which there is no basis for doing so. If we both see a sunset and one of us in awe at the way light is reflecting off clouds while the other believes that they observing the handiwork of their God is where the difference lies.

We have measured the way light interacts so our intelligence knows what we are observing. But our sense of awe when we see something spectacular is on a more emotional and less rational level. The sense of spirituality is the same for both observers but it diverges depending upon how each individual rationalizes the identical experience.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!  Now that's the juice.  You just cleared up a few things for me.  I'm a novice.  But I'm working on getting a handle on apologetics.  The most difficult argument for me to understand is the Transcendental Argument, and recently I was challenged with the idea that if the laws of morality and logic are contingent on God then he can just change them if he wants.  What's the answer to that one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that question is _no_, He can't change the laws of logic. That would actually constitute a violation of the laws of logic and morality. It's impossible.  The laws of logic are contingent on God because the unadulterated laws of logic are the very essence of Who and What He is.
> 
> One might as well ask the question _can God not be God?_ Can a circle not be a circle? Can a square not be a square? The _logical_ answer to these questions is _no_. Something cannot be something it's not. Hence, the first law of logic: the law of identity. In fact, the other two laws of logic, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, are merely elaborations of the law of identity. Ultimately, there's only one law of declarative/conceptual logic. The three classical laws of logic are essentially three expressions of a single logical imperative, three in one.
> 
> But the real power of the teleological argument is that it irrefutably demonstrates that the denial of God's perfection or the denial that the laws of logic and morality are contingent on perfection violates the law of identity _and_ is equivalent to the denial of God's existence sans a logical justification: it's illogical to assert that an absolutely possible thing is an absolutely impossible thing. The assertion _God does not exist_ is absurd, irrational. In other words, whether that statement is ultimately true or not in reality, it wouldn't be ultimately true in realty _because_ it's rational or logical. But that's absurd! In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is a an irrational thing rational? Or an illogical thing logical? _A_ = _B_?! Whaaaa? In what other instance of our inner or outer experience of existence is an irrational thing true?
> 
> The OP states that the teleological argument fails? Whaaaa? I assure you that any assertion that allegedly refutes the teleological argument is an absurdity: an assertion that claims to be true on the basis of the rules of logic as it violates the rules of logic.  The "refutations" that atheists assert against the transcendental argument invariably fall under one of the three following categories:  equivocation, unqualified assumption or erroneous attribution.  But in reality all of these various objections are nothing more than the atheist's subjective experience of not being convinced about the actuality of _revelational_ knowledge, which is of a higher order of knowledge than the pertinent, objectively universal and absolute imperatives.  The underlying fallacy that drives the atheist's misapprehension is his unwarranted superimposition of a higher order of potentiality, namely, metaphysical naturalism.
> 
> The untutored theist will attempt to prove the higher order, revelational knowledge, which only reinforces the atheist's erroneous belief that his objections are valid.  And that, my friends, is what the Internet is polluted with.
> 
> But I do understand why the transcendental argument is routinely the most difficult to understand for many, for its major premise, at first blush, appears to be an unqualified assumption. In other words, its cogency is not readily apparent from its formal presentation; instead, its cogency is revealed when the atheist attempts to refute it, as any imaginable attempt to refute the essence of this seemingly unqualified assumption will invariably be inherently contradictory, and that is the fire to which one must hold the atheist's feet, as the assertion of the seemingly unqualified assumption _isn't_ inherently contradictory.  It just _is_ as its nature is declarative, not interrogative.
> 
> (By the way, the ultimate reason why this is true goes to something profoundly and intimately spiritual. The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us. Hush. Be still. Listen.)
> 
> The transcendental argument for the existence of God asserts that the existence of all objectively universal knowledge—the fundamental principles of logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science—are contingent on God's existence. These things cannot exist unless God exists; therefore, one necessarily presupposes God's existence in one's assertion that these things exist.
> 
> In other words, the atheist necessarily, albeit, unwittingly presupposes God's existence when he asserts that logical reasoning is possible, that absolute moral standards exist, that absolute geometric and mathematical principles exist and that scientific inference is justified. Hence, the atheist contradictorily denies the existence of the only conceivably unassailable Guarantor of an objectively absolute standard for logic, morality, geometry, mathematics and science. He assumes an objectively absolute standard for these things that cannot exist unless God exists as he allegedly refutes God's existence.
> 
> For example:
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for an objectively absolute standard of morality if God doesn’t exist?
> 
> What is the atheist’s justification for the apriority of metaphysical naturalism given the fact that it is scientifically unfalsifiable?​
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I get it now.  When the atheist tries to argue with the proof by demanding an answer to something or questioning the major premise he's actually claiming to know something the rest of us don't.  But how can that be right?  If he foolishly denies the obvious existence of the rules of logic then he's arguing that there is no basis to claim anything is true in science, math, morality or anything else.  So why is he arguing? The only logical option for him is to stop pestering the rest of us and go live in a cave.  But that can't be right because we know lots of things in common about math, morality and science, so there has to be a universal basis for how we know these things.  He's just lying for some weird reason.  That's sick.  If he honestly admits that the rules of logic exist, his denial of God's existence presumably means he can give an account for their existence without God.  So what is that account?  Basically, he's making himself a little god telling everybody else who disagrees with him that he's right and they're wrong, but he's really arguing with God or the idea of God that he admits to be aware of in his denial.  This is what you mean when you say that "The major premise of the teleological argument is a direct revelation from God. He directly and quite literally addresses/speaks to us."  So the atheist really has no legitimate basis to demand anything from theists.  The theist's premise automatically accounts for a reliable basis for universal knowledge that's absolute, not subjective.  The atheist is the one who either way is hinting at something secretively subjective or mysterious, but the more sensible theist just got through saying that the logical rules are absolute.  That's a contradiction.  The atheist's position is wack either way.  Is this right?
Click to expand...


The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
Click to expand...


Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.


----------



## MaxGrit

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.
Click to expand...

wtf is this weak shit? u srs?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Rikurzhen said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> *Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers *that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that we've excluded you from the category of Atheist all of us can see that your constant attacks on Theists are motivated by your religious Liberalism, your attacks are part of a war between faiths, your Liberalism versus their Christianity. As you admitted, an Atheist wouldn't be taking battle to Theists, and so because all you do is take battle to Christians while pretending to be an Atheist in order to give cover to your religious Liberalism, you just paint us authentic Atheists in a bad light.
> 
> Now that you've left the mask slip and finally come around to admitting that you're not an Atheist, please stop with the masquerade.
Click to expand...







Once again Pastory Rikurzhen preaches his perverted "Gospel of Conservatism" based upon his usual pack of lackwitted lies.

Only a *theist like yourself *would have erroneously misperceived what I posted as an "*attack*" while someone who was actually an atheist would have understood that it was a perfectly reasonable and valid description of a position held by atheists. 

This is what you quoted me as saying.



> *Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers *that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.



The *ONUS *is on *YOU* to prove that was a "*liberal*" "l*attack*" on "*Christianity*" rather than a valid description of a position held by atheists. 

Gotta love the irony when you make a complete and utter fool of yourself like this over and over again because you are clueless about atheism even while you continue to spout the canard about being one yourself only to expose your own lie with moronic posts like that one.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf is this weak shit? u srs?
Click to expand...


Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.


----------



## MaxGrit

'





Derideo_Te said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf is this weak shit? u srs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.
Click to expand...

 that is really noob argument  I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?

It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."

Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "

Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.

Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal religious views aren't irrelevant.
> 
> Your syllogism is scientifically and conceptually dated; presupposes God's existence in its major premise only to contradictorily deny His existence in its conclusion, concedes that the construct of an eternally transcendent and self-subsistent Sentience of unlimited power and genius objectively exists in its own right as it contradictorily imposes an utterly arbitrary constraint on the prerogatives of the very same Sentience of unlimited power and genius.
> 
> The essential problem with your syllogism is twofold:
> 
> 1. It implies a scientifically unfalsifiable standard of optimal design that is purely materialistic. In other words, it imposes a teleological standard that is not in evidence in a syllogism that disregards the logical potentiality that the cosmos was predicated on a morally optimal design.
> 
> 2. In any event, the only non-arbitrary constraint that would be applicable to a sentient First Cause of unlimited power in any material sense would be the logical impossibility of the First Cause creating a contingently greater thing than Itself. That which is contingent cannot be greater than that on which it is contingent; hence, that which is contingent is necessarily less perfect. The alleged contradiction is a conceptual illusion. Moreover, such an event would be redundantly absurd as it would constitute a self-negating act. The perfect expression of the law of identity is inherently part of Who/What God is: God = God.  God = not-God is logically untenable.​
> Besides, the thrust of the teleological argument goes to the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I already addressed that in post #106 Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
Click to expand...

 
What evidence do you have that they are not equally probable?


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.
Click to expand...

 
I asked you before but I will give it another try.  Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence.  If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for.  Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe.  He's telling you you're right so it must be true.


----------



## BillyP

I am, therefore He is.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying something must have made the universe?  Then what made the thing that made the universe?  You can't have it both ways.  If something must have made us, something must have made what made us.  And since it takes a woman and a man to make something, there must be more than one god.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf is this weak shit? u srs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is really noob argument  I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?
> 
> It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for your refutation. Why the hesitation on your part?


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."
> 
> Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "
> 
> Meaning atheists and believers have no evidence for their choice to believe or not.
> 
> Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.



To believe something exists without evidence requires faith.

To lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence requires no faith at all.


----------



## G.T.

If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance. 

First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term. 

If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility. 

If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God. 

For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient. 

Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.


----------



## MaxGrit

Derideo_Te said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you somewhere in this thread post a syllogism attempting to refute God's existence that began with the acknowledgement that the idea of God is someone who is all powerful, all knowing and all present?  The idea of God is that he is eternal and self-subsistent.  His existence isn't contingent on anything.  Is this something you do a lot?  Use premises that you don't understand for arguments?  Some of you guys are Grammar school theologians.  You probably won't get the point, but are you saying that the universe can't exist because there can be no uncaused cause?  Or are you saying that some material thing is the uncaused cause?  Has something always existed or not?  It doesn't look like you have any idea what's going on around you.  Does the universe exist or not?  Do you exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wtf is this weak shit? u srs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you don't understand logic or you cannot refute it. Probably both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is really noob argument  I can't believe you don't know the answer. Wtf?
> 
> It's similar to a kid asking why the sky is blue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your refutation. Why the hesitation on your part?
Click to expand...


I was on my phone. Why can't you just just look it up yourself? 

Do I need to teach you how to chew and swallow your food so you won't choke as well?

The Omnipotence of God

An argument commonly raised by non-believers is "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock so big He can't lift it?"

   The question really involves a logical paradox. It falls into the same category as "an irresistible force meeting an immovable object". If a force is truly irresistible, it can move any object. Conversely, if an object is truly immovable, it can resist any force.

   These arguments really involve word games and overly-legalistic logical games. They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature.

060.042.000       Torrey: no
Topic 42:   The Biblical concept of "omnipotence" must be different from the way we interpret "omnipotence".

   The following is a synopsis of an argument in Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith. Smith claims it is a proof that an omnipotent god cannot exist. However, that is only one possible conclusion. An alternative conclusion that is equally valid (without considering other evidence) is that, as applied to God, our interpretation of the term "omnipotent" is not correct.

1.   Something that does not exist has no characteristics.

2.   If something exists (we'll call it "X") but has absolutely no characteristics, it is not possible by any means to distinguish this X from something that does not exist.

3.   If X exists without characteristics, and therefore can not be distinguished from things that do not exist, for all practical purposes X might as well not exist, since even the mere fact of its existence cannot be determined by any means.

4.   If something exists and has characteristics (we'll call it "Y"), Y must act in conformity with its characteristics.

5.   Characteristics constitute limitations on what Y can do.

6.   If a god exists, it has characteristics. Otherwise, as indicated in item 3, for all practical purposes it might as well not exist.

7.   If a god exists and has characteristics, those characteristics constitute limitations on what that god can do.

8.   A god that is limited in what it can do is not "all powerful", not "omnipotent", even if those limitations are created solely by the god's characteristics.

   The word "omnipotent" is usually interpreted as meaning "able to do anything whatsoever". Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, 1980, defines "omnipotent" as "Almighty; not limited in authority or power."

   The God of the Bible has many characteristics, some detailed in this book, e.g.: (1) He is eternal; (2) He is immortal; (3) He is triune, i.e, three persons in one God; (4) He hates sin so much that He must take out His anger over sin on something; (5) He loves righteousness; (6) He gets jealous; (7) He gets angry; (8) He is merciful; (9) He feels compassion; (10) He is omniscient.

   Obviously, Smith's argument proves that the "able to do anything" concept is self-contradictory; it falls in the same class as the "irresistible force meets immovable object."

   However, Smith's argument does not prove that God is not omnipotent. It merely proves that human languages do not contain words that correctly describe this supernatural characteristic of God.


----------



## MaxGrit

Summary: 

God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.

Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.


----------



## G.T.

No, the immovable object versus the irresistable force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.

that's a really weak understanding of what proof is.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.


 
You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence. 

With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements. 

I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.



What's your point?


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
Click to expand...


I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.

The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.

It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."

This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.


edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.





You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!

Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.

BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...

You said this:

"They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. *They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature*. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."




The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.


----------



## MaxGrit

Context is important.

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs. As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Context is important.
> 
> At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
> But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)
> There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs. As he puts it:
> Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)




Well, here's the thing.

It most certainly AND necessarily is a foundation to build further knowledge as it is an irrefutable truth, to one's self.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said this:
> 
> "They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. *They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature*. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."
> 
> The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.
Click to expand...


Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. It's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions. 

What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said this:
> 
> "They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. *They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature*. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."
> 
> The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. I*t's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions. *
> 
> What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?
Click to expand...


Here's the thing.

That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?

Is an assertion that God even exists.

If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.

The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.


----------



## MaxGrit

Derideo_Te said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!
> 
> Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.
Click to expand...


Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.

You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!
> 
> Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.
> 
> You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.
Click to expand...

Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power. 

Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said this:
> 
> "They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. *They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature*. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."
> 
> The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. I*t's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions. *
> 
> What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?
> 
> Is an assertion that God even exists.
> 
> If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.
> 
> The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.
Click to expand...


We're discussing how omnipotence works. Also you need to look up the answer to my question.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the immovable object versus the irresist able force is not PROOF that our logic is incomplete, because it's not PROVEN that irresistible forces or immovable objects even EXIST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said this:
> 
> "They do not prove that God is not omnipotent. *They prove that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature*. They simply prove what everyone already knows - that human language is not perfect and is not capable of fully describing God's divine nature."
> 
> The paradox does not "prove" what yo9u say it proves, because it's not first been proven that immovable objects or irresistable forces even EXIST - thus, the paradox does not even exist necessarily and cannot be used as PROOF (your words), of ANYthing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read more carefully and think about what you read. Don't read what you think.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. I*t's simply saying that a lot of the confusion is due to a poor understanding of God's characteristics as well as loose definitions. *
> 
> What is the difference between paradox and contradiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the thing.
> 
> That NEWLY bolded part in your new post here?
> 
> Is an assertion that God even exists.
> 
> If he doesn't, it is FALSE and at the very least - un provable.
> 
> The problem was, that you used the term "proves," - in which case, that to which you were referring was an assertion and NOT a proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're discussing how omnipotence works. Also you need to look up the answer to my question.
Click to expand...


Your question is irrelevant because we haven't even established that the paradox of omnipotence even EXISTS, let alone calling it PROOF that man's knowledge of God is incomplete.

You used the term proof very very loosely, that is the initial breaking point of your commentary on the paradox.

It itself (the paradox) hasn't even been proven to exist; therefore, cannot be used as a foundation of PROOF of ANYthing.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!
> 
> Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.
> 
> You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power.
> 
> Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.
Click to expand...


Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Here's the answer: your premise is false because it uses a wrong definition of omnipotent.


----------



## MaxGrit

Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!
> 
> Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.
> 
> You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Omnipotent's english definition is having unlimited power.
> 
> Either logic is incomplete, or omnipotence doesn't exist. There is NO PROOF that either is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. Here's the answer: your premise is false because it uses a wrong definition of omnipotent.
Click to expand...


It's not a fallacy, it's a difference of opinion on what a term is defined as. 

Fortunately for me, that you don't get to decide the definitions of any words means that my comments were not fallacious. Thnxx.


----------



## Derideo_Te

G.T. said:


> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.



The absolute of omniscience is also a fun topic to discuss since that implies all knowledge of the past, present and future. So if the future were to change then an omniscient being would already be aware of that change and of what the future would have been like had it not changed and what the future is now like because of that change. Therefore an omniscient being would know all possible futures no matter how infinitesimal each of those changes might be. So if a bacterium were to die instead of living that would be known. Take a step further to the point of whether or not a particular atom joins to become a molecule. That is no longer knowledge but merely an accumulation of data. Knowledge implies that there is value to the data itself. The Universe contains all of the data about every atom, molecule and bacteria but does that equate to Knowledge?

Is the Universe omniscient or merely the repository of all data? The latter is the logical choice but it then begs the question of what being would be capable


MaxGrit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> God's omnipotent means that God can do anything that is logically possible. God cannot do or create things that are by their nature self-contradictory.
> 
> Ex. God cannot create a triangle with 4 sides, a square circle, or make a rock so heavy he can't lift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that your God is not omnipotent!
> 
> Omnipotence includes the ability to defy logic because if you cannot defy logic that means that is an ability you lack and therefore are not omnipotent because you are forced to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> BTW religious websites are not credible in this instance since they are biased. You will need an unbiased source if you wish to be credible on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak straw man fallacy. Step up your game. I'm getting bored.
> 
> You are using the word wrong. You need to learn the definition of omnipotent.
Click to expand...


omnipotent - definition of omnipotent by The Free Dictionary



> om·nip·o·tent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m-n
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nt)
> _adj._





> Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.
> _n._
> *1. *One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
> *2. Omnipotent* God. Used with _the._



Onus is on you to prove that your definition overrides the dictionary definition.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
Click to expand...

 
But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
Click to expand...

I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> My morality is wholly subjective, as is yours.  Some aspects of morality might achieve the appearance of being objective and absolute because they are overwhelmingly supported by broad subjective consensus,
> 
> but they remain subjective conclusions nonetheless.
> 
> The fact that you cannot name a genuinely absolute moral standard is ample evidence of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all is subjective than nothing is objective, and there could be no such thing as objective evidence.  Not only would the delineation of morality be impossible, but the enterprises of communication, mathematics, geometry and science would be impossible.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute.  The laws of logic are irrefutable:  A = A (identity), A = not-A (contradiction), A or ~A (the excluded middle).
> 
> I already established what the absolute standard for morality is: the ramifications of the universally absolute laws of logic grounded in the being of God.  It's you will not and cannot justify your moral mumbo-jumbo.  Check?
> 
> Normative relativism/universal subjectivism:  there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.  Normative relativism/universal subjectivism is rank irrationalism.  If all is relative, which it is clearly an inherently self-negating and contradictory assertion, than nothing can be credibly asserted to be true, including 1 + 1 = 2.
> 
> And that ends my dialogue with you cognitive psychopaths of relativism who seem to be operating under the impression that prominent atheists in the hard sciences are operational relativists.  They are not and have nothing but contempt for you relativist ninnies.
> 
> *Foxfyre*, scripture draws a distinction between those to whom the intimate things of God are foolishness as these things go the a higher order of revelatory knowledge of salvation and fellowship in Christ, not to the universally apparent imperatives of human consciousness.  The persons who can no longer make out the latter are those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind, a form of psychopathy, due to their prolonged, habitual denial of these fundamental imperatives.  Only a relatively small number of the atheists on this forum are not reprobate minds.  .
Click to expand...


I asked you, repeatedly, for a moral absolute.  An example.  One.  You failed to provide one.  And interestingly, you managed to produce about 5000 words of type failing to provide one.

Now, if I missed it,  please reproduce it.  In one short sentence or phrase.  Please.  It was afterall your claim, and a key element in the argument you were making...


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.


It's irrelevant.

Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists. 

Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.


----------



## MaxGrit

Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.

Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory. 

Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
Click to expand...


Absolutely ghey!  loll


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant.
> 
> Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists.
> 
> Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.
Click to expand...


Your argument is irrelevant due to lack of logic.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.
> 
> Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.
> 
> Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.



No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily *exist* to create said contradiction. 

In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality. 

That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please look up the difference between a paradox and a contradiction.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant.
> 
> Whether you're calling it the omnipotence paradox or the omnipotence contradiction - neither serves as PROOF that the paradox OR the contradiction even EXISTS, therefore cannot serve as PROOF that man is incomplete in his knowledge of God OR that God even exists.
> 
> Your comment was logically meaningless, in summary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is irrelevant due to lack of logic.
Click to expand...

That's a substance-less cop-out. 

My argument is sound, yours was the one on shaky ground in that you used the term proof where it couldn't, logically, belong. And there's a record of that.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^
Click to expand...

 
I'm not really sure what you were saying.  If we follow Descartes then how do you know anything beyond yourself exists?  You can't.  You can only know that you exist and you may be hallucinating everything.  Saying this does not apply to the mug really means nothing since all you have to connect with the outside world is your brain connected to your senses.  If the mug exists only in your mind, then the mug is your mind.

This really is the problem with Descartes.  He takes us to a place where we are paralyzed by uncertainty.  It does, however, point out the need for compromise.  At some point you have to be willing to say "that is enough information to say we know it."


----------



## MaxGrit

Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.


 
That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind of a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you were saying.  If we follow Descartes then how do you know anything beyond yourself exists?  You can't.  You can only know that you exist and you may be hallucinating everything.  Saying this does not apply to the mug really means nothing since all you have to connect with the outside world is your brain connected to your senses.  If the mug exists only in your mind, then the mug is your mind.
> 
> This really is the problem with Descartes.  He takes us to a place where we are paralyzed by uncertainty.  It does, however, point out the need for compromise.  At some point you have to be willing to say "that is enough information to say we know it."
Click to expand...



Dude,

I said this:

"I think therefore I am" o*nly refers to your thinking*, *not what you're sensing* in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.




We are saying the same thing, and you're posting as though we disagree on that. 

You need coffee.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.


This is not english, and is not supported.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.
> 
> Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.
> 
> Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily *exist* to create said contradiction.
> 
> In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.
> 
> That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.
Click to expand...


The whole point is that most people didn't know the correct definition of omnipotent.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.
> 
> Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.
> 
> Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily *exist* to create said contradiction.
> 
> In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.
> 
> That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is that most people didn't know the correct definition of omnipotent.
Click to expand...



That doesn't  get you over the fallacy I pointed out to you:

that God not being proven to exist means that humans lacking understanding of his "omnipotence" has not been PROVEN either, as you said it has.

Jeebus christmas


----------



## G.T.

Something unproven cannot serve as proof of something else. 

I should have just went with that and avoided your pseudo tap-dancing responses because they honestly wasted a lot of time, here. ugh


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it makes a huge difference what the definitions of words are.
> 
> Your definition of omnipotent is self-contradictory.
> 
> Therefore all arguments that uses that definition of omnipotent are automatically fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily *exist* to create said contradiction.
> 
> In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.
> 
> That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point is that most people didn't know the correct definition of omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't  get you over the fallacy I pointed out to you:
> 
> that God not being proven to exist means that humans lacking understanding of his "omnipotence" has not been PROVEN either, as you said it has.
> 
> Jeebus christmas
Click to expand...


Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence

LoL. No one is trying to prove anything. It's all in your head.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> Something unproven cannot serve as proof of something else.
> 
> I should have just went with that and avoided your pseudo tap-dancing responses because they honestly wasted a lot of time, here. ugh



LoL. That's how I feel.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
> 
> LoL. *No one is trying to prove anything*. It's all in your head.



"They *prove* that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature." - maxgrit



So again, for the comprehension deficient:

They (irresistible force vs. the immovable object) do not _"*prove* (yes, your words) that man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature."

Here is why:

God isn't proven to exist, therefore his nature cannot be used as a proof of anything.
Immovable objects are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as a proof of anything.
Irresistible forces are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as proof of anything. 

_
Your sentence has been soundly proven illogical. If you disagree, your basis of knowledge is broken and you're irrelevant to these discussions.


----------



## MaxGrit

Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
Omnipotent God

Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited. 

A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1 

Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”

“Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.” 

“Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make excellent points.  I really can't argue with the essence of it.  People are attempting to prove the existence of something they have no information on, thus we don't even know what evidence would be evidence.
> 
> With due respect to Descartes, I have never felt comfortable with going that far with the concept of knowledge.  For practical purposes, it leaves us nowhere.  There is a coffee mug sitting in front of me right now.  I am quite comfortable saying I know that it is there.  However, from a macro perspective it is so small as to be non-existent.  From a micro perspective it is essentially vacuum and thus non-existent.  Neither of those perspectives will hold my coffee, which is seriously inconvenient.  So I am content with accepting my less than perfect senses in order to meet my daily caffine requirements.
> 
> I've also thought the phrase itself, cognito ergo sum - I think therefore I am - doesn't capture the true nature of human thought.  I prefer ego ergo sum - I'm fabulous therefore I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you were saying.  If we follow Descartes then how do you know anything beyond yourself exists?  You can't.  You can only know that you exist and you may be hallucinating everything.  Saying this does not apply to the mug really means nothing since all you have to connect with the outside world is your brain connected to your senses.  If the mug exists only in your mind, then the mug is your mind.
> 
> This really is the problem with Descartes.  He takes us to a place where we are paralyzed by uncertainty.  It does, however, point out the need for compromise.  At some point you have to be willing to say "that is enough information to say we know it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,
> 
> I said this:
> 
> "I think therefore I am" o*nly refers to your thinking*, *not what you're sensing* in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are saying the same thing, and you're posting as though we disagree on that.
> 
> You need coffee.
Click to expand...

 
Cognito ergo sum comes from Descartes and that is not what he was saying.  He was talking about what we could actually know.  Further, there is no separation between your senses and your thinking.  Bioelectrical pulses do travel through your nervous system but your senses actually occur within your brain as an interpretation of those pulses.  They cannot be considered as separate from your thoughts.

But yes, I still need coffee.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
> 
> LoL. *No one is trying to prove anything*. It's all in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They *prove* that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature." - maxgrit
> 
> 
> 
> So again, for the comprehension deficient:
> 
> They (irresistible force vs. the immovable object) do not _"*prove* (yes, your words) that man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature."
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God isn't proven to exist, therefore his nature cannot be used as a proof of anything.
> Immovable objects are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as a proof of anything.
> Irresistible forces are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as proof of anything.
> 
> _
> Your sentence has been soundly proven illogical. If you disagree, your basis of knowledge is broken and you're irrelevant to these discussions.
Click to expand...


You need to read in context of the whole argument. What is proven is the lack of knowledge of the man that is making that argument. Geez.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
> Omnipotent God
> 
> Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
> We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.
> 
> A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1
> 
> Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
> 
> “Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
> It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”
> 
> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent





This is a description of an unproven entity. It serves no purpose, except to say that Biblical omnipotence and the English word omnipotence are defined different which defeats any paradox that a reader might think is created within the Bible and its description of God's characteristics. 

It doesn't serve a purpose in the discussion of a sound, valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God. 

At all. 

Not even a tiny teeny weency lil' bit.


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that it leaves us wanting, but it cannot be refuted.
> 
> The mug is not you, so it doesn't apply to the mug. "I think therefore I am" only refers to your thinking, not what you're sensing in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> It is simplistic, which is why it leaves you wanting - but if "you weren't," then "you" couldn't be sitting there thinking "am I, or am I not."
> 
> This doesn't prove the existence of anyone else, either. Just yourself. But - it proves yourself, to yourself, and to you is an absolute.
> 
> 
> edit: 5 senses, wow bruce willis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the basic thesis of Descartes was that our senses can lie, therefore the only thing we can truly know is that we exist and that only because we are knowing it.  The mug may exist or it may not and I have no way of knowing this for certain.  This, however, does not get me my caffeine fix.  My cup of coffee (Sumatran dark roast with a touch of honey brewed in a French press) is an absolute.  It may, in fact, be the closest thing we are going to find as evidence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the same things you just, said in my post that you quoted^^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you were saying.  If we follow Descartes then how do you know anything beyond yourself exists?  You can't.  You can only know that you exist and you may be hallucinating everything.  Saying this does not apply to the mug really means nothing since all you have to connect with the outside world is your brain connected to your senses.  If the mug exists only in your mind, then the mug is your mind.
> 
> This really is the problem with Descartes.  He takes us to a place where we are paralyzed by uncertainty.  It does, however, point out the need for compromise.  At some point you have to be willing to say "that is enough information to say we know it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude,
> 
> I said this:
> 
> "I think therefore I am" o*nly refers to your thinking*, *not what you're sensing* in terms of your incomplete 5 senses, and their relativity to what is real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are saying the same thing, and you're posting as though we disagree on that.
> 
> You need coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cognito ergo sum comes from Descartes and that is not what he was saying.  He was talking about what we could actually know.  Further, there is no separation between your senses and your thinking.  Bioelectrical pulses do travel through your nervous system but your senses actually occur within your brain as an interpretation of those pulses.  They cannot be considered as separate from your thoughts.
> 
> But yes, I still need coffee.
Click to expand...


Well, that's irrelevant unless someone is saying "i think therefore I am, therefore also *all* of my thinking is valid."

Because you can misinterpret your sense and your senses can also be wrong.

Still, "I think therefore I am" is an absolute.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence
> 
> LoL. *No one is trying to prove anything*. It's all in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They *prove* that Man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature." - maxgrit
> 
> 
> 
> So again, for the comprehension deficient:
> 
> They (irresistible force vs. the immovable object) do not _"*prove* (yes, your words) that man has an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of this aspect of God's nature."
> 
> Here is why:
> 
> God isn't proven to exist, therefore his nature cannot be used as a proof of anything.
> Immovable objects are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as a proof of anything.
> Irresistible forces are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be used as proof of anything.
> 
> _
> Your sentence has been soundly proven illogical. If you disagree, your basis of knowledge is broken and you're irrelevant to these discussions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read in context of the whole argument. What is proven is the lack of knowledge of the man that is making that argument. Geez.
Click to expand...


No, it is not PROVEN.

The KNOWLEDGE of the nature of God is NOT proven to exist, so it cannot be PROVEN then that a man doesn't fully understand it (god's nature). That's a fallacy.



To know that, answer this:

Can you lack knowledge of the nature of something that doesn't even exist?


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
> Omnipotent God
> 
> Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
> We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.
> 
> A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1
> 
> Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
> 
> “Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
> It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”
> 
> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a description of an unproven entity. It serves no purpose, except to say that Biblical omnipotence and the English word omnipotence are defined different which defeats any paradox that a reader might think is created within the Bible and its description of God's characteristics.
> 
> It doesn't serve a purpose in the discussion of a sound, valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.
> 
> At all.
> 
> Not even a tiny teeny weency lil' bit.
Click to expand...


Dude your logic is fallacious.

Argument from ignorance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

Overview

Basic argument

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not "wait" upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some[2] to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy.

To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons.

Matters of confusion

Much confusion about arguments from ignorance can be caused when one side of a debate forgets that we often possess evidence of absence in practice.

The ignorance fallacy is sometimes confused (or combined) with logically valid contrapositive arguments. Contrapositive arguments rightly utilize the transposition rule of inference in classical logic to conclude something like: To the extent that C implies E then Not-E must also imply Not-C. In other words, if a cause always leads to an effect, then absence of the expected effect is evidence of absence of the cause. For example, if the causal proposition that If it's raining outside then the streets will be wet is assumed, then it can be assumed that if the streets are not wet then it is not raining outside. The inference that it cannot be raining outside because the streets are not getting wet is exactly as true, or perhaps exactly as untrue, as the original proposition. The statements are logically equivalent.

Carl Sagan explains in his book The Demon-Haunted World:

Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[3]

For instance, absence of evidence that it rained (i.e. water is the evidence) may be considered as positive evidence that it did not rain. Again, in science, such inferences are always made to some limited (sometimes extremely high) degree of probability and in this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the positive evidence should have been there but is not.

Arguments from ignorance can easily find their way into debates over the existence of God. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based precisely on ignorance, since this does not satisfactorily address issues of philosophic burden of proof. But null results are not ignorance and can be used as evidence to achieve a given burden of proof.

Related terms

Contraposition and transposition

Contraposition is a logically valid rule of inference that allows the creation of a new proposition from the negation and reordering of an existing one. The method applies to any proposition of the type If A then B and says that negating all the variables and switching them back to front leads to a new proposition i.e. If Not-B then Not-A that is just as true as the original one and that the first implies the second and the second implies the first.

Transposition is exactly the same thing described in a different language.

Absence of evidence

Absence of evidence is the absence, or lack of, any kind of evidence that may show, indicate, suggest, or be used to infer or deduce a fact.
Evidence of absence

Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that can be used to infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something. For instance, if a doctor does not find any malignant cells in a patient this null result (finding nothing) is evidence of absence of cancer, even though the doctor has not actually detected anything per se. Such inductive reasoning is important to empiricism and science, but has well established limitations. The challenge thus becomes to try to identify when a researcher has received a null result (found nothing) because the thing does not exist (evidence of absence - objectively negative result), and when one simply lacks proper means of detection (absence of evidence - false negative).

Negative evidence

Negative evidence is sometimes used as an alternative to absence of evidence and is often meant to be synonymous with it. On the other hand, the term may also refer to evidence with a negative value, or null result equivalent to evidence of absence. It may even refer to positive evidence about something of an unpleasant nature.

Null result

Null result is a term often used in the field of science to indicate evidence of absence. A search for water on the ground may yield a null result (the ground is dry); therefore, it probably did not rain.

Related arguments

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)

Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.
In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it. (See Contraposition and Transposition in the Related terms section in this article.)

Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence

Absence of evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing, but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.

Formal argument

By determining that a given experiment or method of detection is sensitive and reliable enough to detect the presence of X (when X is present) one can confidently exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. This allows one to deduce that X cannot be present if a null result is received.

Thus there are only two possibilities, given a null result:

Nothing detected, and X is not present.
Nothing detected, but X is present (option eliminated by careful research design).
To the extent that option 2 can be eliminated, one can deduce that if X is not detected then X is not present and therefore the null result is evidence of absence.

Examples

Absence of evidence

(These examples contain or represent missing information.)

Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
Negative results

When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
The results of Michelson–Morley's experiment reported no shift at all in the interference pattern.
Evidence of absence

(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)

A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
The null result found by Michelson–Morley's famous experiment represents "strong evidence" that the luminiferous aether was not present.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no tigers.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.
Arguments from ignorance

(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)

"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942)
In the field of science

One looks in the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos and then uses this negative/null adult-sized kangaroo detection results in conjunction with the previously determined fact (or just plain old proposition) that adult-sized kangaroos, if present, cannot evade such detection, to deduce a new fact that there are indeed no adult-sized kangaroos present in the back seat of said car.
Principles in law

The presumption of innocence, if present, effectively removes the possibility that the accused may be both guilty and unproven, from consideration in judgment, and as such the accused is considered as innocent unless proven guilty. (See decision table below)
Innocent and guilt is unproven. Judged as innocent.
Innocent and guilt is proven. Judged as guilty. (Jury is biased, misled, makes error; law is incorrect; false evidence fabricated etc.)
Guilty and guilt is unproven. Judged as innocent. (Presumption of innocence)
Guilty and guilt is proven. Judged as guilty. (Innocent unless/until proven guilty is a summary of this and easier to remember.)
Origin of the term

From Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings by Hans V. Hansen, Robert C. Pinto:

"It is generally accepted that the philosopher John Locke introduced the term in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding:"
"Another way that Men ordinarily use to drive others, and force them to submit their Judgments. And receive the Opinion in debate, is to require the Adversary to admit what they alledge as a Proof, or assign a better. And this I call Argumentum ad Ignorantum" — John Locke[4]


----------



## G.T.

It's only an argument from ignorance if God is proven. 

Gluck with that.


----------



## MaxGrit

How is God Omnipotent Omnipresent and Omniscient 

How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?

The Bible teaches:

24 God is Spirit (John 4:24).

Because God is spirit, this helps explain why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Notice a couple of comments from two books:

Both God and the Word (who became Christ) have existed eternally and before all else. From them emanates the Spirit of God, by which God is omnipresent and omniscient. God the Father is the divine Father of the God family, into which truly converted Christians shall be born. (Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York. 1985 ,p. 57)

"In the Beginning-GOD" God had to be there first because He made everything that ever was. (Genesis 1: 1.) Probably one of the first things you wonder about God is where He came from. He didn't come from anywhere. He has always existed.' It is hard for us to understand. We must remember that "the secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever" (Deuteronomy 29:29). God always was anJ He always will be. (Revelation 1:8.)(Wolverton B. RadioCG, 1961, pp. 2-3)

God has always existed. Notice also what God's name is:

13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-15)

Before there was a universe, there was God.

In 2007, Wallace Smith had an article published titled God and the "Three 'O's. It begins with:

Is God omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? In answering such questions, we should always begin with another question: “What does the Bible teach on these matters?” If our beliefs are not rooted in God’s inspired word, they are not beliefs worth having!...

Is God Omnipotent?

This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).

The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).

It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of “almighty”—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), and He “cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!

There is no limit to the power of God. A search I did in the NKJV revealed that God was referred to as "Almighty" 48 times in the Hebrew scriptures and 9 times in the Greek scriptures, a total of 57 mentions in the Holy Bible. This is a point that God wants humankind to clearly understand.

The article continued with:

Is God Omnipresent?

Correctly understood, the question of God’s omnipotence has historically caused little controversy. The term omnipresent, however, has caused more trouble. Basically, being omnipresent means being present everywhere at the same time. Can this term be applied to God? What does Scripture tell us?

Ask yourself: is there any physical location in this universe where we can hide from the presence of God? The answer, according to Scripture, is a resounding “No!” In fact, King David posed this question directly, asking: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).

David answers the question beautifully: it is futile to search for a place to hide from the presence of God (and it is unwise to try—just ask Jonah!). In this sense, God’s infallible word shows that He is omnipresent—within His vast creation, there is no place where you can hide from His presence.

Still, we must be careful with our terms! Many have tried to twist God’s omnipresence to portray Him as some kind of shapeless “blob”—even though the Bible clearly shows that God has a body and a shape—and it is a shape like ours! Consider Genesis 1:26, which tells us that man is made in God’s image and likeness—words that do convey a sense of shape. We do not use human philosophies to avoid the clear statements of Scripture! Consider, as well, the passage in which God says unambiguously that He has a face, a hand and a back (Exodus 33:18–23)! The only way to understand this passage from Exodus without making a mockery of God’s word is to agree that God has a shape and a body!

So, how is God “everywhere”? We already read the answer, in David’s words: “Where can I go from your Spirit?” (Psalm 139:7). It is by their Spirit that the Father and the glorified Christ have complete access to their creation! Through His Spirit, God’s reach extends to every nook and cranny of the universe, and there is—as David wrote—no place to flee from His presence. Yet He still retains a shape—a body—ruling in glory from His throne in heaven. It is from there that “His eyes behold” the sons of men (Psalm 11:4).

We must also note that although God is omnipresent through His Spirit, we can become separated from Him. In fact, we are warned, “your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2). Jesus Christ experienced this horrible separation during His crucifixion, when on our behalf He took upon Himself the full penalty of our sins (cf. Mark 15:34; Isaiah 53:4–5).

The world’s scholars and theologians often have a wrong idea about God’s omnipresence. But if we let God’s flawless word teach us what God’s omnipresence truly means, our footing is made sure.

God is everywhere, in the known, and unknown universe.  And the Spirit of God is infinite.

The article continued with:

Is God Omniscient?

Having considered God’s omnipotence and His omnipresence, we can address the most troublesome of the “Three ‘O’s”— His omniscience. Is God omniscient?

Philosophers and theologians have debated this question over the millennia. Were you to read what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says about God’s omniscience, you would find more philosophical gobbledygook than you may have seen in your entire life. So, before we determine whether or not God is omniscient, we need to recognize that the world has some weird and conflicting ideas about what this word means. Why is there so much confusion?

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) offers this definition of omniscient: “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.” That is quite a mouthful; what does it mean to have “complete or unlimited knowledge”? Scholars disagree about what it means, but if we let the lamp of God’s word light our path and guide our steps (Psalm 119:105), we can know the truth of the matter.

The Bible tells us that God does perceive all things, which means that no fact can be hidden from His knowledge. As King David recognized: “Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:12). God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge—not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21). In fact, He understands our own intentions better than we do (cf. Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)! As Paul explains, “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

Human beings perceive through the senses, but there are limits to what the senses let us perceive and understand. But God’s senses are not limited like ours! His Spirit searches all things (1 Corinthians 2:10), and nothing is beyond God’s ability to perceive it. In this sense, He is omniscient. Nothing can escape His gaze and His knowledge. If it can be known, He knows it!

But if we are to use the word omniscient to describe our Father and His glorified Son, it cannot mean that God knows our every choice before we make it in every circumstance, because Scripture tells us otherwise! For example, the Bible shows that when God gave Abraham the supreme test of sacrificing his son Isaac, He did not know until that moment whether Abraham would choose to obey. Upon seeing his choice, He told Abraham: “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12). This was one of the most crucial points in the history of faith and in the plan of God! It was a challenge so intense, and involving such faith, that God did not know what choice Abraham would make.

Most of the choices we make each day may be rather predictable. Parents with young children can see this for themselves. If a parent can often predict a young child’s choices, how much more can the One who sees all—even the intent of our heart, which we sometimes do not know ourselves—predict our choices? Yet the Bible reveals that God does arrange circumstances to challenge our character— to help us to grow—where the outcome is not so predictable. When we choose, we participate with God in the creation of our character. We have a role to play in God’s creation of His character within us, as He prepares us to become future members of His Family! We should not allow vain philosophy to rob us of this truth.

It is not that God cannot determine the future. He can, and He does! We read: “Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure’” (Isaiah 46:9–10).

Yet this passage shows that declaring the end from the beginning is not just a function of “seeing” what is “destined” to happen. Continuing in Isaiah, we read that God acts and intervenes in history to accomplish His ends, “calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it” (v. 11).

We can say with confidence that God is omniscient. But we must allow the Bible to define what omniscient means. Let the world’s theologians and philosophers wander from the path of Scripture in their pointless arguments if they choose—we need not follow them!

The Godhead Inhabits Eternity

The Bible reveals that God is eternal. Notice what God is called:

27 The eternal God (Deuteronomy 33:27).

God also does not change and will be around always:

27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. (Psalm 102:27)

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Notice the further the following:

13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:13-14).

Thus, even the name that God identified Himself as "I am who I am" signifies eternity.

The Bible reveals that the eternal power of the Godhead should be obvious:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

This does not mean that humans fully understand the eternity of the Godhead, but that there should be enough evidence of His existence that logical people will realize that His eternal attributes are partially understood through what God has made (an article of related interest may be Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God's Existence Logical).

In Isaiah 57:15 it states that God "inhabits eternity." Now eternity is a difficult concept for humans to fully grasp. While most of us seem to have no problem envisioning that we could live forever, the idea of something not having a physical beginning is totally foreign to our lives' experiences.

Notice that God does understand this:

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

26 Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him; Nor can the number of His years be discovered (Job 36:26).

5 He does great things which we cannot comprehend. (Job 37:5)

8 And to God I would commit my cause—8 Who does great things, and unsearchable, Marvelous things without number (Job 5:8-9).

So we see that God put eternity in human hearts and God is infinite, but that we cannot fully understand even the work that God does from the beginning to the end. It is beyond our ability to grasp at this time. Yet the Bible reveals:

18 Known to God from eternity are all His works (Acts 15:18).

Thus it is clear that God knows all His works from eternity, but that there are some things that humans simply cannot fully understand.

It also seems to be able to be beyond our ability to grasp the entire universe (cf. Jeremiah 31:32). Like God, the dimensions of the universe have no beginning and have no end. And if one concludes that empty space is the end, where does the empty space end?

Of course, it does not.

Thus, just like no one can go to one end or the other of the universe, no one can get to the beginning or the end of the Godhead. So even though the idea of an endless universe can be within our hearts and minds, it is a concept, like the eternity of God, that is difficult for humans to fully understand.

God is Love

Even though God is immortal, how was it possible for God to inhabit eternity? The answer also seems to be found in the Bible.

First read the following:

23 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4, KJV). For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).

15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Because the Godhead does not ever sin, the Godhead never has to die and is thus capable of living eternally (Jesus only died because He allowed Himself to do so, see Matthew 26:53). Only a sinless being could exist without a beginning. Do you know that Jesus taught the following?

17 But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17).

17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' So Jesus said to him...19 "You know the commandments" (Mark 10:17,19)

And in Mark's account he then He listed half of the ten commandments (also in Luke 18:19-20). (An article of related interest may be What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments?, Protestants may also wish to read What Did Paul Actually Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differ from most Protestants.)What does the Bible say is the love of God requires of us?

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3).

(An article of related possible interest may be Was the Commandment to Love the Only Command?)

Who is God? Notice that God is love:

8 God is love (1 John 4:8).

Also notice that there is no fear of judgment in love:

16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment (1 John 4:16-18).

The reason that the Godhead was able to exist from eternity is because that the Godhead is love--anything other than love would eventually destruct. There was no fear in love. No fear of destruction nor any adverse judgment. Also:

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor (Romans 13:10).

Notice what what was inspired to write about aspects of love:

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. NKJV (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a).

Because God is love, the Godhead was able to exist from eternity. Because God is love, God has a plan to share His love and offer salvation to all.

Notice:

8...God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:8c-10).

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:16-17).

We humans do not possess perfect love, hence there are still some things we do not fully grasp, but because of the love of God we will have the ability to do so. Because God is love, God has been able to inhabit eternity.

The going back to the God and the "Three 'O's article, it concluded with:

The Final Word

So, what does God’s word teach us? We learn from Scripture that God is omnipotent—or “almighty”—such that no part of creation can escape His influence or authority. We see that God—through His Spirit—is omnipresent, such that no part of creation can escape His presence. And we understand that God—perceiving all things—is omniscient, such that no part of creation can escape His knowledge...

But is there any practical use for this knowledge? Yes, absolutely! We should never forget that God has called us to become His full sons and daughters, to share His level of existence with us for all eternity. Just as these characteristics— amazing power, access to all of the universe and perception of all things—apply to Christ and the Father now, they one day will apply to us!

As John wrote in his epistle, “everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:3). The more clearly we can see our awesome calling, the better we can put this present life into perspective. So, for those who wish to purify themselves, understanding the nature of the God Family has more practical application than you might at first assume!

As we seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, let us be motivated by our high calling and our ultimate destiny! We must avoid the snares and pretensions of this world’s philosophers, and instead let God teach us truthfully of His glory, that we may one day share it with Him.

God is all powerful, everywhere, and all knowing. God is Spirit, and because of that, is capable of being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

While some of this is not possible for humans to understand, we need to realize that God, who has always existed, has unlimited understanding:

5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)

Since the Bible teaches that Christians can enter the God family, the time will come when our own understanding about all matters is greatly increased as well.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> How is God Omnipotent Omnipresent and Omniscient
> 
> How is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?
> 
> The Bible teaches:
> 
> 24 God is Spirit (John 4:24).
> 
> Because God is spirit, this helps explain why God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Notice a couple of comments from two books:
> 
> Both God and the Word (who became Christ) have existed eternally and before all else. From them emanates the Spirit of God, by which God is omnipresent and omniscient. God the Father is the divine Father of the God family, into which truly converted Christians shall be born. (Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, New York. 1985 ,p. 57)
> 
> "In the Beginning-GOD" God had to be there first because He made everything that ever was. (Genesis 1: 1.) Probably one of the first things you wonder about God is where He came from. He didn't come from anywhere. He has always existed.' It is hard for us to understand. We must remember that "the secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever" (Deuteronomy 29:29). God always was anJ He always will be. (Revelation 1:8.)(Wolverton B. RadioCG, 1961, pp. 2-3)
> 
> God has always existed. Notice also what God's name is:
> 
> 13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-15)
> 
> Before there was a universe, there was God.
> 
> In 2007, Wallace Smith had an article published titled God and the "Three 'O's. It begins with:
> 
> Is God omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? In answering such questions, we should always begin with another question: “What does the Bible teach on these matters?” If our beliefs are not rooted in God’s inspired word, they are not beliefs worth having!...
> 
> Is God Omnipotent?
> 
> This is, perhaps, the easiest of the three to answer: Yes, God is omnipotent! There is even a verse that, in the King James Version and New King James Version, uses this very word: “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6).
> 
> The Greek word translated as “Omnipotent” here is pantokrator, meaning “All-ruling” or (as it is more frequently translated) “Almighty.” When we say God is “Almighty,” we are stating our belief in His authority and rulership over all creation, and the Bible is firm in declaring this fact. Even though Satan is now the “god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it belongs to him only because Almighty God has granted it to Him: “And the devil said to Him, ‘All this authority [over all the kingdoms of this world] I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish’” (Luke 4:6).
> 
> It is God who ultimately reigns in the universe, and all legitimate authority must derive from Him. If we let Scripture tell us of God’s authority, we must agree that He has all authority to do all His pleasure (Isaiah 46:10–11), and to see to the fulfillment of His plans without fail. If we accept the Scriptural definition of “almighty”—and we must accept no other!—we can rightly call God omnipotent. Indeed, Christ says clearly that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
> 
> However, if we were to insist that omnipotent meant God could do anything and everything at all, we would need to reject that description, because His word says He cannot! For example, God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), and He “cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). The Bible clearly shows that God cannot act contrary to His nature. But do these “cannots” mean He is not omnipotent—not almighty? Not if we let Scripture define its own terms!
> 
> There is no limit to the power of God. A search I did in the NKJV revealed that God was referred to as "Almighty" 48 times in the Hebrew scriptures and 9 times in the Greek scriptures, a total of 57 mentions in the Holy Bible. This is a point that God wants humankind to clearly understand.
> 
> The article continued with:
> 
> Is God Omnipresent?
> 
> Correctly understood, the question of God’s omnipotence has historically caused little controversy. The term omnipresent, however, has caused more trouble. Basically, being omnipresent means being present everywhere at the same time. Can this term be applied to God? What does Scripture tell us?
> 
> Ask yourself: is there any physical location in this universe where we can hide from the presence of God? The answer, according to Scripture, is a resounding “No!” In fact, King David posed this question directly, asking: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [the grave], behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me” (Psalm 139:7–10).
> 
> David answers the question beautifully: it is futile to search for a place to hide from the presence of God (and it is unwise to try—just ask Jonah!). In this sense, God’s infallible word shows that He is omnipresent—within His vast creation, there is no place where you can hide from His presence.
> 
> Still, we must be careful with our terms! Many have tried to twist God’s omnipresence to portray Him as some kind of shapeless “blob”—even though the Bible clearly shows that God has a body and a shape—and it is a shape like ours! Consider Genesis 1:26, which tells us that man is made in God’s image and likeness—words that do convey a sense of shape. We do not use human philosophies to avoid the clear statements of Scripture! Consider, as well, the passage in which God says unambiguously that He has a face, a hand and a back (Exodus 33:18–23)! The only way to understand this passage from Exodus without making a mockery of God’s word is to agree that God has a shape and a body!
> 
> So, how is God “everywhere”? We already read the answer, in David’s words: “Where can I go from your Spirit?” (Psalm 139:7). It is by their Spirit that the Father and the glorified Christ have complete access to their creation! Through His Spirit, God’s reach extends to every nook and cranny of the universe, and there is—as David wrote—no place to flee from His presence. Yet He still retains a shape—a body—ruling in glory from His throne in heaven. It is from there that “His eyes behold” the sons of men (Psalm 11:4).
> 
> We must also note that although God is omnipresent through His Spirit, we can become separated from Him. In fact, we are warned, “your iniquities have separated you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2). Jesus Christ experienced this horrible separation during His crucifixion, when on our behalf He took upon Himself the full penalty of our sins (cf. Mark 15:34; Isaiah 53:4–5).
> 
> The world’s scholars and theologians often have a wrong idea about God’s omnipresence. But if we let God’s flawless word teach us what God’s omnipresence truly means, our footing is made sure.
> 
> God is everywhere, in the known, and unknown universe.  And the Spirit of God is infinite.
> 
> The article continued with:
> 
> Is God Omniscient?
> 
> Having considered God’s omnipotence and His omnipresence, we can address the most troublesome of the “Three ‘O’s”— His omniscience. Is God omniscient?
> 
> Philosophers and theologians have debated this question over the millennia. Were you to read what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says about God’s omniscience, you would find more philosophical gobbledygook than you may have seen in your entire life. So, before we determine whether or not God is omniscient, we need to recognize that the world has some weird and conflicting ideas about what this word means. Why is there so much confusion?
> 
> The Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) offers this definition of omniscient: “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.” That is quite a mouthful; what does it mean to have “complete or unlimited knowledge”? Scholars disagree about what it means, but if we let the lamp of God’s word light our path and guide our steps (Psalm 119:105), we can know the truth of the matter.
> 
> The Bible tells us that God does perceive all things, which means that no fact can be hidden from His knowledge. As King David recognized: “Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:12). God sees all things, and nothing can be hidden from His knowledge—not even the secret intentions of the heart (Psalm 44:21). In fact, He understands our own intentions better than we do (cf. Jeremiah 17:9-10; Hebrews 4:12)! As Paul explains, “there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).
> 
> Human beings perceive through the senses, but there are limits to what the senses let us perceive and understand. But God’s senses are not limited like ours! His Spirit searches all things (1 Corinthians 2:10), and nothing is beyond God’s ability to perceive it. In this sense, He is omniscient. Nothing can escape His gaze and His knowledge. If it can be known, He knows it!
> 
> But if we are to use the word omniscient to describe our Father and His glorified Son, it cannot mean that God knows our every choice before we make it in every circumstance, because Scripture tells us otherwise! For example, the Bible shows that when God gave Abraham the supreme test of sacrificing his son Isaac, He did not know until that moment whether Abraham would choose to obey. Upon seeing his choice, He told Abraham: “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me” (Genesis 22:12). This was one of the most crucial points in the history of faith and in the plan of God! It was a challenge so intense, and involving such faith, that God did not know what choice Abraham would make.
> 
> Most of the choices we make each day may be rather predictable. Parents with young children can see this for themselves. If a parent can often predict a young child’s choices, how much more can the One who sees all—even the intent of our heart, which we sometimes do not know ourselves—predict our choices? Yet the Bible reveals that God does arrange circumstances to challenge our character— to help us to grow—where the outcome is not so predictable. When we choose, we participate with God in the creation of our character. We have a role to play in God’s creation of His character within us, as He prepares us to become future members of His Family! We should not allow vain philosophy to rob us of this truth.
> 
> It is not that God cannot determine the future. He can, and He does! We read: “Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure’” (Isaiah 46:9–10).
> 
> Yet this passage shows that declaring the end from the beginning is not just a function of “seeing” what is “destined” to happen. Continuing in Isaiah, we read that God acts and intervenes in history to accomplish His ends, “calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it” (v. 11).
> 
> We can say with confidence that God is omniscient. But we must allow the Bible to define what omniscient means. Let the world’s theologians and philosophers wander from the path of Scripture in their pointless arguments if they choose—we need not follow them!
> 
> The Godhead Inhabits Eternity
> 
> The Bible reveals that God is eternal. Notice what God is called:
> 
> 27 The eternal God (Deuteronomy 33:27).
> 
> God also does not change and will be around always:
> 
> 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. (Psalm 102:27)
> 
> 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)
> 
> Notice the further the following:
> 
> 13 Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:13-14).
> 
> Thus, even the name that God identified Himself as "I am who I am" signifies eternity.
> 
> The Bible reveals that the eternal power of the Godhead should be obvious:
> 
> 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).
> 
> This does not mean that humans fully understand the eternity of the Godhead, but that there should be enough evidence of His existence that logical people will realize that His eternal attributes are partially understood through what God has made (an article of related interest may be Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God's Existence Logical).
> 
> In Isaiah 57:15 it states that God "inhabits eternity." Now eternity is a difficult concept for humans to fully grasp. While most of us seem to have no problem envisioning that we could live forever, the idea of something not having a physical beginning is totally foreign to our lives' experiences.
> 
> Notice that God does understand this:
> 
> 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
> 
> 26 Behold, God is great, and we do not know Him; Nor can the number of His years be discovered (Job 36:26).
> 
> 5 He does great things which we cannot comprehend. (Job 37:5)
> 
> 8 And to God I would commit my cause—8 Who does great things, and unsearchable, Marvelous things without number (Job 5:8-9).
> 
> So we see that God put eternity in human hearts and God is infinite, but that we cannot fully understand even the work that God does from the beginning to the end. It is beyond our ability to grasp at this time. Yet the Bible reveals:
> 
> 18 Known to God from eternity are all His works (Acts 15:18).
> 
> Thus it is clear that God knows all His works from eternity, but that there are some things that humans simply cannot fully understand.
> 
> It also seems to be able to be beyond our ability to grasp the entire universe (cf. Jeremiah 31:32). Like God, the dimensions of the universe have no beginning and have no end. And if one concludes that empty space is the end, where does the empty space end?
> 
> Of course, it does not.
> 
> Thus, just like no one can go to one end or the other of the universe, no one can get to the beginning or the end of the Godhead. So even though the idea of an endless universe can be within our hearts and minds, it is a concept, like the eternity of God, that is difficult for humans to fully understand.
> 
> God is Love
> 
> Even though God is immortal, how was it possible for God to inhabit eternity? The answer also seems to be found in the Bible.
> 
> First read the following:
> 
> 23 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4, KJV). For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).
> 
> 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
> 
> Because the Godhead does not ever sin, the Godhead never has to die and is thus capable of living eternally (Jesus only died because He allowed Himself to do so, see Matthew 26:53). Only a sinless being could exist without a beginning. Do you know that Jesus taught the following?
> 
> 17 But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17).
> 
> 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, 'Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' So Jesus said to him...19 "You know the commandments" (Mark 10:17,19)
> 
> And in Mark's account he then He listed half of the ten commandments (also in Luke 18:19-20). (An article of related interest may be What Did Jesus Teach About the Ten Commandments?, Protestants may also wish to read What Did Paul Actually Teach About the Ten Commandments? and Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God differ from most Protestants.)What does the Bible say is the love of God requires of us?
> 
> 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3).
> 
> (An article of related possible interest may be Was the Commandment to Love the Only Command?)
> 
> Who is God? Notice that God is love:
> 
> 8 God is love (1 John 4:8).
> 
> Also notice that there is no fear of judgment in love:
> 
> 16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment (1 John 4:16-18).
> 
> The reason that the Godhead was able to exist from eternity is because that the Godhead is love--anything other than love would eventually destruct. There was no fear in love. No fear of destruction nor any adverse judgment. Also:
> 
> 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor (Romans 13:10).
> 
> Notice what what was inspired to write about aspects of love:
> 
> 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. NKJV (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a).
> 
> Because God is love, the Godhead was able to exist from eternity. Because God is love, God has a plan to share His love and offer salvation to all.
> 
> Notice:
> 
> 8...God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:8c-10).
> 
> 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:16-17).
> 
> We humans do not possess perfect love, hence there are still some things we do not fully grasp, but because of the love of God we will have the ability to do so. Because God is love, God has been able to inhabit eternity.
> 
> The going back to the God and the "Three 'O's article, it concluded with:
> 
> The Final Word
> 
> So, what does God’s word teach us? We learn from Scripture that God is omnipotent—or “almighty”—such that no part of creation can escape His influence or authority. We see that God—through His Spirit—is omnipresent, such that no part of creation can escape His presence. And we understand that God—perceiving all things—is omniscient, such that no part of creation can escape His knowledge...
> 
> But is there any practical use for this knowledge? Yes, absolutely! We should never forget that God has called us to become His full sons and daughters, to share His level of existence with us for all eternity. Just as these characteristics— amazing power, access to all of the universe and perception of all things—apply to Christ and the Father now, they one day will apply to us!
> 
> As John wrote in his epistle, “everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:3). The more clearly we can see our awesome calling, the better we can put this present life into perspective. So, for those who wish to purify themselves, understanding the nature of the God Family has more practical application than you might at first assume!
> 
> As we seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, let us be motivated by our high calling and our ultimate destiny! We must avoid the snares and pretensions of this world’s philosophers, and instead let God teach us truthfully of His glory, that we may one day share it with Him.
> 
> God is all powerful, everywhere, and all knowing. God is Spirit, and because of that, is capable of being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
> 
> While some of this is not possible for humans to understand, we need to realize that God, who has always existed, has unlimited understanding:
> 
> 5 Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)
> 
> Since the Bible teaches that Christians can enter the God family, the time will come when our own understanding about all matters is greatly increased as well.




The Bible discussing God's nature =/= proof of God's existence. 

This thread is titled: is there one sound, valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God


----------



## MaxGrit

That's easy. 

Ex nihilo nihil fit.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of you too intimidated to admit that Rawlings' posts are generally just a verbose pile of unintelligible jabbering,
> 
> I mean intimidated because of their appearance of being intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.
> 
> So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.  A learned believer knows that _blind_ faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible.  You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear.  And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience.  Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.
Click to expand...


The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.  

How is blind faith dedicated to evil?


----------



## G.T.

ex nihilo nihil fit





G.T. said:


> If there is I haven't seen one. Every pseudo-response in this thread breaks down as you regress backward, but those typing them cannot see it because of their presuppositions and/or their cognitive dissonance.
> 
> First, God has to be defined and every individual speaking on "God" might in their mind be justifying a different term.
> 
> If "God" is not defined as a *cognitive* entity, but simply as whatever burst existence into being ("existence" defined as this universe, or if there was one before it/or are multiple universes) - there is evidence for _that_ but most definitely _*not proof*_ of it. The evidence is that we have not observe a nothing turn to something. Hell, we haven't even observed a nothing at all. So that's evidence, but not proof because not having observed it does not discount its possibility.
> 
> If God *is* defined as some cognitive entity, there is not evidence n'or proof. Any suggestions that the function of logic is proof of a super-mind as a source for said logic is supposition, and not supported. Also, in reference to "absolutes," whether they exist or whether they do not is not proof that said God exists, it's just proof that said absolutes exist or do not exist. I'd say that absolutes do exist, and they can exist independent of said God.
> 
> For example, it is an absolute truth that a non-omniscient being *knows* that it is not omniscient. Omniscience is complete knowledge, something cannot be omniscient and not omniscient in the same way at the same time. There's also cogito ergo sum. This is an irrefutable absolute; however, it does not prove that YOU are not the cognitive God, so long as said cognitive God is NOT omniscient.
> 
> Anyway, I love these discussions when people don't bloviate with hole-filled arguments and proceed by talking past people while really saying nothing. My elbows are pointed at you. You know who you are.


----------



## MaxGrit

Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am

Exodus 3

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 

God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” 

And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?


That's what it all boils down to. 

Agnosticism = honesty. 

Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”



This is not proof of a Biblical God. 

You had to have known that, though.


----------



## MaxGrit

Ex nihilo nihil fit is a good start. See my sig..


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof of a Biblical God.
> 
> You had to have known that, though.
Click to expand...


You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> I don't see why people feel that arguing over the existence of God(s) is an intelligent thing to do.
> 
> If you disbelieve, good for you.  Go on disbelieving.
> 
> Underestimate the power of belief at your own expense.​



I wonder if you realize that while you started your post saying that arguing over God wasn't intelligent,

 you ended your post with an argumentative assertion about God.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> I asked you before but I will give it another try.  Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence.  If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for.  Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe.  He's telling you you're right so it must be true.



I did that already.  You must have missed it.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people use words they don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny thing, there is absolutely no experimental evidence to support the theories of dark matter or dark energy, yet science still insist that they exist. Can you explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...he is hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their religious beliefs, that even some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dawkins is hostile to all religion because he is an idiot, just like you.
> 
> Did you  know that it was clerics that first supported Darwin, and scientists that thought he was crazy?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history
> 
> Conflict thesis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> You guys want to forget history and deny that for centuries religion tied to squash science because it conflicted with the brainwashing that was going on with the church and the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is historically inaccurate, and directly contradicted by multiple facts. Then again, I really don' expect anyone that insist the Dark Ages really happened to understand facts.
Click to expand...


That's your theory?  We are hostile to religion because we are idiots?  Not because we don't like it?  

I was thinking about it on the way in today.  I don't get to talk to anybody about this.  The ones I can talk to, they already agree with me so it's boring.  I love USMB!  I'm not bitter or angry.  I truly believe there is no god.  It seems so obvious to us atheists.  So to me this is fun.  

I love it how you say all the stuff I see on PBS is inaccurate.  You guys love to revise history.  It's what you are good at.  For example, trying to say the Nazi's were atheists when the Germans were all devout catholics.  American Slave Owners were very religious, so were their slaves.  The slaves of the Pharoahs were all religious too.  The Greeks had hundreds if not thousands of gods.  Imagine you back then arguing for Zeus and his crew.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof of a Biblical God.
> 
> You had to have known that, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Cop-out, and naked assertion.

I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.

Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.

If it was proven, it STILL doesn't prove the Biblical God.

Your understanding of what constitutes proof is remedial.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Thunderbird said:


> [
> Why should we discard the testimony of billions who pray and think they have encountered God?



Because such an argument would fall into the category of a fallacious appeal to popularity, or perhaps a fallacious appeal to belief.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.
> 
> So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying.
> 
> No one who is educated in religion would ever tell you you need to have blind faith.
Click to expand...


Once again you are right.  They would never admit that.  They just say faith.  It is us who claim you guys have blind faith.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
Click to expand...


Fight Club.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.
Click to expand...


I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.  

I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe.  Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people.  And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.  

So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions.  We never get emotional about it.  As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.  

This is what theists do.  They say you'll go to hell.  They ask you why you are so angry.  Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.

I think the masses are really stupid.  Stupid when it comes to politics for sure.  They've handed our country and government over to the corporations.  Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them.  People with blind faith can be convinced of anything.  Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy.  If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?


----------



## G.T.

Sealy,

Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?

What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"

The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The universe is fine-tuned for life.*
> The Fine-Tuning Argument
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.
> 
> The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply _seem_ fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.
> 
> _“The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”_ – Victor Stenger
> 
> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that they are not equally probable?
Click to expand...


Great question.  It is the lack of evidence that give my position more validity and a more probable chance of outcome.  

How about all the fairy tales in all the holy books?  Not just the bible but also the koran and mormon books, etc?  The greek gods, etc???

Jonah living 3 days in the belly of a whale?  Noah lived 350 years?  

You need any more evidence your stories aren't real?   I could give you lots.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, you haven't.  You have simply made one statement after another which are to be accepted without question.  I do question them.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's generally called begging the question, or something close to it.  It's when people make arg
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit that sometimes his writing bears a striking resemblance to that of Judith Butler and other critical theorists. It's needlessly complex and it needn't be.
> 
> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is flagrantly pretentious to employ a writing style that incomprehensible to even the intelligent,
> 
> just because it looks impressive.
> 
> The ability to be concise is a valuable asset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All he's doing is using standard terms and arguments developed over the centuries by those who have studied the question of origin.  I'm a new believer.  I just recently began to read the literature.  But I already know enough to recognize that he's not only mastered the material but is expressing ideas and expanding on arguments in original ways.  That means he owns the topic in his own right.  He also knows the relevant science too, which a lot of you atheists don't.  That means he's not just regurgitating information by rote.  What your posts tell me is that you don't have the background to challenge him.  But instead of listening to your betters, you close your mind down.  What you're really saying is that those who have earned the right to speak to the issue with authority, using the correct language and conventions are out of line, but ignorance and closed-mindedness is a virtue.  To me that's a sick attitude. A few of you are saying that he's claiming things that's he's not, which means you're not really listening or thinking about his posts.  I don't have any problem understanding him. Somebody on this OP said that he claims he can prove that God absolutely exists or that morality absolutely exists.  No he's not.  What he's saying is that there exists ideas and principles that are universal to mankind and are absolute in the sense that the denial of them leads to contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken personally to many rabbi, priests, ministers, reverands and they all admit they don't have all the answers, can't prove it, and ultimately you just have to have blind faith.
> 
> So we will remain open to any new theories or evidence you might present but honestly, short of introducing us to god, I don't think you have a chance.  Why did he talk to us all the time thousands of years ago but not today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you.  A learned believer knows that _blind_ faith is anathema to the teachings of the Bible.  You misunderstood them or heard what you wanted to hear.  And the kind of faith they would have been talking about would have been about man's dependency on God, trusting in God which grows over time with understanding and experience.  Besides that has to do with a deeper level of theology, not the objective universals of this OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?
Click to expand...


The only "you guys" rambling (making things up or imagining things that aren't real) are some atheists.  Blind faith is stupid and leads to sinful acts.  If you can't see why that's true you might be acting on blind faith in your life.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.



I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.

I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.

We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.  

If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.  

This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.  

And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.

Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
Click to expand...



So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "


An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> I am, therefore He is.



You am therefore you am.  

By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?  

Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"  

Why does you existing prove god exists?


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before but I will give it another try.  Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence.  If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for.  Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe.  He's telling you you're right so it must be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that already.  You must have missed it.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, I did.  Can you refer me to the post where you did that?


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight Club.
Click to expand...

 
Won't work.  This is a board so all we can do it talk.  You never talk about fight club.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
Click to expand...

 
An agnostic can conclude that.  What an agnostic can't do is fail to recognize that conclusion is nothing but unsubstantiated belief.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
Click to expand...


Really if we threw out all the bullshit in the organized religions, we would just be having a fun healthy debate on if something created us or not.  There would be no punishment for not believing and so we really would have no reason to be defensive and neither would the other side.

If there were no talk of hell, no impossible stories, no wars started over these religions, if the rich didn't use these religions to control/fool/manipulate the masses, there would not be this animosity.


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An agnostic can conclude that.  What an agnostic can't do is fail to recognize that conclusion is nothing but unsubstantiated belief.
Click to expand...


Well, I should have clarified then: cannot "soundly" conclude that.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really if we threw out all the bullshit in the organized religions, we would just be having a fun healthy debate on if something created us or not.  There would be no punishment for not believing and so we really would have no reason to be defensive and neither would the other side.
> 
> If there were no talk of hell, no impossible stories, no wars started over these religions, if the rich didn't use these religions to control/fool/manipulate the masses, there would not be this animosity.
Click to expand...

And, if the Religions didnt use their own texts as proof of anything, i.e. viciously circular logic.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight Club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work.  This is a board so all we can do it talk.  You never talk about fight club.
Click to expand...


You're too scared to join Fight Club?


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> Agnosticism = honesty.
> 
> Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.
Click to expand...


Does it matter?  

And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive.  And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.

And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories.  Do you believe them?  I don't.  So I lean on the side of atheist.

And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim?  LOL.  Funny shit.


----------



## BillyP

sealybobo said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, therefore He is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You am therefore you am.
> 
> By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?
> 
> Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"
> 
> Why does you existing prove god exists?
Click to expand...

Can someone please translate this into English?


----------



## sealybobo

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight Club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work.  This is a board so all we can do it talk.  You never talk about fight club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too scared to join Fight Club?
Click to expand...


I won fight club and it's over.


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really if we threw out all the bullshit in the organized religions, we would just be having a fun healthy debate on if something created us or not.  There would be no punishment for not believing and so we really would have no reason to be defensive and neither would the other side.
> 
> If there were no talk of hell, no impossible stories, no wars started over these religions, if the rich didn't use these religions to control/fool/manipulate the masses, there would not be this animosity.
Click to expand...

 
None of that is caused by religion.  It's all us, every nasty little thing that happens is all us.  We'll beat each other to death over which soccer team we favor.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight Club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work.  This is a board so all we can do it talk.  You never talk about fight club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too scared to join Fight Club?
Click to expand...

 
Yep.  This face is too pretty to beat up.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An agnostic can conclude that.  What an agnostic can't do is fail to recognize that conclusion is nothing but unsubstantiated belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I should have clarified then: cannot "soundly" conclude that.
Click to expand...

 
I'll buy that.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> Agnosticism = honesty.
> 
> Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive.  And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.
> 
> And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories.  Do you believe them?  I don't.  So I lean on the side of atheist.
> 
> And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim?  LOL.  Funny shit.
Click to expand...

I think that it most certainly matters, these discussions are specific and so in order to have sound conclusions, you should want them to be completely justifiable.  

I'm an agnostic that leans toward there being a god - but not a religious god, or even a cognitive or "living" god. 

My definition of god would be "whatever started all of this shit - whether it be a chemical process, a spaghetti monster or my underwear."

I lean that way, but wouldn't say that I've concluded it or that I'm decided.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sealy,
> 
> Do you have evidence for your conclusion of "no God," or simply a lack of evidence for the existence of the Biblical God?
> 
> What causes you to NOT say "I don't know, but Religious God(s) seem highly unlikely and there is no proof of them in particular," versus "there is not god of any definition, definitively?"
> 
> The latter lacks evidence as well. Proving a negative isn't the same fallacy when discussing our origins, because we are here. It's ruling out ways we got here, something a bit different imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always said the best position to take is agnostic atheist.
> 
> I explained to someone yesterday, for me to say I know 100% sure means I have explored what's on the other side of the moon and what is in black holes.  I would have to be in all places at all times all throughout the universe.  I would have to be a god myself.
> 
> We don't say we know for sure.  But theists do.  They claim to KNOW, and say we'll go to hell, or that their religion should be taught in school.
> 
> If you throw out all the organized religions, then I don't think I would have a problem with this issue.  I would still be here arguing that there is no god because many of you would still believe in generic god.
> 
> This is what fascinates me.  Many of you are liberal christians who agree/admit the stories in the bible are not real.  They are allegories.  But then ask you if the Jesus story is an allegory and they say no, even though it is just as ridiculous.
> 
> And I have no problem with there being a god or creator.  If there is one, I don't think it matters.  If you reject the stories of man made organized religions, this creator isn't watching you and has created a heaven and hell.
> 
> Why do I love this subject so much?  It is fascinating to me that 90% of our species believes this fairytale.  I feel as if we haven't evolved enough yet and I hope to speed up the process.  I'm encouraged that not as many young kids are "religious".  Their secular parents are raising them to be good people I promise.  I see it all the time.  I don't see my friends talking to their kids about god or going to church but their kids seem to be growing up just fine.  And less gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So post #335 was just referring to RELIGION'S God, then?  *"have concluded that there is no god. "
> 
> 
> An agnostic cannot conclude that, so I was just clarifying I guess. I knew you were smarter than hard-lined atheism so I gave ya the benefit of the doubt. Also, this bold was so not on purpose but I'm lazy, so!*
Click to expand...


You can be an agnostic atheist.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, therefore He is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You am therefore you am.
> 
> By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?
> 
> Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"
> 
> Why does you existing prove god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can someone please translate this into English?
Click to expand...


You said you are therefore he is.  What proof is that?


----------



## G.T.

NYcarbineer said:


> You can be an agnostic atheist.



You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments all uses logical fallacies and therefore are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an argument from fallacy.  Yey!!!  We're all irrelevant.  We should form a club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fight Club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Won't work.  This is a board so all we can do it talk.  You never talk about fight club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're too scared to join Fight Club?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  This face is too pretty to beat up.
Click to expand...


Too bad. You're already in Fight Club. Your face won't stay pretty for long.


----------



## JakeStarkey

an atheist or unbeliever is still bound by deifnitions and tersm.  If you odn't believe in God, ergo, you have God does not exist.


----------



## G.T.

JakeStarkey said:


> an atheist or unbeliever is still bound by deifnitions and tersm.  If you odn't believe in God, ergo, you have God does not exist.


ugh, no.


For so many reasons, no. Epic logic fail man. 

Unbelief in something has no bearing on whether or not that something exists. Your "ergo" is plainly wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
Click to expand...


That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,

you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> Agnosticism = honesty.
> 
> Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive.  And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.
> 
> And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories.  Do you believe them?  I don't.  So I lean on the side of atheist.
> 
> And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim?  LOL.  Funny shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that it most certainly matters, these discussions are specific and so in order to have sound conclusions, you should want them to be completely justifiable.
> 
> I'm an agnostic that leans toward there being a god - but not a religious god, or even a cognitive or "living" god.
> 
> My definition of god would be "whatever started all of this shit - whether it be a chemical process, a spaghetti monster or my underwear."
> 
> I lean that way, but wouldn't say that I've concluded it or that I'm decided.
Click to expand...


And so you and I will both try to keep an open mind and keep looking.  Until we know we'll admit we don't know.  

Change the subject.  One thing I use to think is that if people didn't believe in god or hell, maybe some people at the end of their lives might go murder a bunch of people they don't like.  If you don't believe in hell what is there to stop them?  I could never do it even though I don't believe in hell.  

Or, maybe the fact that I don't know for sure helps keep me a moral person?  I can't say for sure there is no hell but something deep inside me says that if there is, bad people go.  So maybe just maybe the concept of god is a necessary thing, even for agnostic atheists.  If we are honest and admit we don't know for sure then maybe even if there is only a .00001% chance there is, maybe that's enough to keep us from taking a chance and being immoral.  I don't totally disbelieve karma so hey, you never know right?


----------



## G.T.

NYcarbineer said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
Click to expand...

You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.


----------



## BillyP

sealybobo said:


> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, therefore He is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You am therefore you am.
> 
> By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?
> 
> Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"
> 
> Why does you existing prove god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can someone please translate this into English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you are therefore he is.  What proof is that?
Click to expand...

I am here. That's proof.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you guys ramble is because you ultimately are fos.
> 
> How is blind faith dedicated to evil?
> 
> 
> 
> That's what it all boils down to.
> 
> Agnosticism = honesty.
> 
> Everything else is reduced to presupposition and naked assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> And so I guess being an agnostic atheist means I do not know for sure 100% there is or isn't a god, but I lean on the side that says there is no god, because based on all the information I have available to me, it seems most likely man invented god when we were very primitive.  And the only reason god is still around is because it has been hard wired into our thinking and most of us can't imagine all this came to be without a creator.
> 
> And these primitive ancient ancestors of ours came up with a lot of wild fascinating stories.  Do you believe them?  I don't.  So I lean on the side of atheist.
> 
> And as far as going to hell for not being a christian or Muslim?  LOL.  Funny shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that it most certainly matters, these discussions are specific and so in order to have sound conclusions, you should want them to be completely justifiable.
> 
> I'm an agnostic that leans toward there being a god - but not a religious god, or even a cognitive or "living" god.
> 
> My definition of god would be "whatever started all of this shit - whether it be a chemical process, a spaghetti monster or my underwear."
> 
> I lean that way, but wouldn't say that I've concluded it or that I'm decided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so you and I will both try to keep an open mind and keep looking.  Until we know we'll admit we don't know.
> 
> Change the subject.  One thing I use to think is that if people didn't believe in god or hell, maybe some people at the end of their lives might go murder a bunch of people they don't like.  If you don't believe in hell what is there to stop them?  I could never do it even though I don't believe in hell.
> 
> Or, maybe the fact that I don't know for sure helps keep me a moral person?  I can't say for sure there is no hell but something deep inside me says that if there is, bad people go.  So maybe just maybe the concept of god is a necessary thing, even for agnostic atheists.  If we are honest and admit we don't know for sure then maybe even if there is only a .00001% chance there is, maybe that's enough to keep us from taking a chance and being immoral.  I don't totally disbelieve karma so hey, you never know right?
Click to expand...


I guess I think the thing stopping them is that in my opinion morals exist outside the threat of consequences.


----------



## G.T.

BillyP said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, therefore He is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You am therefore you am.
> 
> By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?
> 
> Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"
> 
> Why does you existing prove god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can someone please translate this into English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you are therefore he is.  What proof is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am here. That's proof.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.
Click to expand...


The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt, which happens to be a satisfactory standard among reasonable people.


----------



## NYcarbineer

G.T. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.
Click to expand...


Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?

Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?


----------



## G.T.

NYcarbineer said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The standard is beyond all reasonable doubt, which happens to be a satisfactory standard among reasonable people.
Click to expand...


I guess I'd conflate reasonable and possible in this instance and call it a day.

I understand that possible and reasonable are very different entities, but I'm not even interested in this pseudo side discussion over atheist vs. agnostic atheist. 

Doesn't interest me in the least.


----------



## sealybobo

BillyP said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BillyP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am, therefore He is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You am therefore you am.
> 
> By the way everyone, this guys logic is exactly how our very primitive ancestors came up with god.  Great logic, huh?
> 
> Does that mean "if God is does that mean god's creator is?"
> 
> Why does you existing prove god exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can someone please translate this into English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you are therefore he is.  What proof is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am here. That's proof.
Click to expand...


So am I but I need more proof than that.  So you are basically admitting BLIND faith, because you need absolutely no evidence to believe.  

A mosquito is here too.  I see a fly on the wall too.  OMG a maggot in the shit I took out back last night!  That's proof god exists!  I am the maggots god because I created him.  So, something must have created me, right?

So, who created the guy who created me?  Oh yea, he's eternal.  Waka waka.


----------



## G.T.

NYcarbineer said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?
> 
> Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?
Click to expand...

Not interested in going this far off course just to agree or disagree to call someone an agnostic or an agnostic atheist. 

It's not very important to me, just saving you time homey.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
> Omnipotent God
> 
> Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
> We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.
> 
> A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1
> 
> Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
> 
> “Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
> It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”
> 
> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent






> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent





Your God created evil! How is that consistent with being "good"? Then there is just your everyday pain and suffering from childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, Alzheimers, etc, etc all of which your God created.

And for the 2nd time quoting your bible is self referencing and harms your credibility.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can be an agnostic atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could be but I don't really see the point in not just calling it agnostic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is comparable to saying that as a juror you should only find someone guilty if you believe they are guilty beyond all possible doubt whatsoever, otherwise,
> 
> you must declare yourself 'agnostic', i.e., you don't know, on the defendant's guilt or innocence and must therefore defer to his innocent until proven guilty rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should only find them guilty beyond all possible doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can I not reject the young earth belief and believe that the Earth is several billion years old because I cannot prove that the evidence for a billions year old Earth might all be an illusion created by God, or perhaps by the Devil?
> 
> Must I declare that I don't have any idea how old the Earth is because I can't eliminate every cockeyed farfetched possibility imaginable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not interested in going this far off course just to agree or disagree to call someone an agnostic or an agnostic atheist.
> 
> It's not very important to me, just saving you time homey.
Click to expand...


I think we all understand now that no atheist is really an "atheist" because there is no way to know 100% for sure.

The only people who claim to be 100% are theists who say god came and talked to the people who started their religions thousands or hundreds of years ago.  Mormons started in 1800 when god talked to Joseph Smith, supposedly.

So no one can be a theist then either because they too would have had to be there back when god talked to us.  If not they are taking the stories on faith.

They would have to be agnostic theists.  LOL.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.



This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.


----------



## sealybobo

Derideo_Te said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another resource for those who are still confused.
> Omnipotent God
> 
> Omnipotent God – What is Omnipotence?
> We have an omnipotent God. He has the ability and power to anything (omni=all; potent=powerful). This power is exercised effortlessly. A good example of God’s omnipotence is in the name el shaddai, which means “self-sufficient” or “almighty.” God’s power is unlimited.
> 
> A proper definition is given by Thiessen: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.”1
> 
> Ephesians 1:18-23 says, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
> 
> “Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, the Lord God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do all that He wills to do lies in undiminished fullness in His own infinite being.”2 – Tozer
> It is important to note that God cannot do anything that is contradictory or that is contrary to His nature. For example, God cannot lie, even though He has the power to do anything. Hebrews 6:18 says, “God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.”
> 
> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Although such power might seem frightful, remember that God is good. He can do anything according to His infinite ability, but will do only those things that are consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your God created evil! How is that consistent with being "good"? Then there is just your everyday pain and suffering from childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, Alzheimers, etc, etc all of which your God created.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
Click to expand...


You just don't need as much evidence as we do.  I would hate for you to be a juror if I was on trial.  

Stop thinking?  It is you who has made up your mind without having sufficient evidence.  And what about the evidence that shows religion was made up?  How do you ignore all that scientific evidence?  Instead you go with the idea that an invisible man made you and cares about you blablabla?

_We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.”_ – Carl Sagan

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
Click to expand...


Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof of a Biblical God.
> 
> You had to have known that, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.
Click to expand...




> *You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you*





Reductio ad absurdum!


----------



## G.T.

The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.



It is a political or ethical stance, not something that is either true or not true.  Do you mean you want us to hold this stance?   I do too.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of biocentrism is something that I WANT to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a political or ethical stance, not something that is either true or not true.  Do you mean you want us to hold this stance?   I do too.
Click to expand...

Just the part of it that states that our conscience doesnt die with our bodies. I hope/wish it were true, i want it to be true.....but dont believe in it.


----------



## G.T.

Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.

Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.
> 
> Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.



I would say 20 likes is worth more than believing the jesus story.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.
> 
> Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say 20 likes is worth more than believing the jesus story.
Click to expand...


Not sure this is relevant, but hell


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
Click to expand...


There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".

The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".

The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before but I will give it another try.  Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence.  If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for.  Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe.  He's telling you you're right so it must be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that already.  You must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  Can you refer me to the post where you did that?
Click to expand...


It's the one in which I deferred to M.D.R.'s post because he had already addressed it.  You guys talked it about it too, so I stayed out of it.  All you said is that the objective evidence for God's existence is not objective evidence.  What are we supposed to do with that?  Get you a new brain?  I don't won't to be mean.  But I think it's fair to say that you are being impolite when you don't think about the evidence or act like you don't understand what it is or maybe you don't know what objective evidence is though that doesn't make sense either.  Define objective evidence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".
> 
> The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".
> 
> The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.
Click to expand...


The evidence for God's is obvious and voluminous.  The truth is that theists like me look at all the evidence.  Atheists like you cherry pick among the _ideas_ about the evidence and ignore everything else.  The reason I know that's true is because atheists like you never acknowledge the truth about everything else.  The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way.  That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well.  The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all.  But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no credible empirical evidence for the existence of a "creator".
> 
> The empirical law of conservation of matter/energy establishes that the Universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another without the need for any "creator".
> 
> The possibility of beings with "godlike powers" in the Universe is a distinct probability however none of them would fit the definition of a "creator" as alluded to by religions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's is obvious and voluminous.  The truth is that theists like me look at all the evidence.  Atheists like you cherry pick among the _ideas_ about the evidence and ignore everything else.  The reason I know that's true is because atheists like you never acknowledge the truth about everything else.  The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way.  That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well.  The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all.  But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
Click to expand...




Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.

The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.


----------



## Derideo_Te

G.T. said:


> Damn, derideo is doing a one man job on my poster ratings today.
> 
> Good job man! Keep showering me with these gifts and I shall one day be: clean.



You are welcome and those "thanks" are because you saved me the time and trouble of posting the same things myself.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
Click to expand...


The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.


----------



## G.T.

Let's add onto the cogito ergo sum

My dick has a mind of its own.

Therefore, it exists. 








fight me!


----------



## Derideo_Te

G.T. said:


> Let's add onto the cogito ergo sum
> 
> My dick has a mind of its own.
> 
> Therefore, it exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fight me!


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.
Click to expand...


You mean like how you believe miracles are acts of god?  We don't believe in miracles and we have explained to you many times why miracles don't exist but you just ignore those rational arguments and continue to believe ancient stories that are impossible.

Or do you mean Revelations?  What evidence do we ignore?  I'll explain why we did not ignore that evidence, that evidence just had holes in it.

Some religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. For instance, Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that the Torah was received from Yahweh on biblical Mount Sinai, and Muslims believe the Quran to have been revealed to Mohammed word by word and letter by letter. In Hinduism, some Vedas _(books) _"not human compositions", and are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called _śruti_, "what is heard". Most Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. The 15,000 handwritten pages produced by the mystic Maria Valtorta were represented as direct dictations from Jesus, while she attributed The Book of Azariah to her guardian angel.[3] Aleister Crowley stated that The Book of the Law had been revealed to him by three Egyptian deities.

In the Abrahamic religions, the term is used to refer to the process by which God reveals knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings.[6] In secondary usage, revelation refers to the resulting human knowledge about God, prophecy, and other divine things. Revelation from a supernatural source plays a less important role in some other religious traditions such as Taoism and Confucianism.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.
Click to expand...


Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.



Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.


----------



## sealybobo

Prophecies fulfilled.  Perhaps Jesus knew of this prophecy when he started his cult, or perhaps when they made up the story of Jesus 80-150 years after his death, they purposely picked this date so it would all align.  Self fulfilling prophecy.  

700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah

500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver,

Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution.

I could go on and on.  Point is, whether it be 80 years after Jesus or in the imes when the Pope's re wrote/edited the bible, of course they would write in all these prophecies.

Show me a prophet today who can predict something for all of us to see.  On this day at this time something miraculous is going to happen.  

All they are doing is telling you that prophecies were fulfilled and that big ones will be in the future.  

Plus they make a lot of vague no brainer prophecies like I've heard that the end of times will start center around America, then Europe and then Russia and then Israel.  So one of those prophecies is going to look promising whenever a war happens anywhere because they have their bases covered.


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that we don't KNOW whether the universe is hostile to life.  We have such limited knowledge of the universe residing in a teensy solar system powered by an anemic and insignificant sun in the grand scheme of things.  We have such limited knowledge of such a small part of even our own solar system, who among us is so wise as to know for a fact that the universe is not teeming with life?
> 
> But you, probably unknowingly, have hit upon the weakness in the teleological argument.  (An argument I happen to subscribe to.)  The flaw in the teleological argument is our inability to know whether the hole that puddle found itself in was by design or happenstance
> 
> So the weakness in the argument is not so much as whether there was a designer, but whether there is a design.  Conversely the strength in the argument is in our ability to reason, think, and observe such symmetry, order, and complexity that it defies all odds that it could have occurred purely by chance or accident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.
> 
> I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe.  Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people.  And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.
> 
> So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions.  We never get emotional about it.  As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.
> 
> This is what theists do.  They say you'll go to hell.  They ask you why you are so angry.  Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.
> 
> I think the masses are really stupid.  Stupid when it comes to politics for sure.  They've handed our country and government over to the corporations.  Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them.  People with blind faith can be convinced of anything.  Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy.  If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?
Click to expand...


Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads?  I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either.  I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them.  Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.

Why is that?  What is it that compels you to care?  What draws you to threads like this?  Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?

Have you ever wondered about that?


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof of a Biblical God.
> 
> You had to have known that, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cop-out, and naked assertion.
> 
> I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.
> 
> Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.
Click to expand...


I already stated that very few people will be able to understand the proof of God's name, I Am. 

You understand the written words but you can't understand why the proof works.

You simply cannot know the hidden truths that makes I Am the best proof. Only God can show you those hidden truths and bring you to true understanding. Therefore, you should pray to God for understanding.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like how you believe miracles are acts of god?  We don't believe in miracles and we have explained to you many times why miracles don't exist but you just ignore those rational arguments and continue to believe ancient stories that are impossible.
> 
> Or do you mean Revelations?  What evidence do we ignore?  I'll explain why we did not ignore that evidence, that evidence just had holes in it.
> 
> Some religions have religious texts which they view as divinely or supernaturally revealed or inspired. For instance, Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that the Torah was received from Yahweh on biblical Mount Sinai, and Muslims believe the Quran to have been revealed to Mohammed word by word and letter by letter. In Hinduism, some Vedas _(books) _"not human compositions", and are supposed to have been directly revealed, and thus are called _śruti_, "what is heard". Most Christians believe that the Old and New Testaments were inspired by God. The 15,000 handwritten pages produced by the mystic Maria Valtorta were represented as direct dictations from Jesus, while she attributed The Book of Azariah to her guardian angel.[3] Aleister Crowley stated that The Book of the Law had been revealed to him by three Egyptian deities.
> 
> In the Abrahamic religions, the term is used to refer to the process by which God reveals knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings.[6] In secondary usage, revelation refers to the resulting human knowledge about God, prophecy, and other divine things. Revelation from a supernatural source plays a less important role in some other religious traditions such as Taoism and Confucianism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.
Click to expand...


I fail to see how that follows.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only lack of humility I see is that of atheists cherry picking ideas about the evidence while they ignore everything else.  Actually you guys run from everything else.  That's why atheists like you mostly bore us with ridicule and psychobabble.  The issue on this OP _is_ the everything else, not the ignorance and subjective opining of the atheism in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Various concepts of prophecy are found throughout all of the world's religions and cults. To a certain degree prophecy can be an integral concept within any religion or cult. The term has found deep usage in the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i along with many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fail to see how that follows.
Click to expand...


*(1)* Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed exactly when the Messiah would begin his public ministry *This is why the people who wrote the bible picked the date of his birth so this prophecy would be fulfilled.  *

*(2)* 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah *So of course the people who invented Christianity had him be born in Bethlehem.  *

*(3)* In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, *So they wrote this into the story of Jesus.*

*(4)* Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. *Again, if I was going to write a new religion, I would use these old proph*

*(5)* The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon.  `Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, *(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1015.)*

*(6)* Mighty Babylon would fall* (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 109.)*

*(7)* The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. *(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1018.)*

*This is why Christians & Jews picked the location.  *

*(8)* The prophet Moses foretold that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment—in our lifetime.

Do you believe in magic or do you realize it’s a trick?  These are fascinating but not proof to me.  Could be a trick.  Seems fishy.  Do you believe in Naustrodaumus?  He could prophicize pretty good too.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
Click to expand...




Yeah right!

How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.



> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?



Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science". 

Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So until you know for certain just admit you don't know and keep on looking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.
> 
> I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe.  Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people.  And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.
> 
> So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions.  We never get emotional about it.  As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.
> 
> This is what theists do.  They say you'll go to hell.  They ask you why you are so angry.  Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.
> 
> I think the masses are really stupid.  Stupid when it comes to politics for sure.  They've handed our country and government over to the corporations.  Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them.  People with blind faith can be convinced of anything.  Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy.  If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads?  I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either.  I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them.  Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.
> 
> Why is that?  What is it that compels you to care?  What draws you to threads like this?  Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?
> 
> Have you ever wondered about that?
Click to expand...


It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories.  If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.  

And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said.  Only through me.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The onus is on the believer to provide evidence of the existence of their God, not the other way around, so it your premise that is out of whack here. It is illogical for you to place the burden on the atheist since it is the believer who is making the allegation and bears the burden of providing the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The theist is satisfied that there plenty of evidence to believe God exists.  He believes God exists.  Some of you are saying there is no evidence for God's existence.  That's just sick.  Some of you guys are crazy.  You're not convinced by the evidence as you understand what the evidence is.  That's not my problem.  The theist can demonstrate what the evidence is and that has been done on this OP.   You can see what the evidence is for yourself too because the evidence is objective and apparent to all.  You just close your mind to it because you pretend the evidence is something else than what it is and just stop thinking.  That's sick.  The evidence for God's existence is empirical.  The evidence is not subject to scientific verification.  It's only subject to reason.  The belief in God is based on a reasonable inference from the evidence.  When you say prove the evidence, you mean verify the thesis of a spiritual thing with science.  That's sick.  What's the evidence for atheism?  Unlike the ton of evidence for theism, there is not shred of evidence for atheism because it's a negative belief.  That tells a reasonable person to think hard about the evidence for God, but not too many atheists do that in my experience.  Most of them don't even seem to understand what evidence is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't need as much evidence as we do.  I would hate for you to be a juror if I was on trial.
> 
> Stop thinking?  *It is you who has made up your mind without having sufficient evidence.*  And what about the evidence that shows religion was made up?  How do you ignore all that scientific evidence?  Instead you go with the idea that an invisible man made you and cares about you blablabla?
> 
> _We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.”_ – Carl Sagan
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
Click to expand...


You're making speeches.  I know tons about the evidence, lots more than you.  That's obvious from your posts.  But the real topic is the problem of origin, and you don't even understand that problem.  You're talking about the physical laws and the properties of the cosmos.  I'm talking about agency.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another proof that few can understand is God's name: I Am
> 
> Exodus 3
> 
> Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?”
> 
> God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
> 
> And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not proof of a Biblical God.
> 
> You had to have known that, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't understand the proof. Ask God to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cop-out, and naked assertion.
> 
> I understand what was written, I do not consider it logical, n'or proof.
> 
> Nothing comes from nothing is not proven, it's simply something we've yet to witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already stated that very few people will be able to understand the proof of God's name, I Am.
> 
> You understand the written words but you can't understand why the proof works.
> 
> You simply cannot know the hidden truths that makes I Am the best proof. Only God can show you those hidden truths and bring you to true understanding. Therefore, you should pray to God for understanding.
Click to expand...

it doesnt work



and if it did, you could show the logical breakdown



you cant.


it doesnt. 






that easy


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a probablist.  There are very few things in this world that know for certain and almost nothing that I think I know everything there is to know.  But I like to go with what is probable, what might be possible, what makes sense, what is rational, what is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.
> 
> I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe.  Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people.  And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.
> 
> So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions.  We never get emotional about it.  As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.
> 
> This is what theists do.  They say you'll go to hell.  They ask you why you are so angry.  Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.
> 
> I think the masses are really stupid.  Stupid when it comes to politics for sure.  They've handed our country and government over to the corporations.  Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them.  People with blind faith can be convinced of anything.  Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy.  If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads?  I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either.  I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them.  Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.
> 
> Why is that?  What is it that compels you to care?  What draws you to threads like this?  Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?
> 
> Have you ever wondered about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories.  If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.
> 
> And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said.  Only through me.
Click to expand...


I am part of the 'religious right' I guess and I have never said anyone will burn in hell for any reason.  I believe the Bible when it tells us that area is all God's prerogative.  And as far as taking sh*t, I've seen a whole bunch more of that dished out from Atheists toward Christians than I have seen Christians dish it out toward Atheists.

Which brings me back to the questions you ignored that I put to you.  What brings you to a thread like this?  Why would an Atheist be at all interested in a subject re the existence of God?  What do you suppose sparks your curiosity?  Your interest?


----------



## NYcarbineer

*The James Randi Educational Foundation* will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation.

That offer has been on for years.  No one's collected.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
Click to expand...



I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.

Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
Click to expand...


 

Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?

Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.

The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory. 

Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;

Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy.





In other words, which part of the fact that the Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it, the implications of general relativity and quantum physics, needs to be explained to you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Yes, that is correct.



Actually, it is extremely simplistic, like most of Jake's attempt to explain a complex subject.



Derideo_Te said:


> Atheists have no compelling need to satisfy believers that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Depending upon each individual atheist they only need to individually satisfy themselves that there is no evidence.



If you have no compelling need to convince believers there is no god why do you constantly try to convince believers there is no god?



Derideo_Te said:


> Believers on the other hand don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves since they have simply have faith instead.



That was pathetic.

You don't need to do anything but convince yourself that there is no god except to convince yourself that something that is demonstrably false is true, yet you dismiss believers search for truth with a single word you really don't understand. 



Derideo_Te said:


> However if believers want to convince atheists then they will need to provide hard evidence for the existence of their God.



Why should anyone attempt to convince someone that lies about their own actions about anything?



Derideo_Te said:


> It is the believers who feel the need to convince atheists, not the other way around.



Yet you are here attempting to convince believers that you are right.



Derideo_Te said:


> For atheists there is nothing to lose if they are wrong and they are under no compulsion.



Lying again.



Derideo_Te said:


> For believers there is a compelling need to prove themselves right.



Yet, throughout this thread, I have constantly refused to even attempt to prove my belief in God is right, unlike you.



Derideo_Te said:


> The believers are the ones who have the burden of proof since they have to prove that the atheists are wrong.



All I have to prove is that atheist are idiots.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
Click to expand...


I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Explain the omnipotence paradox of your "creator". Can your omnipotent "creator" create something that he cannot destroy? In which case if there is something he cannot destroy he is no longer omnipotent because there is something he cannot do. Equally so if your omnipotent "creator"  cannot create something that he cannot destroy then that is something he cannot do either and therefore is not omnipotent.
> 
> Omnipotence is a logical paradox and you cannot resolve it.



Anyone with a degree in philosophy can resolve any logical paradox without even engaging their brain. If you knew anything about logic you could resolve it without any external help.

By the way, I thought you said you had no compulsion to prove you are right. Did that change?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, which part of the fact that the Big Bang Theory includes the understanding of a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time in a cosmic singularity that did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it, the implications of general relativity and quantum physics, needs to be explained to you?
Click to expand...


Once again you ignore what doesn't fit into your personal predefined beliefs. 

The problem with your vacuum fluctuations/inflation model is that it requires certain exact preconditions in order to occur that simply don't exist and there is zero evidence for those preconditions. In fact their probability is extremely low.



> *Criticisms*
> Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted. Nevertheless, many physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science have voiced criticisms, claiming untestable predictions and an alleged lack of serious empirical support.[103] In 1999, John Earman and Jesús Mosterín published a thorough critical review of inflationary cosmology, concluding, "we do not think that there are, as yet, good grounds for admitting any of the models of inflation into the standard core of cosmology."[119]
> 
> In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudo-problem) of initial conditions is not solved: "There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. [...] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything [...] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after."[120] The problem of specific or "fine-tuned" initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have gotten worse.
> 
> *A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflation field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls 'bad inflation' a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and 'good inflation' one compatible with them: "Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either.... Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation ... Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"*[103][104]



Inflation cosmology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Those exact preconditions aren't necessary with the cyclical universe.

faqs1 a1



> Other differences between acceleration in the cyclic model and the (big bang-)inflationary scenario include:
> 
> The accelerated expansion occurs 10 billion years _before _the next bang (instead of 10^(-35) seconds _after _the last bang).
> The acceleration begins when the universe is cold (3K) and dilute, rather than hot and dense.
> The acceleration phase does _not _determine the spectrum of density perturbations. The observed perturbations of the CMB are generated during the contraction phase, and have nothing to do with the details of the accelerated expansion phase. The amplitude and tilt only depend on the conditions during the contraction phase and the bounce.
> The acceleration is 10^50 times _slower _than in usual inflation
> The energy density during acceleration is 10^100 _smaller_
> The acceleration is followed by _contraction _rather than further expansion.
> The acceleration repeats periodically
> The acceleration is due to the same energy source that causes the currently observed acceleration.
> *Does radiation produced at the bounce necessarily prevent the universe from cycling?*


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, they aren't - because said omnipotence doesn't necessarily *exist* to create said contradiction.
> 
> In order for omnipotence to be an actual paradox OR contradiction, it must first exist in reality.
> 
> That it does not - means logic as we know it is still sound, as far as OUR knowledge is concerned.



NEWSFLASH:

If you have a problem with the concept of omnipotence take it up with the idiot that said that it is a paradox, not the guy that pointed out the flaw in that claim.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.



WTF?

Vacuum fluctuations have nothing to do with the Big Bang.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of matter is neither created nor destroyed do you need explained? The Big Bang did not "create" matter and energy. The Big Bang was merely the existing condensed matter/energy when the current form of the Universe as we know it took shape. There is evidence for a Universe where Big Bangs are cyclical events.
> 
> The onus on you remains to refute the law of conservation of matter/energy and conclusively prove that your "creator" made the universe pop into existence out of nothing. And no, the Big Bang did not occur out of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.
Click to expand...


Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".

That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which part of my post says anything about the Big Bang creating matter and energy?   I was alluding to the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conservation of matter/energy does not establish that the cosmos has always existed or ill always exist by the way. That's not true on the very face of it, and your belief shows that you don't understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science very well. The idea of a static cosmos doesn't undermine the idea of a creator at all. But are you saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".
> 
> That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...


You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again.  God = vacuum fluctuations.  The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is.  I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang _because_ you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before but I will give it another try.  Go back into any of his posts and show me one piece of objective evidence.  If you actually have an open mind that would have been the first thing you would have looked for.  Without it, you agree simply because it fits what you already believe.  He's telling you you're right so it must be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did that already.  You must have missed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  Can you refer me to the post where you did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the one in which I deferred to M.D.R.'s post because he had already addressed it.  You guys talked it about it too, so I stayed out of it.  All you said is that the objective evidence for God's existence is not objective evidence.  What are we supposed to do with that?  Get you a new brain?  I don't won't to be mean.  But I think it's fair to say that you are being impolite when you don't think about the evidence or act like you don't understand what it is or maybe you don't know what objective evidence is though that doesn't make sense either.  Define objective evidence.
Click to expand...


I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.

From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.  

I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.



I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.

*Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:

Objective:

. . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

. . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).

Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​


Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
Click to expand...

It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.

One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.


----------



## PratchettFan

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
Click to expand...


Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes.  Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything in my post that refers to the existence or non-existence of God.  Nor did I refer to unsupported or unfalsifiable claims.  And I know the difference between healthy skepticism and holding those in contempt those who believe for no other reason than you choose not to believe because you have no evidence yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on both sides of the issue, done a lot of research, talked with a lot of atheists, watched a lot of debates between the two sides, studied history and have concluded that there is no god.
> 
> I've heard the eye witness testimonies, talked to many people who firmly believe, and in the end I don't believe.  Not only do I not believe, I don't think it's necessarily good for people.  And I know it is good for some people, but even if it is, a lie is still a lie.
> 
> So if you are on a message board arguing with atheists, don't cry about us showing contempt when we express our opinions.  We never get emotional about it.  As scientists we just see how insane the notion of god is, especially with all the lies in all the religious books from the Koran to the Old to the New Testaments to the Mormons and so on.
> 
> This is what theists do.  They say you'll go to hell.  They ask you why you are so angry.  Just the fact that you are wrong about us being angry or evil is even more proof to us how fos you people all are.
> 
> I think the masses are really stupid.  Stupid when it comes to politics for sure.  They've handed our country and government over to the corporations.  Anyways, I use to debate politics but then I realized that if people are dumb enough to believe in gods, they'll believe anything the politicians tell them.  People with blind faith can be convinced of anything.  Global warming doesn't exist, we need to invade iraq, we need to send jobs overseas and give the rich tax breaks and then cry "we don't have the money" when it goes bust and then convince those very same people it wasn't you who screwed up the economy.  If people believe in invisible men what won't they believe, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever asked yourself why you, a non believer, keep coming to these threads?  I have never told you or another soul that you are going to hell for your non beliefs--I imagine 90% of the Christians posting on message boards have never told you that either.  I don't know ANY Christian, except maybe the extreme leftists, who believe everything politicians tell them and even those only believe what leftist politicians tell them.  Yet you hold all these notions about what presumable 'all' of us think, believe, say, whatever.
> 
> Why is that?  What is it that compels you to care?  What draws you to threads like this?  Why do you give a tinkers dam about what I or any other person of faith thinks about anything? What force pushes you to try to destroy somebody else's faith?
> 
> Have you ever wondered about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the religious right that say we'll burn in hell if we don't believe the miracle stories.  If you don't know they do it, pretend you are an atheist on USMB and see all the shit your side says.
> 
> And if you don't say it then you are not really a christian because you don't believe what christ himself said.  Only through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am part of the 'religious right' I guess and I have never said anyone will burn in hell for any reason.  I believe the Bible when it tells us that area is all God's prerogative.  And as far as taking sh*t, I've seen a whole bunch more of that dished out from Atheists toward Christians than I have seen Christians dish it out toward Atheists.
> 
> Which brings me back to the questions you ignored that I put to you.  What brings you to a thread like this?  Why would an Atheist be at all interested in a subject re the existence of God?  What do you suppose sparks your curiosity?  Your interest?
Click to expand...


A few years ago I abandoned Christianity but remained religious, spiritual or a theist.  I recently became an atheist so like a new born again I'm really interested in this subject.  I want to tell everybody.  Plus I think religion is bad for people. 

But just like all of my born again friends, eventually spreading the word will get old and I'll move on.  Like them I'll figure, "what do I care what other people think?"  But right now I do care what other people think.  Maybe in awhile I'll realize there is nothing I can do about other people and I'll just worry about me.


Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
Click to expand...



I think this is too big of a topic to convince anyone who isn't looking for the truth.  If they want to remain in a state of ignorant bliss it's almost impossible to talk them out of it.  

Think about all the evidence you can give them.  The fact that the bible could be made up.  All the mistakes and impossible stories.  You can explain to them that science has pretty much explained how why and when we came up with the idea of god(s), show them how they admit/understand all the other religions stories are a crock, explain to them if the whole things an allegory then maybe god is too, if they believe in a generic god, explain that there isn't one shred of evidence or proof suggesting a god exists.  Explain that everything has a beginning and end and so how does a god live forever?  Explain to them Revelations aren't proof of anything, etc.  I mean I could go on and on but each time you think you have proved  your point on something, the theists just move on to another topic and you think you have won, but they will argue their same arguments another day.  They argue in circles, just like conservatives do in politics.  Give you an example.  Tax the rich.  They'll say that's socialism, communism or class warfare.  You'll explain why that's not true and they will then move on to the argument that you can't tax the job creators.  Then you explain to them how job creators only hire who they need, so giving them a special tax break for nothing solves nothing.  Ultimately they will go back to calling you a commy.  See?  Argue in circles.  Stick and move.  They are either dishonest or stupid and don't know they are doing it.


----------



## sealybobo

I do understand some people think they really need god.  Maybe they do.  Maybe this lie serves a purpose for a lot of people.  But I think it is ignorant bliss.  That can't be good for a society to remain willfully ignorant because the lie makes them feel good.  I welcome rational thought even if it dismisses all organized religions stories.  Maybe those religions need to go bye bye and a new one needs to emerge.  One where people argue phylisophically that god exists, not that they have talked to him and he told them to start a religion and if people don't believe they go to hell or non believers should die or whatever most theists religions say regardless of what that individual theists thinks.

Get that people?  I don't care if you a christian doesn't believe us non believers are going to hell, your church and lord pretty much say it.  So you wonder why we don't believe this cult mentality that men 1900 years ago so clearly made up?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
Click to expand...


Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.

But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.

He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.

By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> . . . *what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.*



Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?



PratchettFan said:


> . . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.



So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge?  And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos? 

*crickets chirping*  

You've never asked yourself why you have this impression?  Where it comes from?  What the impetus of it is?     

By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal_ knowledge_ of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah right!
> 
> How convenient that you edited out your own "allusions". Too bad that I can can copy them right back in here again.
> 
> Not one single word in there about "*the implications of general relativity and quantum physics*". Instead it is merely a rant denying the law of conservation of matter/energy and a baseless allegation that only you were qualified to "understand the nature of inference and the limitations of science".
> 
> Since you have never even heard of the cyclical oscillating universe theory you have no clue that it is actually a more cohesive string theory explanation of the Big Bang itself than the current theory that requires inflation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".
> 
> That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again.  God = vacuum fluctuations.  The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is.  I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang _because_ you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.
Click to expand...


You aren't making any sense at all.

I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.
> 
> But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.
> 
> He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.
> 
> By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!
Click to expand...

 
Bullshit.


----------



## PratchettFan

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . *what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge?  And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> You've never asked yourself why you have this impression?  Where it comes from?  What the impetus of it is?
> 
> By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal_ knowledge_ of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
Click to expand...

 
I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . *what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an axiom or are you just pulling on our legs?
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you saying that your apprehension of the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos, which you have repeatedly admitted to have, is (1) a subjective belief or (2) a propositional absolute of universal knowledge?  And what causes you to apprehend, just as everyone else does, the idea of God as a potential origin of the cosmos?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> You've never asked yourself why you have this impression?  Where it comes from?  What the impetus of it is?
> 
> By the way when are you going to falsify the objectively apparent, universal_ knowledge_ of the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
Click to expand...


3 kinds of people. 

1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.

2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.

3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.



Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.
> 
> But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.
> 
> He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.
> 
> By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!
Click to expand...


What do you think God is, exactly?


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> [
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*



That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
Click to expand...


Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?

Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you if you were saying that you don't believe the Big Bang Theory is right? The rest you imagined, including my supposed ignorance. The Big Bang Theory *includes the understanding* of *a definite beginning of energy, mass, space and time* in a cosmic singularity that *did not exist before a vacuum fluctuation produced it - the implications of general relativity and quantum physics.  *The oscillating model doesn't account for the beginning of the original cosmic singularity.  It has to do with the subsequent universes created out of the original singularity.
> 
> Since you have never thought things through, now would be a good time for you to admit your error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".
> 
> That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again.  God = vacuum fluctuations.  The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is.  I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang _because_ you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't making any sense at all.
> 
> I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.
Click to expand...


Said the pot to the kettle. The real confusion was partially my fault but it had nothing to do with your lies about God = vacuum fluctuations or the Big Bang created mass and energy. I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
Click to expand...


Absolutely nothing wrong.  They are treated differently because human beings are group identified.  Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are now God in your opinion?
> 
> Vacuum fluctuations are part of the problem with the current Big Bang theory. They are the closest that you can rationalize inflation which itself is a rationalization of how the Universe expanded at rates exceeding the speed of light.
> 
> The cyclical universe model doesn't need any of those gyrations and violations of the known laws which is why it is the more likely solution. It is both simple and elegant and works with known quantum string theory.
> 
> Thank you for admitting your ignorance when it comes to the cyclical Universe. Here is a primer for you;
> 
> Recycled Universe Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm beginning to think that you're a little crazy, not stupid, but crazy and apparently a liar.  I never said the Big Bang created the singularity, and I never said that vacuum fluctuations are God.  As for the idea that an alternate oscillating model eliminates certain problems, all you had to do was make that point in the beginning, not lie about what I was asking you or thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your allegations are baseless because you cannot point to anywhere that I have lied. All I have done is expose the glaring flaws in your beliefs. You believe that the universe was created out of nothing and then attempt claim that it happened during vacuum fluctuations thus making the logical conclusion that your God must be the equivalent of vacuum fluctuations since that is how you are alleging that matter/energy is "created".
> 
> That you could not follow something that obvious is not my problem. And for the record I did make the point that the cyclical universe eliminates the inflationary problems with the Big Bang theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just wanted to ridicule, and you did lie by imply that I said and thought things that I did not say or think. And you're lying again.  God = vacuum fluctuations.  The only one who thought or said anything like that is you and the standard Big Bang is not produced by fluctuations, the singularity is.  I'm aware of the recycling universe model. I mentioned the old idea of a static universe and asked you about the Big Bang _because_ you seemed to be implying that the oscillating model which means no end in time accounts for the beginning of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't making any sense at all.
> 
> I suggest that you ask someone to explain what I actually posted before you continue to fling out more baseless allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the pot to the kettle. The real confusion was partially my fault but it had nothing to do with your lies about God = vacuum fluctuations or the Big Bang created mass and energy. I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.
Click to expand...




> I'd always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for a beginning of endless time by way of the quantum vacuum, but it doesn't. You implied the model does account for the beginning of the cycle.


 
The onus is on YOU to prove that implication as opposed to it just being your own misconstruing of what I actually posted. And if you can't prove it then you owe me an apology for calling me a "liar".

Ball is in your court with your credibility on the line.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong.  They are treated differently because human beings are group identified.  Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.
Click to expand...


Well, actually they are treated differently because no one has a vested interest in there actually being a Big Foot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.



Actually, since the OP asked for a valid syllogistic argument, your argument is the one that fails because it relies on things outside of syllogism.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong.  They are treated differently because human beings are group identified.  Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually they are treated differently because no one has a vested interest in there actually being a Big Foot.
Click to expand...


If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way.  Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group.  Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group.  You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine.  But please, video it for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.



No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask sealy, he is the one that insist they do not exist.
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, since the OP asked for a valid syllogistic argument, your argument is the one that fails because it relies on things outside of syllogism.
Click to expand...


He asked for a valid syllogism, not an invalid one.  I showed why Rawlings' syllogism was invalid.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PratchettFan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 kinds of people.
> 
> 1.  Agnostic Atheists, because you would have to be a god yourself to know for sure.
> 
> 2.  People who believe in god or gods or that something made us but don't believe any of the organized religions stories.
> 
> 3.  People who believe their organized religion's stories of when god did talk to our ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong.  They are treated differently because human beings are group identified.  Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually they are treated differently because no one has a vested interest in there actually being a Big Foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way.  Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group.  Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group.  You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine.  But please, video it for me.
Click to expand...


Big Foot is just a convenient example.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.



So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...


But I didn’t write those definitions. You’re not making any sense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> [
> 
> 
> He asked for a valid syllogism, not an invalid one.  I showed why Rawlings' syllogism was invalid.



No, you showed why you think it is false, not why it is invalid. I suggest you look up the rules of logic I poster earlier in this thread, you might learn something.


----------



## PratchettFan

NYcarbineer said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you claim no one has a right to define what other people believe, yet you yourself get to do it. Taking that into account,and using your scale, there would be a 4th kind, people who refuse to admit that they are wrong when provided with actual proof that there are people who say there is not god. I think we should classify this group as lying sacks of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with people having decided there is no God?
> 
> Why is it that a person who believes there is no God is treated entirely differently than a person who's decided there is no Big Foot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong.  They are treated differently because human beings are group identified.  Those seen outside the group are always looked upon with suspicion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually they are treated differently because no one has a vested interest in there actually being a Big Foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were in a group of dedicated Big Foot believers and announced you didn't believe, you would be treated the same way.  Perhaps more so since those people would probably have a more tightly knitted group.  Most people don't believe in Big Foot, so being a Big Foot disbeliever in that group just makes you part of the group.  You could also try going into a meeting of the local Tea Party and suggesting they put their efforts behind socialized medicine.  But please, video it for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big Foot is just a convenient example.
Click to expand...


It was.  It really helped demonstrate my point.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
Click to expand...


The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
Click to expand...


The universe exists, but it isn't the empirical evidence for the substance of an idea in _your _mind?  You're hilarious.  Are you trying to convince me of this horseradish or yourself?  So are you saying that your mind, the connection, doesn't exist?  Now that I could almost buy given the _mindless_ nature of your blather, except for the fact that I'm reading your mind, in more ways than one, on this forum.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The universe exists, but it isn't the empirical evidence for the substance of an idea in _your _mind?  You're hilarious.  Are you trying to convince me of this horseradish or yourself?  So are you saying that your mind, the connection, doesn't exist?  Now that I could almost buy given the _mindless_ nature of your blather, except for the fact that I'm reading your mind, in more ways than one, on this forum.
Click to expand...


Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.

Your failure to comprehend the *FACT* that the existence of the Universe is *NOT* evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.

That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.

Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
Click to expand...


While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.

You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.
> 
> You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.
Click to expand...


There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.

There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.

Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.

But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.

So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.

Peace
DT


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.
Click to expand...


Yep. The major premise is a presupposition. So? That doesn't make it untrue or invalid, and your claim that it "can't be supported by substantive evidence" is patently false on the very face of it, while the major premise is _not_ manifestly false.

The syllogism is irrefutably sound, and the conclusion is irrefutably true . . . _if_ the major premise is true.

So how does it beg the question? And assuming that's true, what is the question it's begging? Be precise.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.
> 
> You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.
> 
> There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.
> 
> Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.
> 
> But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.
> 
> So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.  You will note that your definition is generally the third one on the list.
> 
> Peace
> DT
Click to expand...


Well you may say it emphatically but according to every dictionary and encyclopedia definition I've ever read, you can't say it conclusively unless you are speaking of scientific evidence which I was not.

You will notice that your definition is generally third on the list while mine is first and/or second.

*From Dictionary.com:*
Empirical Evidence
adjective
1.  derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.  depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

*From Merriam Webster:*
1   originating in or based on observation or experience <_empirical_ data>
2   relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an _empirical_ basis for the theory>
3:  capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <_empirical_ laws>
4  of or relating to empiricism

*From Definitions & Translations:*
Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. *The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence*. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect. In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Bullshit.



Pathetic.



PratchettFan said:


> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.



See, this is what I'm talking about. Long winded arguments? As opposed to what? Your obtuse slogan think? You came into this OP not knowing what the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin are or what the ultimate essence of the classical arguments for God's existence are, and you still don't know . . . because you have spent your entire time on this thread talking about irrelevancies. You've written more posts on this thread than I have. I'm actually addressing the topic of the OP. What are you doing?

The thrust of the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin and the ultimate essence of the classical arguments for God's existence are *not* what you just claimed at all! You came into this OP with false, preconceived ideas about the matter, and you're still stuck with the very same false, preconceived ideas because you refuse to open your mind and think.

Neither *your nor my personal beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of God* are relevant to *the fact of the objectively and universally apparent imperatives* of the issue.

Get the wax out of your ears!


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
Click to expand...


You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.  

How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.

Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Derideo_Te said:


> There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.
> 
> There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.
> 
> Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.
> 
> But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.
> 
> So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.
> 
> Peace
> DT



Tell me something, why do you insist on using words you do not understand?

originating in or based on observation or experience

Empirical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​
In other words, personal experience is actualy empirical evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.
> 
> You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.
Click to expand...


Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "desire to disbelieve", Foxy.
> 
> There is no intent to "falsify your account" either.
> 
> Your personal experiences (and others who share those experiences) are what satisfy you and them as to your own convictions.
> 
> But empirical evidence requires independent validation. Therefore someone who doesn't share your beliefs should be able to experience what you claim and verify that they were in contact with your God. That is how empirical evidence works. If it cannot be independently validated then it is not empirical evidence.
> 
> So yes, I can say conclusively that your personal experiences are not empirical evidence. That doesn't mean that what you experience is not valid as far as you are concerned. You are entitled to your beliefs and I will die for your right to uphold those beliefs. But we are talking about empirical is defined and your beliefs and experiences do not fit the definition of empirical evidence.
> 
> Peace
> DT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, why do you insist on using words you do not understand?
> 
> originating in or based on observation or experience
> 
> Empirical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary​
> In other words, personal experience is actualy empirical evidence.
Click to expand...


I know tons of fools who tell me their stories where they saw an angel or ghost.  Or my Catholic friend says he witnessed an exorcist.  

Or I watch those religious shows on tv where they heal people.  I saw it with my own eyes too.  I saw a bunch of fools acting foolish is all I saw.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.



Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?

If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?

(And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.



So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.

Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.

Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-

In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.



sealybobo said:


> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.



Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?



sealybobo said:


> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.



I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.

By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.

ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God 

I guess that means I found another liar.

Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> He asked for a valid syllogism, not an invalid one.  I showed why Rawlings' syllogism was invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you showed why you think it is false, not why it is invalid. I suggest you look up the rules of logic I poster earlier in this thread, you might learn something.
Click to expand...


Well if you're going to be  girl about it, he asked for a sound/valid syllogistic ARGUMENT.  Rawlings syllogism was not a valid argument.

Happy now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I know tons of fools who tell me their stories where they saw an angel or ghost.  Or my Catholic friend says he witnessed an exorcist.
> 
> Or I watch those religious shows on tv where they heal people.  I saw it with my own eyes too.  I saw a bunch of fools acting foolish is all I saw.



I am sure you think you have a point.


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The major premise is a presupposition. So? That doesn't make it untrue or invalid, and your claim that it "can't be supported by substantive evidence" is patently false on the very face of it, while the major premise is _not_ manifestly false.
> 
> The syllogism is irrefutably sound, and the conclusion is irrefutably true . . . _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> So how does it beg the question? And assuming that's true, what is the question it's begging? Be precise.
Click to expand...


It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.

There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> Well if you're going to be  girl about it, he asked for a sound/valid syllogistic ARGUMENT.  Rawlings syllogism was not a valid argument.
> 
> Happy now.



It actually was, because, using syllogism, I can prove you are a cup and have an actual valid argument.

Only cups post on the internet.
NYcarbineer posts on the internet.
Therefore, NYcarbineer is a cup.

In other words, to prove his argument is invalid you have to use the rules of logic to show the conclusion is not supported by the premises. Until you do that, you have not proved his argument is invalid. Simply proving that a premise is false does not make the argument invalid even though the conclusion is false.

If you don't believe me take a class in logic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.



According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.
> 
> You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.
Click to expand...


So do non Atheists.  Both as a working reporter and at a later time in a business in which I took hundreds of recorded statements of eye witness testimonies, I know full well that a dozen people witnessing the same event can see a dozen different versions of what happened.   But at the same time, eye witness testimony is sometimes all the evidence we have.  It is admissible in court and frequently holds up against trained professionals who try their damndest to discredit it.  Were it not, a huge percentage of criminals would never be apprehended or charged, never be tried in a court of law, would never be convicted, would never be held accountable for the most terrible of crimes.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
Click to expand...


Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:
> 
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument fails because it's based on a premise that can't be supported by substantive evidence.  It in fact begs the question with a presupposition that itself is simply an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The major premise is a presupposition. So? That doesn't make it untrue or invalid, and your claim that it "can't be supported by substantive evidence" is patently false on the very face of it, while the major premise is _not_ manifestly false.
> 
> The syllogism is irrefutably sound, and the conclusion is irrefutably true . . . _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> So how does it beg the question? And assuming that's true, what is the question it's begging? Be precise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> *There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.*
Click to expand...


Did you just beg the question?  You obviously did.  In fact, you're assertion is stated as if it were an objectively irrefutable absolute akin to the logical law of identity.  The law of identity (A = A) is an absolute of human apprehension.  Your claim is as bold as my valentine boxers.  It's nature is both rational and empirical.  It should be very easy to substantiate.  Substantiate it.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.
> 
> Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.
> 
> Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-
> 
> In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.
> 
> By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.
> 
> ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God
> 
> I guess that means I found another liar.
> 
> Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


Ok, I get it.  Either you are just trying to be a stubborn prick or you are an ignorant fuck.  Bye.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.
> 
> But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.
> 
> He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.
> 
> By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think God is, exactly?
Click to expand...


 He's that eternally self-subsistent, uncaused Cause of the existence of all other things, the very same idea that exists in _your_ mind every time you contemplate the problem of origin or deny there be any actual substance attached to it.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of the Universe in not in any doubt. The existence of your God is not based upon any empirical evidence whatsoever. That mankind invented a fable about a mythical being called God as a means to rationalize the existence of the Universe does not equate to any evidence whatsoever. The Universe exists. There is no evidence connecting your mythical "creator" to the Universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it is true that the existence of the universe is not proof that there is a being that some call God, it is not also true that  there is no empirical evidence that such God exists.  Are you me?  Do you know what I have experienced up close and personal about anything?  If you witness or experience a thing, for you that is evidence.  You may not be able to prove it to a single other soul, but for you, it is evidence.  If you are convincing or persuasive or believable enough, your experience may also be accepted as evidence by others whether or not they also have had the experience.  And for those who have had the experience, testimony of your experience can also be confirmation/validation of the experience of others who also had the same experience.
> 
> You cannot say conclusively that there is no empirical evidence that God exists when you cannot falsify my account or that of many others who testify to such empirical experience.  The desire to disbelieve in something is not sufficient to discredit or dismiss out of hand those witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists understand eye witness testimony is very unreliable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do non Atheists.  Both as a working reporter and at a later time in a business in which I took hundreds of recorded statements of eye witness testimonies, I know full well that a dozen people witnessing the same event can see a dozen different versions of what happened.   But at the same time, eye witness testimony is sometimes all the evidence we have.  It is admissible in court and frequently holds up against trained professionals who try their damndest to discredit it.  Were it not, a huge percentage of criminals would never be apprehended or charged, never be tried in a court of law, would never be convicted, would never be held accountable for the most terrible of crimes.
Click to expand...


When it comes to crimes, I think if more than one person saw the defendant commit the crime that should be sufficient but when it comes to eye witness' seeing a miracle, I doubt them 100% of the time.

Oops, I can't say 100% if I was not there.  I doubt them 99.999%.  Either they were seeing things, are lying or they were tricked.

I saw David Blane do some amazing shit.  I can't explain how he did those things.  If he told me it was god, I wouldn't believe him.

And I saw a guy on tv talking about exactly what you just said about eye witness testimony.  We accept it in court even though it can be very unreliable.  Was this the man you saw on the day in question?  Yes.  Really?  What if it were someone who looked similar?  It has happened before.  You know how to us whites all blacks look alike?  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, everyone that says they know for sure is lying? I think that actually proves my point, you are defining their beliefs for them on the basis that your personal beliefs do not allow people to believe something you don't like.
> 
> Given that I enjoy rubbing the noses of close minded bigots in the truth they refuse to admit, I will refer you to this pool where 41% of the respondants said they were number 7 on Dawkins scale.
> 
> Richard Dawkins Belief Scale - Poll-
> 
> In case you are as bad at math as you are at admitting your are wrong, that means you just called over 500 people liars.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain to me, in detail, why the fuck you think your actions control other people?
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not the one denying reality, you are. If that makes me a gullible fool, I will wear the label proudly.
> 
> By the way, while i am rubbing your closed mind in reality, here is a guy that explains why he is 1005 sure there is no god.
> 
> ExChristian.Net - Articles How can you be sure there is no God
> 
> I guess that means I found another liar.
> 
> Or, just a thought, you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


Well they are wrong.  They can't be 100% sure if they are not gods themselves.  They need to be educated.

I'm 100% sure, based on the evidence I have, that the Jesus god is fake.  Maybe that's what they mean?   There could be some creator that created the universe.  Who knows?  But the god that came and talked to Adam and Moses and Noah?  I'm 100% sure those are just made up stories/lies.  

But even that I can't say 100% sure because maybe before I was born people could perform miracles, virgins could give birth, people could live 350 years old.  I'd be willing to be 1 million though that none of this is true.  All allegories.  Get it?  

So I'm 100% sure your god is fake, but whether or not some thing created the universe we live in?  It's possible.  But no one on this planet would know for sure because this thing never visited us.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple fact: the universe is not evidence of any gods.
> 
> One or more gods spring-winding the universe is nothing but pure assertion by religionists. There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your bias to believe in gods. You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where does the universally apparent idea for God come from if not from the fact of the universe's existence? Your claim that the existence of the universe and our awareness of it is not the evidence for God's existence is so stupid its sick. That is the entire matter and your acknowledgement of the idea of God proves that you know that. None of your other junk matters.
Click to expand...

Your question regarding "the universally apparent idea for God", is malformed. There simply is no such idea. Let's remember that your gods are merely reinventions of earlier conceptions of gods all of which are now discarded as quaint inventions borne of fear and superstition.

Let's review for a moment the _underlying principles_ of religion, specifically the Christian religion. It is fearful of true knowledge-- it has made it man's primary sin and it has lauded _faith_ over critical thinking. Believe because if you don't, you are condemned.

Therein lies the problem. Where your gods or any of the other gods _could_ maintain an ongoing communication with us, they select not to, thereby making it impossible to "choose" any gods as the "correct god(s)." One could argue that in the Old Testament -- and somewhat less frequently in the New -- (the god's that Christianity stole from Judaism) presence in man's domain was far more evident. Conveniently, man was also far more superstitious and less scientifically knowledgeable at the same time. Do we have a chicken and the egg dynamic here? Is it, "as we got more technological, the gods 'changed his mind' about their level of involvement"? Or, is it "gods fades into obscurity as man's technology grants him greater knowledge of his environment"? (I opt for the latter of course).

In terms of the Christian eschatology myth, the god creates Man, the result of everything is already set in place. God knows Man must fail, as he has created Satan already to allow Man to fail, and in fact decides to give Satan-- whom God _knows_ is evil prideful rebellion incarnate-- to have power of such magnitude that it will actually become a _war_ of good versus evil in the "last days" -- when in fact God should be able to eradicate Satan and evil and hell and damnation --with a metaphorical blink of an eye. He just doesn't do it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
Click to expand...


Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.

Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.

Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that


----------



## NYcarbineer

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
Click to expand...


jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?


----------



## NYcarbineer

M.D. Rawlings said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.
> 
> But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.
> 
> He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.
> 
> By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think God is, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's that eternally self-subsistent, uncaused Cause of the existence of all other things, the very same idea that exists in _your_ mind every time you contemplate the problem of origin or deny there be any actual substance attached to it.
Click to expand...


And that's supposed to mean something to normal people?  So God is nothing more than an idea that exists in the mind?

lol, well if that's what this is down to I guess you win.  God is a thought.  People have thoughts...therefore people have gods.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Ok, I get it.  Either you are just trying to be a stubborn prick or you are an ignorant fuck.  Bye.



I vote for stubborn prick. After all, only stubborn pricks would insist that something is true when there is irrefutable evidence that it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> When it comes to crimes, I think if more than one person saw the defendant commit the crime that should be sufficient but when it comes to eye witness' seeing a miracle, I doubt them 100% of the time.
> 
> Oops, I can't say 100% if I was not there.  I doubt them 99.999%.  Either they were seeing things, are lying or they were tricked.
> 
> I saw David Blane do some amazing shit.  I can't explain how he did those things.  If he told me it was god, I wouldn't believe him.
> 
> And I saw a guy on tv talking about exactly what you just said about eye witness testimony.  We accept it in court even though it can be very unreliable.  Was this the man you saw on the day in question?  Yes.  Really?  What if it were someone who looked similar?  It has happened before.  You know how to us whites all blacks look alike?  LOL.



David Blane does things you can't explain? Like what, tying his shoe laces?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Well they are wrong.  They can't be 100% sure if they are not gods themselves.  They need to be educated.
> 
> I'm 100% sure, based on the evidence I have, that the Jesus god is fake.  Maybe that's what they mean?   There could be some creator that created the universe.  Who knows?  But the god that came and talked to Adam and Moses and Noah?  I'm 100% sure those are just made up stories/lies.
> 
> But even that I can't say 100% sure because maybe before I was born people could perform miracles, virgins could give birth, people could live 350 years old.  I'd be willing to be 1 million though that none of this is true.  All allegories.  Get it?
> 
> So I'm 100% sure your god is fake, but whether or not some thing created the universe we live in?  It's possible.  But no one on this planet would know for sure because this thing never visited us.



Your claim was that no one says they are 100% sure there is no god, not that your beliefs trump theirs. That makes you wrong, not them.

By the way, until you can tell me what I believe about god, which you are 100% unable to do because I have never told you what I believe, you cannot claim my god is fake. But I do laugh at your attempt to define my beliefs for me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
Click to expand...


*(Okay, this post is different from the one for which I wrote a response, which I was about to post before my computer did an automatic shutdown.  The original included quotes from the Physicist Victor Stenger, so here we go. . . .)*

There's a reason why Victor Stenger’s guff is the minority opinion among cosmologists and physicists, atheists and theists alike.  For all his smarts in his field, his pseudo-theological bloviations are those of an obtuse ninny.



> The universe is extremely hostile to life (Victor Stenger).



Non sequitur.

Yes, indeed, it is, and it's especially hostile to any of the conceivable processes of an abiogenetic origin for life. But the universe's arguable hostility toward extant life is not the issue. The issue is that if the respective astronomical arrangements and conditions of the universe, especially those of our solar system, did not persist within a very narrow range of parameters, if, collectively, they were less than one percent off, life wouldn't exist, let alone the indispensable biochemical precursors of life.




> Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space (Victor Stenger).



Non sequitur.

Right. Life is rare in the universe precisely because it can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, and the fact that we know of at least one discrete enclave of the universe where life exists doesn't undermine the idea of a divine origin at all, but arguably underscores it. Duh.




> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended (Victor Stenger).



Oh? So the fact that life can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, the only pertinent and objectively discernible thing that matters, suggests nothing at all about a Sentient origin, especially when one considers the staggeringly complex enterprise that sentient life is and the odds against it even in a universe that permits its existence?  Is Stenger arguing for or against God's existence?




> On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution (Victor Stenger).



Now Stenger’s making a counter teleological argument that necessarily (and unwittingly) presupposes to know something about what the intent of a transcendent Sentience of origin, Whose existence he denies, would be, based on his purely subjective perspective of things, as he unwittingly superimposes the scientifically unfalsifiable apriority of materialism on the question.


Special treatment:



> . . . the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time . . . indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things. . . .



For crying out loud! He's arguing complexity, the very thing atheists claim to be fallacious, albeit, _against_ the notion of divine origin! LOL! Well, hell, which is it?

But more to the point, given that he has allowed that complexity is a valid basis for argumentation after all: why isn't it reasonable to argue that a Sentient origin has orchestrated an awesomely and staggeringly complex display of His majesty precisely because sentient creatures _are_ central in the scheme of things and so that they may surmise His existence?  Is Stenger's point that _simplicity_ would indicate an infinitely powerful and ingenious Being of origin?  LOL!




> . . . we are . . . mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution.



Chance variation and the putative mechanisms of evolutionary theory would be contingent on the cosmos' fixed physical laws and chemical compositions determining the subsequent conditions under which speciation would occur, and none of these things are equivalent to agency, not individually or collectively.

From this we may see that his conclusion is assumed in the premises of his atheistic meanderings, when the only discernibly objective fact of relevance is the rarity of life in the universe due to the very narrow range of parameters within which it can exist.

Stenger's argument is a rash of utterly immaterial, subjective mush.


Hence, as I wrote elseswhere:

. . . Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.

. . . the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe _*is*_ fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable biochemical precursors of life: namely, *the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias. *​
People, the above is the only arguably sustainable objection to the teleological argument, though it still has no real impact on the ultimate concern in _this_ universe  (see post #106 for the full argument).  Stenger's crap is as bad or worse than Dawkins' theologically sophomoric tripe:  for example, "Who created God?"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

NYcarbineer said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do lack philosophical sophistication.  So all I can say, in my own unsophisticated way, is what you just wrote is a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.  It is nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage.  I have absolutely no problem with people who believe whatever they like, but to try to pretend that belief is somehow knowledge with tripe like this is a complete waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be.  I pointed out to you that there was not a single piece of objective evidence in either of those posts.  But do prove me wrong. Show it to me.  You say it is there, you have referred to it twice now, show me what you are talking about.  Specifically.
> 
> From Websters - Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
> 
> I don't want to be mean either, but if you actually want to hold a discussion then do it.  Stop deferring to another poster.  Make your own points and back them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only referred you to his post to save time, and then you guys started talking about it based on his post so I butted out.  That's all that happened there.  I didn't mean to blow you off.  When you raised it again, I got frustrated with you for the same reason I think M.D.R. did.  Now I see the problem.  He's using the term "objective" in its boarder philosophical sense.  You're using it in its common or scientific sense to denote something that is physical or perceived by the senses.  I just assumed you guys worked that out after he explained to you that he was using it that way.  I understood that he was using it in the philosophical all along.
> 
> *Objectivity* is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means *the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings*. A proposition is generally considered *objectively true (to have objective truth)* when its *truth conditions* are met and are *"bias-free"*; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy​
> The boarder sense is also defined in general, nontechnical terms in your basic dictionaries too:
> 
> Objective:
> 
> . . . not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
> 
> . . . being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
> 
> Objective Define Objective at Dictionary.com​
> 
> 
> Rational perceptions that are universally absolute are objectively true by necessity.  They're true by definition or by logical condition.  They're self-evident or axiomatic because they cannot be falsified.  The problem of origin is philosophical.  In philosophical issues both empirical data and absolute rational data are objective evidence.  But even your lack of philosophical sophistication doesn't explain why you nonsensically argue that the cosmos isn't evidence for God's existence.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjectivity, of course, is antonymic to objectivity, and the key to understanding, not only what the difference between the two is, but understanding what the ultimate essence of each is, is to understand the Subject-Object dichotomy.
> 
> But you're wasting your time with PratchettFan.    From the jump, I knew exactly what this fool was thinking:  objective evidence = physical substance only, and the existence of the cosmos, especially the existence of its rational constituents and the implications of their pertinent apprehensions, isn't evidence of God's existence, because God isn't physical, which, of course, does not logically follow.
> 
> He's even deceived himself into believing that _the essence of objectivity_ is a definition one might find in a dictionary proffering only the most rudimentary understanding of the adjectival form of the concept _object_.  His problem isn't a lack of philosophical sophistication.  His problem is a lack of commonsense.  He's a stone-cold idiot.  But mostly, his mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door.  In the meantime, he damn well does recognize the universally apparent constituents of the problem of origin, and the absolute, universally apparent laws of logic.  He also knows damn well or did know, before God gave his mind over to reprobation, that the cosmos is objective evidence of God's existence.  But of course _the absolute objects of axiomatic truths_ apprehended by _the rational subjects of existence_ are by their very nature objective evidence of God's existence too.
> 
> By the way, a serious contemplation of the Subject-Object dichotomy reveals profound insights into why God must be, and if you be still and listen, if you pay real close attention, embrace the almost visceral, epiphanic implications, you might even hear the recording of God's voice imprinted on your mind.   Boo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think God is, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's that eternally self-subsistent, uncaused Cause of the existence of all other things, the very same idea that exists in _your_ mind every time you contemplate the problem of origin or deny there be any actual substance attached to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's supposed to mean something to normal people?  So God is nothing more than an idea that exists in the mind?
> 
> lol, well if that's what this is down to I guess you win.  God is a thought.  People have thoughts...therefore people have gods.
Click to expand...


*Foxfyre observe!*

False.  Your silly and evasive _therefore_ is of _your_ own fabrication.  And your obnoxious sneering only makes you look all the more stupid and dishonest.  For what is the point, junior? 

The point is that the idea of God is not a mere figment of human culture, but a propositional axiom of potentiality immediately apprehended when one turns one's mind on the problem of origin, the substance of which cannot be rationally denied outright.  The idea of God and/or the conclusion that He is or must be is not based on blind faith and does not violate the rules of logic, something you have stupidly asserted more than once on this forum, in spite of the fact that you have _now_ necessarily conceded that your sneering bullshit is sheer bluster.  The idea is in your head for the very same . . . ._reason_. 

*Isn't that the whole point of so-called agnostic atheism?*

You know, a position the likes of you recognize to be a rationally necessary position.  The position of strict atheism is irrational.  And once again, what is the objective evidence for atheism?  Answer:  Zip.  It can't be articulated in its own right.  It's a negative assertion in the face of existence.  What exactly does evidence for atheism mean anyway?  Think about that for awhile, junior.

And, finally, what does the nature of this idea ultimately demonstrate?  It demonstrates that all you liars know damn well that the existence of the universe _is_ the pertinent evidence for God's existence.  WE SEE RIGHT THROUGH YOU.  Boo!


----------



## MaxGrit

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
Click to expand...

You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?

They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.


----------



## MaxGrit

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
Click to expand...

He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.

You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.


----------



## Indofred

*Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Non-Existence Of God?*


----------



## Hollie

Indofred said:


> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Non-Existence Of God?*


Yes. The most convincing argument for the non-existence of gods derives from the sweaty, chest-heaving appeals to magic, fear and superstition which is the entirety of the fundamentalist's argument.


----------



## Hollie

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
Click to expand...

There is no logical argument available to reach a conclusion that "magic" and supernaturalism has a place in explaining existence.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
Click to expand...

No, fail.

Youndid not.prov  he was a cup using the rules of logic - you used a false premise so the argument failed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
Click to expand...


But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .



"Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?

A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."

This fails because A is not yet proven.


----------



## PratchettFan

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
Click to expand...

 
I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.


----------



## MaxGrit

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
Click to expand...


They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing. 

You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.


----------



## G.T.

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
Click to expand...


I understand that, but the problem is it breaks down in that it's most certainly NOT axiomatic. 

"Nothing" in the physical sense is not even proven to exist, therefore the "something can't come from nothing" argument fails. 

Further, if "nothing" in the physical sense did ever exist, the fact that we have never OBSERVED something coming from nothing does not render it IMPOSSIBLE, only IMPROBABLE, thus it still is an invalid argument in terms of being "proof" of or for anything. 

If you put souped up chrome rims on a Dodge Neon, it's still a Dodge Neon. M.D. rawlings is the dodge neon. Bloviation was invented the day he was born.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
Click to expand...


It's proof that your faith in the religion of atheism compels you to cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.
> 
> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.
Click to expand...




> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.



Utter bollocks!


----------



## G.T.

Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

MaxGrit said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.
> 
> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.
Click to expand...


Well, ultimately, yes.  But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.

At this point all I'm talking about are those things that *everybody knows*, including the atheist. 

What I just proved in the above, more at, *what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else*:

1.  The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.  It's a propositional absolute.
2.  The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied.  There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient:  theism or agnosticism.  Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and *the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.*

*3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.) *

*Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause.  What is atheism?  It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient.  And that's all it is.* 

4.  The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.

EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.

Aside to QW:  Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language?  These truths that *everybody knows*, including the atheist, are some of *the  fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin*.  What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not?  They believe something has always existed.  They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.

These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows.  These is noise.  The noise only further confuses things.  I don't do noise.  I stick to what matters.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
Click to expand...


Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".


----------



## G.T.

Again, there is no proof that something cannot come from nothing, and there is no proof that _nothing_ ever was. 

Atheism and theism are equally irrational.


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but the problem is it breaks down in that it's most certainly NOT axiomatic.
> 
> "Nothing" in the physical sense is not even proven to exist, therefore the "something can't come from nothing" argument fails.
> 
> Further, if "nothing" in the physical sense did ever exist, the fact that we have never OBSERVED something coming from nothing does not render it IMPOSSIBLE, only IMPROBABLE, thus it still is an invalid argument in terms of being "proof" of or for anything.
Click to expand...


You have serious denial of reality issues.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but the problem is it breaks down in that it's most certainly NOT axiomatic.
> 
> "Nothing" in the physical sense is not even proven to exist, therefore the "something can't come from nothing" argument fails.
> 
> Further, if "nothing" in the physical sense did ever exist, the fact that we have never OBSERVED something coming from nothing does not render it IMPOSSIBLE, only IMPROBABLE, thus it still is an invalid argument in terms of being "proof" of or for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have serious denial of reality issues.
Click to expand...

^ thats not proof of anything, it's a corny retort to a cogent post


----------



## MaxGrit

Derideo_Te said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".
Click to expand...


You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...



Your comments are flash in the pan nothingness, and insults. Always substanceless ad homs. 

Congrats, you're meaningless.


----------



## Derideo_Te

MaxGrit said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moronic drivel! There is no "faith in atheism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are in denial. Your faith in atheism compels you to have cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...


Irony squared!


----------



## MaxGrit

G.T. said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but the problem is it breaks down in that it's most certainly NOT axiomatic.
> 
> "Nothing" in the physical sense is not even proven to exist, therefore the "something can't come from nothing" argument fails.
> 
> Further, if "nothing" in the physical sense did ever exist, the fact that we have never OBSERVED something coming from nothing does not render it IMPOSSIBLE, only IMPROBABLE, thus it still is an invalid argument in terms of being "proof" of or for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have serious denial of reality issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ thats not proof of anything, it's a corny retort to a cogent post
Click to expand...


You are literally crazy.


----------



## G.T.

^ called it like it was, e'rrbody


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
Click to expand...

 
No.  What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4.  And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial.  The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim.  Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.


----------



## MaxGrit

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.
> 
> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, ultimately, yes.  But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.
> 
> At this point all I'm talking about are those things that *everybody knows*, including the atheist.
> 
> What I just proved in the above, more at, *what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else*:
> 
> 1.  The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.  It's a propositional absolute.
> 2.  The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied.  There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient:  theism or agnosticism.  Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and *the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.*
> 
> *3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.) *
> 
> *Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause.  What is atheism?  It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient.  And that's all it is.*
> 
> 4.  The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.
> 
> EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.
> 
> Aside to QW:  Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language?  These truths that *everybody knows*, including the atheist, are some of *the  fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin*.  What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not?  They believe something has always existed.  They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.
> 
> These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows.  These is noise.  The noise only further confuses things.  I don't do noise.  I stick to what matters.
Click to expand...


Most new atheists are insane and have blind faith in the religion of atheism.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.
> 
> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, ultimately, yes.  But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.
> 
> At this point all I'm talking about are those things that *everybody knows*, including the atheist.
> 
> What I just proved in the above, more at, *what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else*:
> 
> 1.  The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.  It's a propositional absolute.
> 2.  The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied.  There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient:  theism or agnosticism.  Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and *the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.*
> 
> *3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.) *
> 
> *Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause.  What is atheism?  It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient.  And that's all it is.*
> 
> 4.  The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.
> 
> EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.
> 
> Aside to QW:  Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language?  These truths that *everybody knows*, including the atheist, are some of *the  fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin*.  What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not?  They believe something has always existed.  They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.
> 
> These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows.  These is noise.  The noise only further confuses things.  I don't do noise.  I stick to what matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most new atheists are insane and have blind faith in the religion of atheism.
Click to expand...

 
Amazing.  It brings to mind that great quote from the movie Inherit the Wind... "Do you ever think about the things you do think about?"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
Click to expand...


You're confused.  I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing.  YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing.  So all your babble has *nothing* to do with the *something* I said, does it, Einstein?  There's nothing you can teach me about the problem of origin, Einstein.


----------



## G.T.

I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.


----------



## G.T.

Anyone who thinks they have proved god needs a serious humble the fuck down cake, it's sort of like a pound cake except you eat it with your ego.....it's hands free.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
Click to expand...


But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.

And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4.  And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial.  The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim.  Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...


Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4? 
I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me. 
You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4. 
Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
You are in denial to reality.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
Click to expand...

 
Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.

I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
Click to expand...


I don't lack any understanding, as you presume. It seems like you do. 

It's a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing. True. 

The absence of being able to answer doesn't PROVE the opposite, though, as you had stated in your last paragraph. 

Therein lies the disconnect - or the "what qualifies as proof" leniency that you're showing there. 

The absence of an answer is not affirmative proof of something else.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4.  And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial.  The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim.  Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4?
> I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me.
> You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4.
> Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
> You are in denial to reality.
Click to expand...

 
No.  It is you who insist that nothing is something.  You have no objective evidence to support your claim.  Pointing to the universe and saying "See" is not evidence of anything but the existence of the universe.  It proves nothing.  So proceed and present your evidence.  If you can't then you are claiming no evidence is the same thing as evidence.... nothing = something.

What is self-evident here is that you can't seem to differentiate between what you believe and what you know.  I find that to typically be a self-imposed disability.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
Click to expand...


Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
1.  That something comes from nothing?
2.  Or that something comes from something?


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
Click to expand...

 
Neither.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
Click to expand...



It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality. 

In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."

That's a leap. 

The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It begs the question by trying to make the argumentative part 1 stand as accepted fact.
> 
> There is no good argument on earth that can establish conclusively that knowledge is not possible without God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
Click to expand...


I don't think I wrote that.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(Okay, this post is different from the one for which I wrote a response, which I was about to post before my computer did an automatic shutdown.  The original included quotes from the Physicist Victor Stenger, so here we go. . . .)*
> 
> There's a reason why Victor Stenger’s guff is the minority opinion among cosmologists and physicists, atheists and theists alike.  For all his smarts in his field, his pseudo-theological bloviations are those of an obtuse ninny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Yes, indeed, it is, and it's especially hostile to any of the conceivable processes of an abiogenetic origin for life. But the universe's arguable hostility toward extant life is not the issue. The issue is that if the respective astronomical arrangements and conditions of the universe, especially those of our solar system, did not persist within a very narrow range of parameters, if, collectively, they were less than one percent off, life wouldn't exist, let alone the indispensable biochemical precursors of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Right. Life is rare in the universe precisely because it can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, and the fact that we know of at least one discrete enclave of the universe where life exists doesn't undermine the idea of a divine origin at all, but arguably underscores it. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? So the fact that life can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, the only pertinent and objectively discernible thing that matters, suggests nothing at all about a Sentient origin, especially when one considers the staggeringly complex enterprise that sentient life is and the odds against it even in a universe that permits its existence?  Is Stenger arguing for or against God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Stenger’s making a counter teleological argument that necessarily (and unwittingly) presupposes to know something about what the intent of a transcendent Sentience of origin, Whose existence he denies, would be, based on his purely subjective perspective of things, as he unwittingly superimposes the scientifically unfalsifiable apriority of materialism on the question.
> 
> 
> Special treatment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time . . . indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For crying out loud! He's arguing complexity, the very thing atheists claim to be fallacious, albeit, _against_ the notion of divine origin! LOL! Well, hell, which is it?
> 
> But more to the point, given that he has allowed that complexity is a valid basis for argumentation after all: why isn't it reasonable to argue that a Sentient origin has orchestrated an awesomely and staggeringly complex display of His majesty precisely because sentient creatures _are_ central in the scheme of things and so that they may surmise His existence?  Is Stenger's point that _simplicity_ would indicate an infinitely powerful and ingenious Being of origin?  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . we are . . . mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chance variation and the putative mechanisms of evolutionary theory would be contingent on the cosmos' fixed physical laws and chemical compositions determining the subsequent conditions under which speciation would occur, and none of these things are equivalent to agency, not individually or collectively.
> 
> From this we may see that his conclusion is assumed in the premises of his atheistic meanderings, when the only discernibly objective fact of relevance is the rarity of life in the universe due to the very narrow range of parameters within which it can exist.
> 
> Stenger's argument is a rash of utterly immaterial, subjective mush.
> 
> 
> Hence, as I wrote elseswhere:
> 
> . . . Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.
> 
> . . . the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe _*is*_ fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable biochemical precursors of life: namely, *the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias. *​
> People, the above is the only arguably sustainable objection to the teleological argument, though it still has no real impact on the ultimate concern in _this_ universe  (see post #106 for the full argument).  Stenger's crap is as bad or worse than Dawkins' theologically sophomoric tripe:  for example, "Who created God?"
Click to expand...


If there were a god, he would have put a planet with life around every star not just ours.

You know how you know god is all in our heads?  You hope your boss doesn't call and when it's someone else you thank god.  I do it too.  You're in a big hand at the poker table and you win.  If you would have lost you'd be out of money.   You win so you thank god.  Actors and boxers thank god.  When one person survives a crash and 100 other people die, they thank god.  Why didn't he help the othe 100 people?  When people escape death or science cures their cancer, they thank god.  What did the baby that died of cancer do that god didn't save her?  

It's all in your tiny human heads.  Mine too and I want it out!  LOL.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
Click to expand...


I want you to try and prove what I claim. Meaning, please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).

 If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.


----------



## sealybobo

MaxGrit said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
Click to expand...


Was I brainwashed with atheism when my parents took me to church as a child?  How about when they let the born agains talk to us one week one summer when we were kids?  They had to get our parents permission before they could commense the brainwashin.  It was very nice but I never believed the unbelievable stories.  You tell me a virgin gave birth and someone rose from the dead after 3 days I say hogwash.  So atheism or intelligence, logical thought, skepticism were always in me yes.  The devil was not.  But they said if you don't believe the stories you'll go to hell.  

So theism, christianity and all other religions had their chance for 43 years to brainwashed me.  After 43 years I decided there is no god.  I'm still gonna be a good person I promise.  

If there is a god, he never talked to any of you or anyone.  And I do believe in karma, so I guess I'm a good person because I believe what comes around goes around.  ACTUALLY, that isn't even true.  I don't not rape, murder or steal because I don't want it to come back to bite me.  I have a conscience.  

The question is, without the religious brainwashing for 43 years, would I have a conscience?  Good question.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Proof that there are people who say there is not god?  I don't need proof to know people like that exist.  I'm one of them dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, idiot, proof that there are people who say they know there is no god. When presented with evidence from people who actually say this, you insist they don't really mean what they say because you think your interpretation of the universe is the only one that is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to want to understand.  No atheist will tell you that they know 100% for sure there is no god and actually mean it.
> 
> How do I know?  I say it all the time.  THERE IS NO FUCKING GOD!  But I also understand the only way for me to be 100% sure is if I'm a god myself.
> 
> Now you stupid fucks say you are 100% sure because you believe 100% your church is telling you the truth.  That makes you a gullible fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the rules of logic, it is an accepted fact for the basis of the validity of the argument. I posted a link in the thread that explains this, learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rawlings' understanding of theological/scientific concepts is sound and credible.  His only problem is in using arguments that he no doubt took years to understand and develop to people who don't want to believe the simplest explanation, let alone something that complex.  It's sort of like using theories and components of quantum physics to explain something to somebody who has never had more than a general highschool science class.  And if you do that with numbnuts, they'll attack the teacher every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fox, what are you talking about? The topic _is_ the classical arguments for God's existence!  The pertinent concerns are objective, not subjective. The fundamental apprehensions of the problem of origin, beginning with the universal laws of logic, are objectively apparent to all. There's nothing mysterious or difficult about these. One doesn't have to have any extraordinary store of knowledge about philosophy or science to see these things, one just has to be honest with one's self. One just has to be real.  They're imprinted on our minds or, for you materialists, they're physiologically and biochemically hardwired. They are immediately apparent.  They are of the same stuff as that which a child barely out of infancy recognizes before it has a name for them.  Circle.  Square.  Triangle.  The ability to make out the constituents of spatial dimension in terms of motion.  A = A.  A = not-A.  The essence of addition or subtraction (more or less).  Of course, some of these fundamentals, the slightly more elaborate, like the law of the excluded middle, for example, require a bit more developmental experience, but by the age of 12, let's say, something's seriously wrong if one doesn't have them down by then or can't readily grasp them once they are explained to one.
> 
> Getting at the essence of what the arguments for God's existence actually is, is slightly more difficult, but no less objective.  Even that enterprise doesn't require any additional knowledge, because their essence axiomatically follows from the fundamental apprehensions.  The only thing standing in the way of grasping the essence of the arguments for some is rank self-deception or pride.  Make no mistake about, this thread is filled with lies, conscious, premeditated lies, hiding behind sneer and bluster.
> 
> Now beyond that level of apprehension we get into what _is_ staggeringly complex and does require significant learning beyond the fundamentals of apprehension and common logic. I've barely scratched the surface, in fact, given that the object of these arguments' is infinitely complex, I'll never, relatively speaking, be able to put so much as a dent into that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> jesus Christ on a bicycle could you PLEASE be brief and speak in the common tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's saying that the fact that you can know anything at all in this universe is the proof that God exists.
> 
> You think and therefore you must know since you are thinking about something that you know. Thus God must exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, ultimately, yes.  But the logic that leads to that is a long train, and the atheist doesn't get or know that.
> 
> At this point all I'm talking about are those things that *everybody knows*, including the atheist.
> 
> What I just proved in the above, more at, *what the atheist NYcarbineer just admitted to knowing just like everybody else*:
> 
> 1.  The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.  It's a propositional absolute.
> 2.  The existence of the substance of the idea of God cannot be rationally denied.  There are only two logically consistent positions to take regarding the question of whether or not the eternally existent, uncaused cause is sentient or not sentient:  theism or agnosticism.  Strict atheism is irrational, as the possibility that the first uncaused cause is sentient cannot be rationally denied, and *the atheist necessarily concedes that there must be an eternally existent, uncaused caused of one kind or the other.*
> 
> *3. (Note how the assertion that the eternally existent, uncaused cause must be sentient doesn't on the face of it violate the rules of logic, whether it be a seemingly unsupported presupposition or not, while the stark denial that it can't be sentient does violate the rules of logic.) *
> 
> *Hence, the real issue is not whether or not there exists an eternally existent, uncaused cause.  What is atheism?  It's nothing more than the idea that the first uncaused cause it not sentient.  And that's all it is.*
> 
> 4.  The existence of the universe is the evidence for the eternally existent, uncaused cause.
> 
> EVERBODY KNOWS THESE THINGS ARE TRUE.
> 
> Aside to QW:  Jesus on a bicycle, is that brief enough, in plain enough language?  These truths that *everybody knows*, including the atheist, are some of *the  fundamental, absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin*.  What does every friggin' atheist on this thread believe, whether they are trying to give a scientific account for it or not?  They believe something has always existed.  They believe that an eternally existent, uncaused cause must exist.
> 
> These are the things that objectively matter because these are the kind of things everybody knows.  These is noise.  The noise only further confuses things.  I don't do noise.  I stick to what matters.
Click to expand...


There may very well be a god or something that created us.  Atheists see no sign of that but it is possible.  Not probable but possible.  But there could be.  We will give you theists that.

Now, does this god care about us?  Did he ever come here and talk to some of us?  Are the stories in the bible or koran true?  Probably not.  I don't have any doubt they are all made up.  Too much evidence suggests it.

So maybe something did create all this.  Who knows?  Certainly not theists.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
Click to expand...


The law of conservation of matter/energy indicates that the Universe has always existed in one form or another. So according to your argument that would equate the Universe to your God, right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
Click to expand...


This is wrong.

*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

The syllogism is logically valid, and the conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead.  Try it.  Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument.  I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! LOL!  Another way to say this is that there is something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.
> 
> In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."
> 
> That's a leap.
> 
> The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.
Click to expand...




PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither.
Click to expand...


Really?  You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years.  Tsk Tsk.  For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all.  I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved.  I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere.  I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.

For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something.  I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence.  Proof?  No.  But I have not argued proof.  Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.


----------



## G.T.

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to try and prove what I claim. Meaning, please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).
> 
> If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.
Click to expand...

That you responded with this, means that it's flying way the fuck over your head, "sleepy."

That we have not observed something coming from nothing is not a logical proof that it is impossible. 

It is improbable, but not proven impossible, thus cannot be used as a PROOF. 

Second, nothing as a concept has also not been proven to have existed, EVER. 

Therefore, for a secondary reason, it cannot be used as a PROOF.


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to try and prove why it cannot be true that something can come from nothing.
> 
> If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.
Click to expand...

 
It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.  It is your responsibility to prove you right.  For people who want to claim logic to validate their position it is amazing how they continuously ignore the rules of logic.


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are in denial. Their faith in atheism compels them to believe that something can come from nothing.
> 
> You are telling atheists that 2+2 = 4, yet they insist that 2+2 = 3 because of their faith in atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What you are saying is that 0 + 0 = 4.  And then you are insisting that any demand that you back that statement up is a denial.  The responsibility for supporting a claim is on the person making the claim.  Arguing the claim is proven because the other party does not disprove it is a logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you see that it's you who says 0+0=4?
> I call you crazy because you actually believe that 0+0=4. I tell you that 0+0=0. However, you refuses to believe me.
> You insists that it's perfectly logical for 0+0=4.
> Since 0+0=0, it's self-evident that you have cognitive dissonance.
> You are in denial to reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It is you who insist that nothing is something.  You have no objective evidence to support your claim.  Pointing to the universe and saying "See" is not evidence of anything but the existence of the universe.  It proves nothing.  So proceed and present your evidence.  If you can't then you are claiming no evidence is the same thing as evidence.... nothing = something.
> 
> What is self-evident here is that you can't seem to differentiate between what you believe and what you know.  I find that to typically be a self-imposed disability.
Click to expand...


I was talking to MDR so I have no idea what you want me to prove.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is wrong.
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> The syllogism is logically valid, and the conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it.  Forget about alleged informal criticism for a moment, and as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the assertion in the major premise with a logically consistent argument.  I can confidently guarantee you that any such argument will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise! LOL!  Another way to say this is that there is something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.
Click to expand...



Whether or not god exists, I know that I _DONT KNOW_ everything. That is inherent knowledge. 
Because if I *did* know *everything*, I'd *necessary* have to ALSO *know that I know everything*, which I don't. 
This is knowledge in the absence of God. 

Also, god it/his/herself is not proven thus it's most DEFINITELY not proven that without god there is no knowledge. That's cart before the horse.


----------



## Foxfyre

Derideo_Te said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law of conservation of matter/energy indicates that the Universe has always existed in one form or another. So according to your argument that would equate the Universe to your God, right?
Click to expand...


It would be one way to reason it.  That was actually Spinoza and Einstein's theory.  Each did not suppose the origins of the universe as important except in the matter of scientific curiosity.  But each observed a symmetry and order and method in the universe that went against all laws of probability as being by pure chance or accident.  So they both concluded that it was reasonable to leave open the possibility of some form of intelligence guiding the process.  It was that reasoned observation that caused Einstein to reject the label of Atheist even though he did not accept any form of personal God or deity.

Both were pure scientists as opposed to those who make a religion of science and judge those who disagree with their conclusions to be heretics and unscientific.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.
> 
> In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."
> 
> That's a leap.
> 
> The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years.  Tsk Tsk.  For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all.  I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved.  I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere.  I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.
> 
> For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something.  I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence.  Proof?  No.  But I have not argued proof.  Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.
Click to expand...

 
Really.  Matter and energy interact with each other and they continuously form new structures, but everything that is here has been here from the beginning.  Something may act as a catalyst, but it does not create something.  If you put a hydrogen atom in a vacuum, it will not suddenly create another hydrogen atom.  At least, there is no evidence that this is happening, just as there is no evidence that something comes from nothing.

We have no idea if there was an origin, or what the source of that origin might be.  Simply because we can't think of another answer to that question does not make the answer we come up with correct.  In the face of an absence of evidence, you make the conclusion which feels right to you.  But that does not make it any more true than any other conclusion.  This is belief, and I have no problem with belief.  But belief is all it is.  I get that you are not saying otherwise, but MDR and Maxgrit certainly are.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.
> 
> In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."
> 
> That's a leap.
> 
> The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You poor thing confined to that dark cave devoid of any experience of the outside world all these years.  Tsk Tsk.  For myself, fortunate to live and enjoy a lot of what the Earth has to offer, I have observed a whole lot of stuff in a rather lengthy life now, but I have never seen a cake baked with no ingredients at all.  I have never seen a plant appear in which a seed or another plant was not involved.  I have never seen an ant that didn't originate in some colony somewhere.  I've never seen a garment that some human did not fashion in some way.
> 
> For me that is all evidence that strongly suggests that everything that exists originated from something.  I will confess that I do not understand those who would dismiss that as evidence.  Proof?  No.  But I have not argued proof.  Only evidence and probability based on what can be seen, touched, tasted, experienced, reasoned.
Click to expand...


Not having seen it means it isn't true, is what you just said. 

Now, critically think back on that. Think really really hard about that. 

What you'll conclude is that it is not sufficient. At all. 

Do you need to know all of the things deemed impossible because they were never observed - but later proven possible...................................in order to nkiow why that train of thought fails? Or no?


----------



## MaxGrit

PratchettFan said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to try and prove why it cannot be true that something can come from nothing.
> 
> If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.  It is your responsibility to prove you right.  For people who want to claim logic to validate their position it is amazing how they continuously ignore the rules of logic.
Click to expand...


I can prove I'm right. Therefore, it's possible for you to prove that I'm right. You should attempt to do so. Can you do it? If you can't then you have to wait and ask MDR to school you on how to do it.
#
Please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).


----------



## Valerie

OP said:
			
		

> Yet, all of *these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism*, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.




link?  ^ 




God's _existence_ in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.

Therefore, God _exists_, even if only as an inspiration...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.



Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.

As for "not provable"?  Fine.  Have at it.  And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about stuff you've never considered.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.
> 
> As for "not provable"?  Fine.  Have it.  And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.
Click to expand...

Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Valerie said:


> OP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all of *these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism*, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?  ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's _existence_ in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.
> 
> Therefore, God _exists_, even if only as an inspiration...
Click to expand...


Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.
> 
> As for "not provable"?  Fine.  Have it.  And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.
Click to expand...


I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about *something* that had *nothing* to do with what I wrote, Einstein.  You forgot about that already?  Gee wiz. 

Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:

You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has *nothing* to do with the *something* I said, does it, Einstein? —M.D. Rawlings​
What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about.  LOL!


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.
> 
> As for "not provable"?  Fine.  Have it.  And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about *something* that had *nothing* to do with what I wrote, Einstein.  You forgot about that already?  Gee wiz.
> 
> Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:
> 
> You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has *nothing* to do with the *something* I said, does it, Einstein? —M.D. Rawlings​
> What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about.  LOL!
Click to expand...

This post, is a waste of bandwidth. Congrats, wannabe.


----------



## Valerie

Derideo_Te said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all of *these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism*, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?  ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's _existence_ in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.
> 
> Therefore, God _exists_, even if only as an inspiration...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.
Click to expand...



similar rationale, but not exactly... can you prove that superman _doesn't_ exist?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Valerie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all of *these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism*, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?  ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's _existence_ in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.
> 
> Therefore, God _exists_, even if only as an inspiration...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under that rationale Superman "exists" too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> similar rationale, but not exactly... can you prove that superman _doesn't_ exist?
Click to expand...


There is a distinct probability that there are beings in the Universe with "godlike" powers. We, ourselves, can send a bolt out of the sky to kill someone on the other side of the planet. Does that make us "gods" simply because we have that power?

The existence of an omnipotent "creator" is another order of magnitude since it requires the creation of the entire Universe out of nothing. Given our current scientific knowledge the probability of an omnipotent "creator" is virtually zero. 

It can't be zero because we are not omniscient but that too is virtually impossible because it implies knowing the future of every possible variation of every subatomic particle in the Universe. 

We exist, the Universe exists and our knowledge is finite. Beyond that is speculation, wishful thinking and self delusion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
Click to expand...


Stop lying, Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-about-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-little-snake-of-a-man.

 An _argumentum ad ignorantiam_ would necessarily involve a *subsequent* argument in this case that does not logically follow. Cite the argument I "perhaps" made that does  not logically follow from the observation that YOU cannot explain HOW something can come from nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Indofred said:


> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Non-Existence Of God?*



Of course there is, the wonderful thing about syllogism is you can prove two contradictory ideas without any actual effort, which is why idiots think they are smart.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Yes. The most convincing argument for the non-existence of gods derives from the sweaty, chest-heaving appeals to magic, fear and superstition which is the entirety of the fundamentalist's argument.



Those arguments have nothing to to with logic and syllogism.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> There is no logical argument available to reach a conclusion that "magic" and supernaturalism has a place in explaining existence.



Once again you are displaying your ignorance by confusing the philosophy of logic with your close minded rejection of anything outside your limited life. Logic allows people to prove anything they can think of using rather simple rules. How do you think Aristotle proved that there were 4 elements,earth, air, fire, and water??


----------



## PratchettFan

MaxGrit said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to try and prove why it cannot be true that something can come from nothing.
> 
> If you can't, I'm sure MDR will help you. I'm sleepy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my responsibility to prove you wrong.  It is your responsibility to prove you right.  For people who want to claim logic to validate their position it is amazing how they continuously ignore the rules of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can prove I'm right. Therefore, it's possible for you to prove that I'm right. You should attempt to do so. Can you do it? If you can't then you have to wait and ask MDR to school you on how to do it.
> #
> Please attempt the proof showing that "something can come from nothing" is never true (always false).
Click to expand...

 
I can't.  I've already seen MDR's school and he can't either.  Now go ahead and prove you right.  Back it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, fail.
> 
> Youndid not.prov  he was a cup using the rules of logic - you used a false premise so the argument failed.



sigh.

Look up the rules of logic and show me which one says I cannot use a false premise, you might learn something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.



Nothing is not a concept, idiot. Also, the rules of logic do not require a premise to be true for an argument to be valid. If you disagree, feel free to provide me with the rule that states that, if a premise is false, the conclusion is not valid.


----------



## G.T.

Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments. 

I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is not a concept, idiot. Also, the rules of logic do not require a premise to be true for an argument to be valid. If you disagree, feel free to provide me with the rule that states that, if a premise is false, the conclusion is not valid.
Click to expand...

Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid. 

The premise can be false and the *logic* valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false. 

Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.



No, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that results from believing two contradictory things at the same time.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is saying something exists therefore God made it, while ignoring the close to infinite other possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that results from believing two contradictory things at the same time.
Click to expand...

No shit, sherlock.


----------



## G.T.

Here, is a great discussion. 

Not internet forum blow-hards. Accomplished men of the very field we're discussing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments.
> 
> I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.



The point is that the arguments are not internally inconsistent, which is why they are valid, oh he who doesn't understand logic. Like I said, if I am wrong feel free to prove it by citing the rules of logic that prove me wrong. Since this particular thread is bout logical proofs of the existence of god, and the arguments are internally consistent, you are left in the untenable position of claiming that a valid argument is invalid. If you actually understood logic you wouldn't make that claim.

Would you like me to explain how you can actually refute those arguments, or would the fact that I know something you don't destroy your universe?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, internally consistent bad arguments are still bad arguments.
> 
> I'm wondering if someone has a rational proof for god's existence, and no-one does. Not in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that t*he arguments are not* internally inconsistent, which is *why they are valid*, oh he who doesn't understand logic. Like I said, if I am wrong feel free to prove it by citing the rules of logic that prove me wrong. Since this particular thread is bout logical proofs of the existence of god, and the arguments are internally consistent, you are left in the untenable position of claiming that a valid argument is invalid. If you actually understood logic you wouldn't make that claim.
> 
> Would you like me to explain how you can actually refute those arguments, or would the fact that I know something you don't destroy your universe?
Click to expand...


Yea, - I think you need to umm.....study harder. 

The bolded should advise you why. 

It probably won't, you're a windbag. A blow hard. We know. It's ok. 



Also, to refute "those arguments," you'll have to point me to which the fuck arguments you're talking about, jackass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid.
> 
> The premise can be false and the *logic* valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false.
> 
> Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.



Since you refuse to even attempt to back up your argument by citing the rules of logic that show you are right I will cite them to prove you are wrong.



> A deductive argument is said to be _valid_ if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be _invalid_.



Funny, nothing in there about the premises having to be true.

Now, just to show you how nice I can be to idiots, I will use the same cite I just used to explain the argument you should be using.



> A deductive argument is _sound_ if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are _actually true_. Otherwise, a deductive argument is _unsound._



http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

In other words, there are tow conditions that need to be met for an argument to be true. It has to be valid, and sound. It is possible for an argument to be valid, but unsound, AKA, not true. 

I told you I knew how to refute arguments based on the fact that a premise is false, didn't I? You should have taken advantage of my offer to show you instead of repeating your display of ignorance.

As for nothing, that would depend on how you define it, not your insistence that it has not been proven to exist. The simple fact is that if nothing did not exist we would not need the number zero to work mathematical calculations of the universe. I know that is probably something that you don't understand given humans innate abhorrence for the very thought of there being nothing, but that does not mean it does not exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No shit, sherlock.



Wow, an admission you are wrong, amazing.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the premise has to be true for the argument to be valid.
> 
> The premise can be false and the *logic* valid, but not the argument. The argument cannot be valid if its premises are false.
> 
> Nothing is a concept because it's not proven to exist, physically. I'll defer to physicists on that one, not a fuckin windbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you refuse to even attempt to back up your argument by citing the rules of logic that show you are right I will cite them to prove you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deductive argument is said to be _valid_ if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be _invalid_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, nothing in there about the premises having to be true.
> 
> Now, just to show you how nice I can be to idiots, I will use the same cite I just used to explain the argument you should be using.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A deductive argument is _sound_ if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are _actually true_. Otherwise, a deductive argument is _unsound._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Validity and Soundness Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> In other words, there are tow conditions that need to be met for an argument to be true. It has to be valid, and sound. It is possible for an argument to be valid, but unsound, AKA, not true.
> 
> I told you I knew how to refute arguments based on the fact that a premise is false, didn't I? You should have taken advantage of my offer to show you instead of repeating your display of ignorance.
> 
> As for nothing, that would depend on how you define it, not your insistence that it has not been proven to exist. The simple fact is that if nothing did not exist we would not need the number zero to work mathematical calculations of the universe. I know that is probably something that you don't understand given humans innate abhorrence for the very thought of there being nothing, but that does not mean it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Are you retarded. 

This is from my post:

"The premise can be false and the *logic* valid,"



God damn shut the fuck up. seven million god damns, shut the fuck up.

You're such a whiney priss over literal fucking minutia. Try saying something for once.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Yea, - I think you need to umm.....study harder.
> 
> The bolded should advise you why.
> 
> It probably won't, you're a windbag. A blow hard. We know. It's ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, to refute "those arguments," you'll have to point me to which the fuck arguments you're talking about, jackass.



Think away.

Unlike you, I actually provided a scholarly link to explain why I am right, all you can to is think you are right. Somehow, that doesn't impress me.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, sherlock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, an admission you are wrong, amazing.
Click to expand...

No, it's just a throwing the hands up in the air because you're a hopeless fucking moron. That's what that was.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, - I think you need to umm.....study harder.
> 
> The bolded should advise you why.
> 
> It probably won't, you're a windbag. A blow hard. We know. It's ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, to refute "those arguments," you'll have to point me to which the fuck arguments you're talking about, jackass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think away.
> 
> Unlike you, I actually provided a scholarly link to explain why I am right, all you can to is think you are right. Somehow, that doesn't impress me.
Click to expand...

Your link said exactly what my post said, just in different terms. 

The bolded parts of your post that I bolded are the exact OPPOSITE of what you linked, numb nuts.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
Click to expand...


And of course you foolishly wrote this before I showed that G.T. was bloviating about *something* that had *nothing* to do with what I said, isn't that right Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-regarding-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-litte-shit.  It's axiomatic that YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing.  Period.  End of thought.  What logically follows from that utterly destroys the crap you've been bloviating all over this thread. 

That's what you're avoiding.  That's what all these angels dancing on your pinhead are all about.  I'm looking right through you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Are you retarded.
> 
> This is from my post:
> 
> "The premise can be false and the *logic* valid,"
> 
> 
> 
> God damn shut the fuck up. seven million god damns, shut the fuck up.
> 
> You're such a whiney priss over literal fucking minutia. Try saying something for once.



Yet you insisted that the argument was not valid because the premise, according to you, was false. When I pointed out that that statement was wrong, you insisted I did not know what I was talking about, and should go back to school. Now you are claiming that you agreed with me all along.

Wait, I gt it now, you thought that it was possible for the logic to be valid, but the argument to be invalid, or something equally stupid.

Can I ask you something? If you knew I was right why were you arguing I was wrong?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Your link said exactly what my post said, just in different terms.
> 
> The bolded parts of your post that I bolded are the exact OPPOSITE of what you linked, numb nuts.



And war is peace.


----------



## PratchettFan

Just as an aside...  If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you retarded.
> 
> This is from my post:
> 
> "The premise can be false and the *logic* valid,"
> 
> 
> 
> God damn shut the fuck up. seven million god damns, shut the fuck up.
> 
> You're such a whiney priss over literal fucking minutia. Try saying something for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you insisted that the argument ws not valid because the premise, according to you, was false. When I pointed out that that statement was wrong, you insisted I did not know what I was talking about, and should go back to school. Now you are claiming that you agreed with me all along.
> 
> Can I ask you something? If you knew I was right why were you arguing I was wrong?
Click to expand...


Can I ask you something?

Can you prove the existence of god?

If not, hop up off of my nuts.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what you are missing is that A does not need to be proven.  It needs to be accepted as a given.  That is why it is being called axiomatic.  We are to accept it as self-evident because it is being presented by (how was that put now?  oh yes) our betters.  The very fact that we don't accept it is proof we just aren't very bright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of course you foolishly wrote this before I showed that G.T. was bloviating about *something* that had *nothing* to do with what I said, isn't that right Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-regarding-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-litte-shit.  It's axiomatic that YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing.  Period.  End of thought.  What logically follows from that utterly destroys the crap you've been bloviating all over this thread.
> 
> That's what you're avoiding.  That's what all these angels dancing on your pinhead are all about.  I'm looking right through you.
Click to expand...

You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."

Demonstrably false.


----------



## PratchettFan

Valerie said:


> OP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, all of *these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism*, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link?  ^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's _existence_ in the minds and hearts of the vast majority of human beings on this planet is undeniable.
> 
> Therefore, God _exists_, even if only as an inspiration...
Click to expand...

 
Which would make God our creation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Can I ask you something?
> 
> Can you prove the existence of god?
> 
> If not, hop up off of my nuts.



If I use logic I can prove the existence of anything you can think of.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask you something?
> 
> Can you prove the existence of god?
> 
> If not, hop up off of my nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I use logic I can prove the existence of anything you can think of.
Click to expand...

Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.

Prove god, or waste space.


----------



## G.T.

"can anyone prove god"


"hey, i can make a logical proof for anything! look at me! im over here!"

jesus christ what a waste of fucking time


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?



Precisely.  These are the angels dancing on their pinheads as if they were telling us something--or is it nothing?--we don't grasp.

*Obviously, the way in which I expressed the thought (" . . . can't explain how . . . ") demonstrates that I'm well aware of the concept of nothing and of both the philosophical and scientific ramifications.  Zoom!  Right over their heads.  *

At a glance we grasp what they seem to think is so important.  What we have here are people making baby talk about the obvious as if it were profound.  In the meantime, we have these same people bloviating that the existence of the universe, which presumably _is_ something as opposed to nothing, is not evidence for of an eternally existent, uncaused cause, a necessary conclusion if we are to grant any credence to human logic and do anything practical in philosophy or science.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.  These are the angels dancing on their pinheads as if they were telling us something--or is it nothing?--we don't grasp.
> 
> *Obviously, the way in which I expressed the thought (" . . . can't explain how . . . ") demonstrates that I'm well aware of the concept of nothing and of both the philosophical and scientific ramifications.  Zoom!  Right over their heads.  *
> 
> At a glance we grasp what they seem to think is so important.  What we have here are people making baby talk about the obvious as if it were profound.  In the meantime, we have these same people bloviating that t*he existence of the universe, which presumably is something as opposed to nothing, is not evidence for of an eternally existent, uncaused cause, a necessary conclusion *if we are to grant any credence to human logic and do anything practical in philosophy or science.
Click to expand...


This is not true. 

You're welcome. 

First - the universe didn't even necessarily come from nothing. That sort of needs to be proven first before your bloviation here, dunce.


----------



## G.T.

m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.

NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing" is just a concept, it's not even proven to exist in and of itself and the "something coming from nothing" argument not only comes apart there, but also in several other places which I'm suuUUUUUuuUUUre, in your infinite wisdom of walls of text usually consisting of pseudo-babble amounting to zero, you already knew the ways that it breaks down as a "proof," did you not?
> 
> A presuppositional argument is a failure btw. It's viciously circular. "Because my presupposition A is true, b, c, and d logically follow."
> 
> This fails because A is not yet proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that dodges the statement itself.  MDR didn't say that 'nothing' is something or that 'nothing can come from nothing.'  He said that nobody has thus far been able to explain how something can come from nothing.   From where I sit, nobody can argue with that.
> 
> And in the world of critical thinking, if we who cannot prove to you (or somebody else) that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a fair question to ask how something comes from nothing.  And because nobody can answer that question, then it logically follows that all this came from something that has always existed.  This theist calls that something that has always existed God.  And that argument is as reasoned and logical as anything the Atheist can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that, except perhaps MDR.  And it does not follow logically that just because someone cannot show that something can come from nothing that it can't.  All that demonstrates is no one can show it.  This entire line of argument is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance.  Essentially, if you can't prove me wrong then that proves me right.  It is a logical fallacy.
> 
> I will certainly agree that your argument is as reasoned and logical as the argument that there is no God.  But it is not more reasoned or logical, since both utilize the same evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they?  Which statement is based on evidence that we have from observation, experience, logic:
> 1.  That something comes from nothing?
> 2.  Or that something comes from something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter - we haven't PROVEN that "nothing" as a concept ever existed in reality.
> 
> In other words, there may have never been "nothing," so it's not PROOF of anything, logically or otherwise, to say that "because we've never observed something coming from nothing, = god."
> 
> That's a leap.
> 
> The second problem, is that BECAUSE we've never observed it doesnt PROVE that it cant happen. So to use it as a logical PROOF, without having even proven that part of the premise, is a fallacy.
Click to expand...


It does matter in the world of rational evidence.  There is no evidence - zero - nada - zilch - that something came from nothing.  Nobody has ever observed that, witnessed that, or experienced that.  Does that mean it is then impossible.  Not at all.  But the evidence suggests that we should not expect anything to come from nothing.

Conversely we have all observed, witnessed, and experienced something coming from something.  We have witnessed oak trees springing forth from the lowly acorn.  We have witnessed the birth of human beings, kittens, puppies that evolved from single cell organisms joined to put the forces of life into motion.  We have seen chickens and turtles hatched from eggs.  But not a single one of us expects to see a human being or kitten or puppy or oak tree or chicken or turtle produced from a vacuum, from nothing, from no source of any kind.  We have no way of knowing whether everything that exists came from something, but our universal empirical evidence strongly suggests that everything that we can point to that exists did have an origin someplace.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.
> 
> Prove god, or waste space.



The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.

In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.
> 
> Prove god, or waste space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.
> 
> In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.
Click to expand...

No, it's about semantics. 

He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven. 

You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread. 

That's being a dick.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> *Again, there is no proof that something cannot come from nothing, and there is no proof that nothing ever was*.
> 
> Atheism and theism are equally irrational.



You're necessarily talking about empirical "proof." Nothingness is even less accessible to scientific inquiry than to rational contemplation, though Krauss has famously taken a few stabs at it.

The embolden is not a legitimate objection to the logical proof that something from nothing is impossible, which is not the same idea as the one I asserted earlier that it is impossible for one to explain how something could come from nothing.

Now, as I did in my earlier demonstration, I'm speaking in terms of ontological and epistemological justification.

Things that are conceptually conceivable but not empirically or rationally justifiable do not invalidate the necessary assertions that follow from a foundational proof that _is_ empirically or rationally justifiable.

 Hence, it is not irrational to assert that something (eternally existent, uncaused cause) has always existed.

That which is justifiable is rational. The belief that something cannot come from nothing is justifiable and, consequently, rational.

The fundamental proofs/imperatives that are universally and objectively apparent to all regarding the problem of origin are justifiable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, it's about semantics.
> 
> He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven.
> 
> You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread.
> 
> That's being a dick.



He was wondering no such thing. If he had been wondering he would not have argued that, because there is no epistemology that backs up theism, that proves that atheism is justified because it doesn't. If might prove that agnostics have a good position, but since epistemology is about the validity of opinions based on the amount of evidence supporting them, you cannot claim that the lack of evidence for one theory makes another one valid.

By the way, if you actually read the post where I responded to the OP you will see that I pointed out that it was impossible to provide a sound logical argument that proves that the universe exists. No matter how you try to do it, you will end up relying on a false premise at some point.

in other words, from the very beginning, I was highlighting the weakness of logic to do what he pointed out wasn't happening.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is order in the universe, which is a strong indication of intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(Okay, this post is different from the one for which I wrote a response, which I was about to post before my computer did an automatic shutdown.  The original included quotes from the Physicist Victor Stenger, so here we go. . . .)*
> 
> There's a reason why Victor Stenger’s guff is the minority opinion among cosmologists and physicists, atheists and theists alike.  For all his smarts in his field, his pseudo-theological bloviations are those of an obtuse ninny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is extremely hostile to life (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Yes, indeed, it is, and it's especially hostile to any of the conceivable processes of an abiogenetic origin for life. But the universe's arguable hostility toward extant life is not the issue. The issue is that if the respective astronomical arrangements and conditions of the universe, especially those of our solar system, did not persist within a very narrow range of parameters, if, collectively, they were less than one percent off, life wouldn't exist, let alone the indispensable biochemical precursors of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non sequitur.
> 
> Right. Life is rare in the universe precisely because it can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, and the fact that we know of at least one discrete enclave of the universe where life exists doesn't undermine the idea of a divine origin at all, but arguably underscores it. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? So the fact that life can only exist within a very narrow range of parameters, the only pertinent and objectively discernible thing that matters, suggests nothing at all about a Sentient origin, especially when one considers the staggeringly complex enterprise that sentient life is and the odds against it even in a universe that permits its existence?  Is Stenger arguing for or against God's existence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution (Victor Stenger).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now Stenger’s making a counter teleological argument that necessarily (and unwittingly) presupposes to know something about what the intent of a transcendent Sentience of origin, Whose existence he denies, would be, based on his purely subjective perspective of things, as he unwittingly superimposes the scientifically unfalsifiable apriority of materialism on the question.
> 
> 
> Special treatment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time . . . indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For crying out loud! He's arguing complexity, the very thing atheists claim to be fallacious, albeit, _against_ the notion of divine origin! LOL! Well, hell, which is it?
> 
> But more to the point, given that he has allowed that complexity is a valid basis for argumentation after all: why isn't it reasonable to argue that a Sentient origin has orchestrated an awesomely and staggeringly complex display of His majesty precisely because sentient creatures _are_ central in the scheme of things and so that they may surmise His existence?  Is Stenger's point that _simplicity_ would indicate an infinitely powerful and ingenious Being of origin?  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . we are . . . mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chance variation and the putative mechanisms of evolutionary theory would be contingent on the cosmos' fixed physical laws and chemical compositions determining the subsequent conditions under which speciation would occur, and none of these things are equivalent to agency, not individually or collectively.
> 
> From this we may see that his conclusion is assumed in the premises of his atheistic meanderings, when the only discernibly objective fact of relevance is the rarity of life in the universe due to the very narrow range of parameters within which it can exist.
> 
> Stenger's argument is a rash of utterly immaterial, subjective mush.
> 
> 
> Hence, as I wrote elseswhere:
> 
> . . . Indeed, it took the naysayers of the Twentieth Century several decades to realize what theists were ultimately getting at: the processes leading to the actualization of all these wondrous things are necessarily contingent to or bottomed on a singularly discrete and indispensable regiment of physical laws and conditions which permitted the cosmos to achieve the ability to contemplate itself in the first place. Sentience. While this is not an absolute logical proof of God's existence, it arguably serves as an evidentially sufficient basis on which to reasonably assert His existence in terms of the cosmos's ultimate purpose.
> 
> . . . the current objection developed by those who finally came to grips with the enduring, though, for a season, obscured, transcendent implications of the fact that the universe _*is*_ fine-tuned, acknowledge today by most cosmologists and physicists, at the very least, for the prerequisite conditions allowing for the existence of the indispensable biochemical precursors of life: namely, *the anthropic principle as predicated on the statistical dynamics of a multiverse providing for an arguably credible model of selection bias. *​
> People, the above is the only arguably sustainable objection to the teleological argument, though it still has no real impact on the ultimate concern in _this_ universe  (see post #106 for the full argument).  Stenger's crap is as bad or worse than Dawkins' theologically sophomoric tripe:  for example, "Who created God?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were a god, he would have put a planet with life around every star not just ours.
> 
> You know how you know god is all in our heads?  You hope your boss doesn't call and when it's someone else you thank god.  I do it too.  You're in a big hand at the poker table and you win.  If you would have lost you'd be out of money.   You win so you thank god.  Actors and boxers thank god.  When one person survives a crash and 100 other people die, they thank god.  Why didn't he help the othe 100 people?  When people escape death or science cures their cancer, they thank god.  What did the baby that died of cancer do that god didn't save her?
> 
> It's all in your tiny human heads.  Mine too and I want it out!  LOL.
Click to expand...


Yes.  But all these things are subjective.  This OP is concerned with logical proofs that are objectively accessible.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can teach you that God is not provable, Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, your concession that you wasted our time with a cognitive error that you read into my post is duly noted.
> 
> As for "not provable"?  Fine.  Have it.  And while you're at, I'll teach you a thing or two about things you've never considered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shaddup, you bloviate you do not prove or show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just proved that you boorishly bloviated about *something* that had *nothing* to do with what I wrote, Einstein.  You forgot about that already?  Gee wiz.
> 
> Let's review that, Mr. Short Attention Span:
> 
> You're confused. I wrote: they can't explain HOW it's possible for something to come from nothing. YOU can't explain HOW something could come from nothing. So all your babble has *nothing* to do with the *something* I said, does it, Einstein? —M.D. Rawlings​
> What else did I prove that you either didn't understand or forgot about.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post, is a waste of bandwidth. Congrats, wannabe.
Click to expand...


Behold:  the default position of the schooled who thought to school the teacher.  LOL!  Making any headway with that guff you were trying to feed us in the face of QW's incontrovertible facts about the essence of logic?  Making any headway on the distinction between that which is conceptually conceivable and that which is  justifiable knowledge?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's about semantics.
> 
> He was quite clearly wondering if god can be proven.
> 
> You knocked him on term technicalities, instead of being a good and honest chap and honoring the intent of the thread.
> 
> That's being a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was wondering no such thing. If he had been wondering he would not have argued that, because there is no epistemology that backs up theism, that proves that atheism is justified because it doesn't. If might prove that agnostics have a good position, but since epistemology is about the validity of opinions based on the amount of evidence supporting them, you cannot claim that the lack of evidence for one theory makes another one valid.
> 
> By the way, if you actually read the post where I responded to the OP you will see that I pointed out that it was impossible to provide a sound logical argument that proves that the universe exists. No matter how you try to do it, you will end up relying on a false premise at some point.
> 
> in other words, from the very beginning, I was highlighting the weakness of logic to do what he pointed out wasn't happening.
Click to expand...


Precisely.  "Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't." (newpolitics).


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> No.  It is you who insist that nothing is something.  You have no objective evidence to support your claim.  *Pointing to the universe and saying "See" is not evidence of anything but the existence of the universe.*  It proves nothing.  So proceed and present your evidence.  If you can't then you are claiming no evidence is the same thing as evidence.... nothing = something.
> 
> What is self-evident here is that you can't seem to differentiate between what you believe and what you know.  I find that to typically be a self-imposed disability.



But, of course, what we have here, once again, is the psychology of a pathological liar who knows that "*Pointing to the universe and saying 'See'* " is a straw man, a stupidity dreamt up by a pathological liar in a pathetic attempt to obscure the demonstration of what everybody knows to be true about the fundamental imperatives of the problem of origin, including pathological liars like you who have already conceded the matter on this thread more than once, but are, frightfully, too stupid to realize that they have unwittingly blurted ideas that show that they do understand the realities of the matter, isn't that right, Mr. I-won't-acknowledge-my-error-regarding-the-full-connotations-of-the-concept-of-objectivity-because-I'm-a-dishonest-little-man?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Just as an aside...  If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?



Aside:  that silliness has already been addressed, but then you knew that.  Thanks.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Just as an aside...  If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?



That is for God to know and us to wonder about.  Perhaps in another time, another dimension we will be given that answer.  But if there is/was/has ever been an absolute beginning to anything and everything, that beginning the Theist calls God.  And that belief is just as logical as anything the most esteemed and knowledgeable scientist can come up with.

So going back to the OP which posed the following question:

*ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
*
So the closest thing we can come up with a syllogism that conclusively demonstrates God's existence:

The universe exists.
Re our universal experience, everything has a beginning from something.
That something theists call God.
Therefore God exists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.



Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:


*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
"Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
Click to expand...

The premise is false.

Knowledge exists independent of god.

Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as an aside...  If something cannot come from nothing, what did God create all of this something from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is for God to know and us to wonder about.  Perhaps in another time, another dimension we will be given that answer.  But if there is/was/has ever been an absolute beginning to anything and everything, that beginning the Theist calls God.  And that belief is just as logical as anything the most esteemed and knowledgeable scientist can come up with.
> 
> So going back to the OP which posed the following question:
> 
> *ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> *
> So the closest thing we can come up with a syllogism that conclusively demonstrates God's existence:
> 
> The universe exists.
> Re our universal experience, everything has a beginning from something.
> That something theists call God.
> Therefore God exists.
Click to expand...


Let us take a possibility then and see where it takes us.  Supposing universes are created all the time.  Suppose every time you light a match, a by product is the creation of a universe.  Does that make the match God?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
Click to expand...

Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
Click to expand...




Permit me to ask you a question.  Do you agree that _knowledge_, as understood in terms of its ultimate essence, conceptually presupposes/requires a knower?  Inversely:  would you agree with the statement that where there is _no_ knower, knowledge doesn't exist? 

Let us allow that the multiverse exists.  Thus, according to the weak anthropic principle (WAP) coupled with the mechanism of selection, most of the universes within the collectively singular verse would not have any life at all, let alone any sentient life. (You don't have to take my word for it, of course, but asserting the strong anthropic principle for a single universe undermines the force of the WAP, as it arguably supports the necessity of God.)

In a universe where there is no sentient life, knowledge doesn't exist, or knowledge can't exist in a mindless universe. 

Right?


----------



## G.T.

Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.

You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do. 

Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered. 

It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?
Click to expand...


Anyone?

Start with Kant or Cornelius Van Til, and the many, many, really, really smarter minds than yours who take it very seriously.  The teleological argument is not for weak minds, so, by all means, don't worry your pretty little head about it, just be your adorable self as the real men handle this one.


----------



## G.T.

Sexist comment.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so instead (and even though you knew the intent of the thread) of actually proving the existence of god, you're using semantics like an asshole.
> 
> Prove god, or waste space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the thread was to argue that there is no valid logical argument for the existence of god. If you read through my post you will see that not only have a i pointed out that, as long as the arguments are internally consistent, any logical argument is valid. I took the time to point out that, using logic, it is possible to prove god does not exist. I even pointed out that only idiots think that the fact that they proved something using logic actually means anything.
> 
> In other words, oh he who is an idiot, this was never about semantics, it was always about logic.
Click to expand...


From the supposed evidence we have on god, it looks to us like man made up god a long time ago because we wondered what happens to us when we die and then kings and Pharoahs eventually used religion to control the masses.  But it was our primitive ancestors invented him.  

Unless you think he really talked to Adam as a snake, talked to Moses, talked to Mohammad, talked to Joseph Smith Noah or came to visit us in the form of Jesus, and had to go through 12 months of Mary being pregnant, all to grow up to be crucified as it was prophecized.  

So God was on a suicide mission?  

We surmise this is all a myth.  Not just one religion but the entire concept.  Then we got some other guy on another thread telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe his story.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Start with Kant or Cornelius Van Til, and the many, many, really, really smarter minds than yours who take it very seriously.  The teleological argument is not for weak minds, so, by all means, don't worry your pretty little head about it, just be your adorable self as the real men handle this one.
Click to expand...


Number 13

Why there is no god


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that I believe in God, I never said I thought God was the origin of the cosmos.  But even if I did that would be a subjective belief, as is my belief in God.  All of your long winded arguments boil down to is "I believe it so it must be true".  If that is what gets you through the day then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Start with Kant or Cornelius Van Til, and the many, many, really, really smarter minds than yours who take it very seriously.  The teleological argument is not for weak minds, so, by all means, don't worry your pretty little head about it, just be your adorable self as the real men handle this one.
Click to expand...

Oh, what a shame you christian Taliban are throttled by secular laws that prevent you and the Ayatollah's you so admire from fulfilling your Dark Ages fantasies. 

Not to worry sweety. You're hardly a real man.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.



Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.

Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.      

Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.  

Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.

From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.      

Right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.
> 
> NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.




Well, we'll see about this tomorrow.  But we may be sure that one of two things are going to happen tomorrow after I view that portion of the video:  either (1) something stupid is being attributed to _me_ or (2), and this is more likely, tomorrow something stupid will be shut down by _me_.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...

Wrong, thumpy. The teleological only en


M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...

Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

The thumper looks around his reality and sees order. This is in conflict to the fact of a universe that is largely, utterly hostile to life as we know it. However, this serves only to promote the a predefined conclusion the thumper has about his environment. To the thumper, order is the same as design, and if something is designed, it must have a designer. Since the thumper will insist that natural processes cannot account for the implied design of existence, it therefore follows that there must be a supernatural being who actively created the entire thing.

The first error the thumper makes is fairly simple: If nature exhibits design and requires a designer, then it also follow that the _Designer_ exhibits design as well. Since this corollary must follow given the parameters of the teleological argument, the next question must be: "Who designed the Designer?" To not ask this pertinent question is to abandon the argument's premise in the first place, and the model crumbles.

Usually the thumper will reply that his partisan gods, being the Designers, fall _outside_ of the laws the gods themselves create, else how can they create the laws in the first place? The answer is that this is a fully arbitrary claim. The thumper will insist that their gods are an "uncaused caused". The thumper will insist that their gods are excluded from the very thing that they insist must apply to all of existence. Where in nature do we see corroboration that a law of physics can (or must) be circumvented by that which created it? For example, imagine a law created by men. The true spirit of that law, i.e., theft is to be punished, covers those who create the law as well. They may well violate their own laws, but they also reap the same consequences as anyone else who breaks the law. Of course, it may be argued, since human justice is imperfect there are plenty of examples of people violating the law and getting away with it -- but this is an imperfection given our imperfect nature. Such caveats do not apply to the laws of physics. One _must_ obey the laws of physics-- there is no choice in the matter.

Imagine now a law of nature or physics -- let's use gravity as the example. Gravity simply _is_, and we can both see and test its properties in a myriad of ways.
We know, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. We can see in our local solar system how large bodies affect smaller bodies, as in the series of asteroids that impacted on Jupiter in 1997 (Shoemaker-Levy). Even as far off as we can see, that is, through the Hubble telescope, we can see that gravity remains constant, blindly and relentlessly obeying its own law. Since we know the distant stars are billions of light years away, we can state with assurance that the laws of gravity are equal in their self-adherence from the distant past (before the Earth had even been formed from dust and matter) right on through the present.

Now compare that to the god model. Where lies the mountain of evidence, and where lies the specious assertion?
In answer to the claim that god is outside of the laws he creates, one could just as easily postulate that god may very well have created the laws initially, but is now long since dead, his purpose over with, or that there is the aforementioned "pyramid" of gods. Since the thumper simply asserts and cannot match the sheer weight of evidence contrary to his assertion, he falls immediately into irrationality wherein _any_ claim asserted can carry equal weight as the one he purports -- and this _includes_ the atheist perspective. Nothing in the teleological argument supports the idea of an _existing_ god, and hence it cannot be used to prove such.

Since the thumper is trying to prove or explain the existence of one god, eternal and infinite, the teleological argument actually prohibits his success since to accept his parameters requires an endless and infinite pyramid of gods, each being the super-designer of the one below it, or the product of the one above it.

The natural explanation, that existence is natural and that nature requires no magic and supernaturalism to become cohesive and structured, not only makes more sense, but follows with observable evidence. Existence evolves. It's evolving right now. We can see the pattern time and time again.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.
> 
> NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we'll see about this tomorrow.  But we may be sure that one of two things are going to happen tomorrow after I view that portion of the video:  either (1) something stupid is being attributed to _me_ or (2), and this is more likely, tomorrow something stupid will be shut down by _me_.
Click to expand...

We can also be sure of one thing in particular: there will be a lot of _stupid _in your posts.  Your posts and _stupid_ are like the confluence of religious fundamentalism and ignorance.


----------



## G.T.

The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
Click to expand...


How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.

And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.

Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:

1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
. . . .or. . . .

2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.

It goes back to the syllogism:

The universe exists.
So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
Click to expand...

The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.

I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists _outside_ of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really _is_ something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?

Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made.  Where is your evidence?

I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god _does_ exist. 

So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.
> 
> I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists _outside_ of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really _is_ something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?
> 
> Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made.  Where is your evidence?
> 
> I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god _does_ exist.
> 
> So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.
Click to expand...


You must have missed the evidence.  The universe exists.  The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.
> 
> I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists _outside_ of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really _is_ something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?
> 
> Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made.  Where is your evidence?
> 
> I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god _does_ exist.
> 
> So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed the evidence.  The universe exists.  The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for gods in your example.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
Click to expand...

WAAAAaAAAAAaAAAAAaaaay too simple minded.



First of all, I SHOWED YOU knowledge independent of God. One always NECESSARILY knows whether or not they KNOW everything. That is ALWAYS TRUE. Independent of the Universe itself that is always true.

Further, I didn't say knowledge exists independent of beings capable of comprehending it. Knowledge only exists if there is a knower; whereas facts exist whether there is a knower or not.

Being as I'm a mind, i.e. capable of comprehending knowledge, knowledge exists. Just like that. And that god is not proven, it is also not proven that god is necessary for knowledge and I also have shown the opposite by explaining the universal absolute: a knower will always know if it is all knowing, or not.



After the part where you said "ultimately," and then posted two possible scenarios?

No. There are several thousand more scenarios, and also ones we can't even think of.

Here is one:

#3. something can come from nothing, us undeveloped humans just do not know that yet.

That that possibility is THERE, you do not EXCLUDE it if you're thinking CORRECTLY, anyways.

You do not say "all things we don't understand or know yet are impossible."

Why? b/c that's retarded, thats why.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.
> 
> Your failure to comprehend the *FACT* that the existence of the Universe is *NOT* evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.
> 
> That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.
> 
> Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.



I need to up my game? I don't get people like you. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to understand how things work. So you say you didn't lie? Okay. Then your crazy because your reality is not _reality_. I didn't think or say what you claim. Got it? I already showed that I didn't say or think what you claim. You're just crazy, that's what you are. I also told you that the misunderstanding between us was partially my fault because I've always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for how time began via the quantum vacuum. But it doesn't. That's the only thing I didn't know. Thanks for the tip. But it's you who still doesn’t get any of this. According to quantum theory the quantum vacuum has always existed, though that is merely an assumption allowed by the theory. Didn't _you_ know that? You implied that the recycling model is timeless, looped, eternal? Either way, the idea of a supposedly eternally existing material account is nothing new. By the way, how does your endless cycle of big bangs begin in the first place without all those gyrations? NO. Your origin question or insinuation of a material account is nothing new with regard to the problem of origin. NO. I don’t believe that the rational and empirical evidence discussed on this forum adds up to a material first cause. Got it? And I got nothing more to day to you because you're crazy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with the above is that you have predefined your conclusion. We're still left with a complete void of evidence for your gods or the gods of others which are just as likely contenders as yours.
> 
> I contend that the physical world is the very world within which we live. No supernatural entities to appeal to, no mysterious ‘father’ watching over us and no one to judge us except ourselves. If your claim is that there is in fact something outside of the natural (physical) world -- then define for us what exists _outside_ of this physical world, and demonstrate it before you ask us to assume your contention that there really _is_ something outside the physical and natural world. Now you tell me: what breaks the impasse? Assertion or verifiable data?
> 
> Evidence is the final arbiter of claims made.  Where is your evidence?
> 
> I do indeed make the positive assertion that gods don't exist but only after hearing the theist assert that this or that god _does_ exist.
> 
> So in response to all of that, I have an opinion and that opinion is "your assertions hold no substance unless demonstrated." In that sense, I do in fact say "gods don't exist". But you say they do, so it's your job to prove it, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed the evidence.  The universe exists.  The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for gods in your example.
Click to expand...


Only if you wish to call God "the Easter Bunny".  I don't think God really cares by what name we all him and I think He is isn't all that interested in our theology.  I think we feeble humans are as incapable of knowing and understanding more than a tiny part of all that God is just as we are incapable of knowing and understanding only a teensy fraction of all the universe is or all the science there is to know.

But I do know that it is more reasonable and logical to conclude that God exists than any reason or logic anybody can come up with for why God does not exist.


----------



## G.T.

Energy always having existed / having NO beginning is not as plausible as a sentient creator of a horribly unstable universe?

Laughable.


----------



## chikenwing

Mohamed said:


> There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
> i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.
> 
> if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.
> 
> in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.


 Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.

Mathematically,what would the odds be?


----------



## G.T.

chikenwing said:


> Mohamed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
> i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.
> 
> if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.
> 
> in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.
> 
> 
> 
> Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.
> 
> Mathematically,what would the odds be?
Click to expand...

That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc


The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.


----------



## PratchettFan

chikenwing said:


> Mohamed said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
> i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.
> 
> if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.
> 
> in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.
> 
> 
> 
> Using pure logic,what are the numerical odds that A.life just forms on its own through some kind of??,B life finds a way to stay alive ,C li8fe finds a way to reproduce its self,while doing the 2 previous large and time consuming tasks.
> 
> Mathematically,what would the odds be?
Click to expand...


Well, either it was or it was not.  Since there is no evidence to support either side, that would make the odds 50/50.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> You must have missed the evidence.  The universe exists.  The syllogism I used to make a case for God makes every bit as much sense as anything you can argue that God does not exist.



Hollie knows that the evidence for a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause, as opposed to a mindless, externally existent uncaused cause, is:  the existence of the universe.  Ask Hollie why he/she has the idea of a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause in his/her head, you know, the idea whose substance he/she keeps denying, proving he/she recognizes the idea for what it is, every time he/she considers the origin of . . . the universe.

What is the evidence for a mindless, externally existent uncaused cause?

Answer:  The universe.

What is the evidence for a sentient, externally existent uncaused cause?

Answer:  The universe.

What's the only difference between these two ideas of origin?

Answer:  Sentience vs.  Mindlessness.

Therefore, Hollie is a liar.  Hollie knows what the evidence for God's existence is though he/she doesn't believe the  externally existent uncaused cause is sentient, but mindless. 

What's the evidence that the  externally existent uncaused cause mindless, not sentient?

Answer:  *crickets chirping*

Case closed.  Everybody knows these things are true about the issue of origin.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.
> 
> Your failure to comprehend the *FACT* that the existence of the Universe is *NOT* evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.
> 
> That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.
> 
> Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to up my game? I don't get people like you. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to understand how things work. So you say you didn't lie? Okay. Then your crazy because your reality is not _reality_. I didn't think or say what you claim. Got it? I already showed that I didn't say or think what you claim. You're just crazy, that's what you are. I also told you that the misunderstanding between us was partially my fault because I've always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for how time began via the quantum vacuum. But it doesn't. That's the only thing I didn't know. Thanks for the tip. But it's you who still doesn’t get any of this. According to quantum theory the quantum vacuum has always existed, though that is merely an assumption allowed by the theory. Didn't _you_ know that? You implied that the recycling model is timeless, looped, eternal? Either way, the idea of a supposedly eternally existing material account is nothing new. By the way, how does your endless cycle of big bangs begin in the first place without all those gyrations? NO. Your origin question or insinuation of a material account is nothing new with regard to the problem of origin. NO. I don’t believe that the rational and empirical evidence discussed on this forum adds up to a material first cause. Got it? And I got nothing more to day to you because you're crazy.
Click to expand...


LOL!  I see that you had a run in with ol' forked tongue.  Also, bear in mind that Aristotle, for example, held to a steady state model, yet asserted the cosmological argument for God's existence.  Why?  Because of the obvious necessity of some kind of transcendent origin apart from what he called divisible magnitude (mass, energy, time, space), an obviously contingent substance that didn't have the nature of agency at all.  Ultimately what the atheist confounds is the distinction between agency and mechanism.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your failure to respond to post #439 has seriously harmed your credibility.
> 
> Your failure to comprehend the *FACT* that the existence of the Universe is *NOT* evidence for your mythical God further harms your credibility.
> 
> That your latest response was nothing more than a personal attack pushes your credibility close to zero.
> 
> Better start upping your game if you want to be taken seriously around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to up my game? I don't get people like you. I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to understand how things work. So you say you didn't lie? Okay. Then your crazy because your reality is not _reality_. I didn't think or say what you claim. Got it? I already showed that I didn't say or think what you claim. You're just crazy, that's what you are. I also told you that the misunderstanding between us was partially my fault because I've always assumed that the oscillating model accounted for how time began via the quantum vacuum. But it doesn't. That's the only thing I didn't know. Thanks for the tip. But it's you who still doesn’t get any of this. According to quantum theory the quantum vacuum has always existed, though that is merely an assumption allowed by the theory. Didn't _you_ know that? You implied that the recycling model is timeless, looped, eternal? Either way, the idea of a supposedly eternally existing material account is nothing new. By the way, how does your endless cycle of big bangs begin in the first place without all those gyrations? NO. Your origin question or insinuation of a material account is nothing new with regard to the problem of origin. NO. I don’t believe that the rational and empirical evidence discussed on this forum adds up to a material first cause. Got it? And I got nothing more to day to you because you're crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I see that you had a run in with ol' forked tongue.  Also, bear in mind that Aristotle, for example, held to a steady state model, yet asserted the cosmological argument for God's existence.  Why?  Because of the obvious necessity of some kind of transcendent origin apart from what he called divisible magnitude (mass, energy, time, space), an obviously contingent substance that didn't have the nature of agency at all.  Ultimately what the atheist confounds is the distinction between agency and mechanism.
Click to expand...


I don't know what's up with that guy.  But he isn't right in the head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.



Can you provide a sound argument to defend that position, or are we supposed to take your conclusion as an irrefutable fact because you are too lazy to think up any type of logical proof at all?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.



That, in and of itself, does not prove that god did not give you that knowledge.


----------



## G.T.

No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.



Can you define mind? What is the scientific explanation for a mind that is independent of the underlying chemistry and biology that makes up brain? Given the fact that science has found evidence that free will exists, does your mind persist after the death of the brain?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> From the supposed evidence we have on god, it looks to us like man made up god a long time ago because we wondered what happens to us when we die and then kings and Pharoahs eventually used religion to control the masses.  But it was our primitive ancestors invented him.
> 
> Unless you think he really talked to Adam as a snake, talked to Moses, talked to Mohammad, talked to Joseph Smith Noah or came to visit us in the form of Jesus, and had to go through 12 months of Mary being pregnant, all to grow up to be crucified as it was prophecized.
> 
> So God was on a suicide mission?
> 
> We surmise this is all a myth.  Not just one religion but the entire concept.  Then we got some other guy on another thread telling us we'll go to hell if we don't believe his story.  LOL



So, the only possible god, according to you, is one that you refuse to believe in.

Makes it pretty easy for you to pretend you know what you are talking about, doesn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.



How?

Keep in mind that you already claimed that your mind is the seat of your knowledge, and that there is a difference between your mind and your brain. One is irrefutable fact, the other is a major question in science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.



Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.



I'm sorry.  You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts: 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/

This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism.  The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all  kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science.  The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . . 

They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.  

Free thinkers?

Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!

See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!

As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
Click to expand...


I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered. 

The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?
Click to expand...

That's actually quite an admission that your designer gods are hopelessly inept and incompetent "designers". You fundies are your own worst enemies when attempting to promote super-magical gawds as the engines of existence.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism.  The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all  kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science.  The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . .
> 
> They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.
> 
> Free thinkers?
> 
> Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Click to expand...

Wow. That rambling, blundering, pointless assembly of confused stuttering and mumbling was even more pompous than your usual nonsense.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> That's actually quite an admission that your designer gods are hopelessly inept and incompetent "designers". You fundies are your own worst enemies when attempting to promote super-magical gawds as the engines of existence.



My designer gods? Can you tell me more about my gods? I don't recall ever saying anything to you about what I believe, are you listening to those voices in your head again?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> m.d. is the man in the crowd at 1:39:00.
> 
> NDT shuts him down pretty soundly.



Whaaaaa?

First of all, the quantum vacuum wherein all the degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy state (or ground state), which, presumably, is what _the man in the crowd_ is alluding to given that Krauss is on the panel, is not a metaphysical nothingness, but a material something, and Krauss knows that.  But what _the man in the crowd_ may not have ever consider and what has never occurred to the materialist Krauss, apparently, is that if it truly were a metaphysical . . . um . . . uh . . . how exactly would we affirm that via the methods of science?  I imagine that we might be able to describe it from this side of things mathematically, but then what precisely would be the objection to the notion that what we were describing were a transcendent realm of being that were not a nothing, but a something of an alternate substance.  For those who can reach it: if such a moment ever came, the knowledge of the mathematical theorem would _exist_ in our minds as the _link_ to _something_ and would be, presumably, compelled by _something_ that we had come to understand _scientifically_ from this side of things. Food for thought.   

NDT's response to _the man in the crowd's_ suggestion is obtuse, as he responds to a theological proposition as if it were a scientific proposition. How exactly does science deal with a non-empirical transcendence? NDT goes on to talk about what would be nothing more than the yet-to-be-discovered material mechanisms in the chain of a cause-and-effect actualization, as if that were the whole of the issue. The matter of origin is not merely a scientific question, but also a philosophical and theological question. The only one imposing arbitrary boundaries on the expressions of all three avenues of inquiry regarding origin is the materialist. As for what _the man in the crowd_ had in mind regarding the strictly scientific concerns of origin is anyone's guess, including NDT's knee-jerk insinuation of the supposed God in gaps fallacy which didn't necessarily follow from _the man in the crowd's _question:  precisely where have I ever expressed the idea that we know all there is to know about the material states and mechanisms of cosmological realities _or_ placed a limit on what may be known about them? Further, my presentation of OUR understanding, which you atheists keep pretending to be merely MY understanding, of the objectively and universally apparent imperatives of origin is utterly open-ended with regard to the only justifiably known, ontological alternatives: the eternally existent, uncaused cause is either material or sentient or, if you please, a combination thereof, though that be, at the very least, paradoxical for reasons I need not get into here.


----------



## G.T.

I wish there was a better way to tell you you're the one cognitively inept, but I'll spare myself the 8 paragraphs of bloviating meaninglessness in response, especially if you can't think of why the argument from design is inept. Especially because of THAT, you are summarily dismissed. Peace. Gluck in the future with failed arguments.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?
Click to expand...

I'd love to see this erroneous claim you said I made or else you know....you can eat your hat on that one.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it proves god is not necessary to possess that knowledge, only my brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> Keep in mind that you already claimed that your mind is the seat of your knowledge, and that there is a difference between your mind and your brain. One is irrefutable fact, the other is a major question in science.
Click to expand...

Pretty easily, because when I interchange the words mind and brain I'm doing so in a flipant manor in hope that someone who wants to be cunty doesn't come along and say ' but but the mind is different from the brain ya knooooo.'

The dickish irrelevance .....miss me with that.


I won't say mind or brain, mmmmkay? I'll say 'the mechanism from which I develop my thoughts.'

That okaaaaaaaaaaay honey?

God damn


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unknowable without knowing the amount of life there is in the universe, and if there are multiverses - and then the size and age of the multiverses, etc etc etc
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is unknowable. The odds might be great. Our universe might be a tiny pebble compared to the multiverse, and our earth-life might be a tiny pebble of the life in our very own universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try giving an answer for the life we know about. What are the odds that life even started on the Earth? Given the fact that you, erroneously, claim that life was almost wiped out five times since it began on Earth, what are the odds that it could have survived as long as it has? What are the odds that we developed multiple species that rely on two sexes in order to survive when most people can think of more efficient means of reproduction?
Click to expand...

If you were the genius you think you are, you'd know we cannot develop a probability for 'the life we know about' because there would be factors missing, quite obviously to anyone with a brain OR mind.

You cant develop a probability that something occurs without knowing all  the instances its occurred over all of the conditions in space time that its occurred in.

I mean........you knew that right?


----------



## G.T.

If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'

You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> Can you define mind? What is the scientific explanation for a mind that is independent of the underlying chemistry and biology that makes up brain? Given the fact that science has found evidence that free will exists, does your mind persist after the death of the brain?










 flora has no "physiological brain" yet has both a mind and free will.




> does your mind persist after the death of the brain?



if it reaches the Sabbath or intended Spiritual completion for Admission to the OuterWorld of the Everlasting.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism.  The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all  kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science.  The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . .
> 
> They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.
> 
> Free thinkers?
> 
> Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That rambling, blundering, pointless assembly of confused stuttering and mumbling was even more pompous than your usual nonsense.
Click to expand...


Take the matter up with your atheistic fellow travelers, Adorable, albeit, with those who are much smarter than you, given that it's the implications of the teleological argument's central thrust that's got the majority of them opting for the weak anthropic principle in the face of the universes' paradoxical juxtaposition of a fine-tuning for life and a hostility for life.  And the prospects for an abiogentic composition of life on Earth without the intervention of Providence are especially . . . um . . . challenging at best and at worst a pipedream.  They agree with me, not you, insofar as the arguably scientific factor of relevance is concerned.  Now a direct address to you using the term _Dumbass_ comes to mind as the proper way to end that last sentence. But given what you think passes for a refutation of my observations, that would be redundant.


----------



## G.T.

Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'
> 
> You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.



I think pantheism is rank stupidity.  In truth, it's a distinction that would make no difference to us, a thing that's essentially atheism in all but semantics . . . except, I suppose, in the case of pantheists who infer some form of panpsychism or some form of pandeism.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument from design has been soundly defeated, so much so its not even worthy of adult discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed the devastating blow I dealt that claim in these posts:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> This is a perfect example of how the atheist has deceived himself due to his confusion about the distinction between the respective essences of agency and mechanism.  The fact of the matter is that all of the classical arguments for God's existence are no less compelling today than they have been for millennia. In fact, it is due to the atheist's confusion about all  kinds of things, compounded by his compulsion to unwittingly superimpose his metaphysical apriority on science and his intellectual dishonesty regarding the absolute, objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which EVERBODY KNOWS, that he is blind to the fact that these arguments are even more powerful today than ever before precisely because of what we know to be true today from science.  The atheist thinks it's the other way around, but that's only because he doesn't recognize his purely subjective teleological claptrap for it is and he doesn't know what the objective facts of cognition are in the light of these arguments coupled with the implications of the general and special theories of relativity, for example, quantum physics, abiogenetic research, biochemistry, genetics. . . .
> 
> They think they understand the nature of these arguments when they don't, because their minds are as closed as slammed-shut doors.
> 
> Free thinkers?
> 
> Bra ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. That rambling, blundering, pointless assembly of confused stuttering and mumbling was even more pompous than your usual nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take the matter up with your atheistic fellow travelers, Adorable, albeit, with those who are much smarter than you, given that it's the implications of the teleological argument's central thrust that's got the majority of them opting for the weak anthropic principle in the face of the universes' paradoxical juxtaposition of a fine-tuning for life and a hostility for life.  And the prospects for an abiogentic composition of life on Earth without the intervention of Providence are especially . . . um . . . challenging at best and at worst a pipedream.  They agree with me, not you, insofar as the arguably scientific factor of relevance is concerned.  Now a direct address to you using the term _Dumbass_ comes to mind as the proper way to end that last sentence. But given what you think passes for a refutation of my observations, that would be redundant.
Click to expand...

It's truly amazing that your stuttering and mumbling is a hoped-for attempt to mask your utter incompetence. The errors with every confused, incohent attempt at sentence structure you stumble over is an embarassment.

To begin with, the actual debates concerning the failure and incompetence of the teleological argument have been exhaustively aired in public. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently fundamentalist hacks such as yourself misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate separating fundamentalist christians vs. the relevant science community. The debates have _never_ been in serious consideration of the truly pointless _teleological_ argument, at least not by those of science. The _teleological argument is promoted exclusively by fundie zealots_. Such promotionn of superstitious nonsense has only occurred outside the scientific community in the philosophical (not scientific) debates between scientists and fundie hacks. And what is most fascinating is that outside of fundie christian creationist hacks, the _teleological "argument" is simply dismissed as crank claims made by those with a fundamentalist agenda to press._


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'
> 
> You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think pantheism is rank stupidity.  In truth, it's a distinction that would make no difference to us, a thing that's essentially atheism in all but semantics . . . except, I suppose, in the case of pantheists who infer some form of panpsychism or some form of pandeism.
Click to expand...

How strange that a fundie zealot would identify pantheism as rank stupidity, when the same fundie crank would presume that his promotion of fear and superstition, otherwise labeled as the teleological argument is anything less than a cartoonish joke.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Pretty easily, because when I interchange the words mind and brain I'm doing so in a flipant manor in hope that someone who wants to be cunty doesn't come along and say ' but but the mind is different from the brain ya knooooo.'
> 
> The dickish irrelevance .....miss me with that.
> 
> 
> I won't say mind or brain, mmmmkay? I'll say 'the mechanism from which I develop my thoughts.'
> 
> That okaaaaaaaaaaay honey?
> 
> God damn



Science is always irrelevant to religious fanatics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> If you were the genius you think you are, you'd know we cannot develop a probability for 'the life we know about' because there would be factors missing, quite obviously to anyone with a brain OR mind.
> 
> You cant develop a probability that something occurs without knowing all  the instances its occurred over all of the conditions in space time that its occurred in.
> 
> I mean........you knew that right?



Yet some people actually have because, unlike you, they understand that the question I asked is not specific, which means it is answerable.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'
> 
> You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.



Who the fuck are you talking to now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.



Have you read Hollie's posts? She accuses everyone who disagrees with her a fundie because she thinks that shows she is smarter than they are.

Never mind, I se you agreed one of her posts where she used that tactic, what else can a zealot do but accuse other people of being crazy for knowing more than they do?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.



I'm getting' a wet, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.

Right. First all theists are superstitious dumbasses who believe what they believe out of naiveté or blind faith, culturally conditioned robots in the slimely grips of spaghetti monsters, opines the ever-condescending atheist, full of sneer and superiority. The teleological argument is so silly it need not even be discussed.  Only dumbasses would consider it's implications to be important.  Right? The likes of you and Hollie are so smmaaaaaart.  Well, real scientists of the atheistic persuasion are discussing its implications and the weak anthropic principle is their default position. The potentiality of the multiverse came just in time.  It's your arrogance that has blinded you from the decades-old reality of the reemergence of the argument's influence on the recognition of the implications of life in a hostile cosmos.

Oops. So suddenly when a theist pulls the atheist’s pants down around his ankles and shoves his nose in his own sneering excrement, the atheist projects his psychology on the theist.

Is that your default position or did you have a real argument to make?  All this personal bullshit from you and Hollie is tiresome?  Is that what turns you on?  Pathetic.


----------



## G.T.

The argument from design is pathetic. 

Truly. Fucking. Pathetic.

But some humans have a larger issue than others in wrapping their heads around the actual age of the universe, its a bit higher than remedial to fathom and so its understandable that some dunces out there think that human life as is came about by some magical design and not billions of years of FAILURE of said design if it were designed. 


Awww shucks, homer.







Also - gt = agnostic. The only intellectually honest and intelligent conclusion given current human limitations. Anything else is hubris.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The argument from design is pathetic.
> 
> Truly. Fucking. Pathetic.
> 
> But some humans have a larger issue than others in wrapping their heads around the actual age of the universe, its a bit higher than remedial to fathom and so its understandable that some dunces out there think that human life as is came about by some magical design and not billions of years of FAILURE of said design if it were designed.
> 
> 
> Awww shucks, homer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also - gt = agnostic. The only intellectually honest and intelligent conclusion given current human limitations. Anything else is hubris.



Behold the atheist's default position when stripped of his pretensions of intellectual superiority:  more insult, denial, slogans, clichés.  _Magical_ baby talk:  maybe the realities squashing his shallow reckoning of things will go away.  But no argument.  Back to sneer.  Dude, the difference between you and me is that I know I'm nothing more than a mediocre student trying to decipher a staggeringly complex textbook.  I didn't write it.  I know next to nothing about the obvious. I've barely scratched the surface of that.         

_______________________________

By the way, in addition to the idea that this is all going on independently of God, which I forgot about, is this right?

Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.

Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge. Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.

From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.​


----------



## G.T.

Its pretty simple. You don't need to ask a third time for me to clarify, you can go back and see my answer the other two times you asked me to clarify.

All the other shit you say is meaningless. It just is, it doesn't matter how smart you think that I think that I am, the shit you're peddling is still meaningless psychobabble. 

Agnosticism is the only rational answer given current human knowledge of origins.

Past that, its hubris.

All of your posts boil down to hubris.

Agnosticism shits on hubris.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Its pretty simple. You don't need to ask a third time for me to clarify, you can go back and see my answer the other two times you asked me to clarify.
> 
> All the other shit you say is meaningless. It just is, it doesn't matter how smart you think that I think that I am, the shit you're peddling is still meaningless psychobabble.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational answer given current human knowledge of origins.
> 
> Past that, its hubris.
> 
> All of your posts boil down to hubris.
> 
> Agnosticism shits on hubris.



Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  By the way, I don't think you're stupid.  I believe you saw your error.  I think you're arrogant. 

You thought you were going to defeat the argument as casually as a dog licks its genitals. You were so very proud, so very sure, of your of masterful deconstruction of it when all along the only thing that was so very clear is that you had dismissed something by sheer sheep think, because that's what others had told you to believe.  Only dumbasses could not see that it had no independent means of being affirmed, right?  Kant was a dumbass, right?  You've never really considered the argument on its own terms personally.  What I told you about it couldn't possibly be true, isn't that right?  

So tells us the truth about why you dropped out of the discussion:  when did it dawn on you that the only thing you had shown is that facts could exist without being know by finite minds?  In other words, when did it occur to you that you had _not_ proven, and could not prove, that facts could exist without an _omniscient_ mind?  In _fact_, for an omniscient mind there would be no fact-knowledge dichotomy would there?  All facts are known. All is pure knowledge.  That apprehension is an axiomatic _fact_ of logic. 

1.  Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2.  Knowledge exists.
3.  God doesn't exist. 

Now this presuppositional objection, meant to critique the supposedly unsupported major premise of the transcendental, meant to show that the transcendental  begs the question, is _obviously_ defective, and both the major premise and the conclusion can readily be shown by simple logic to be untenable.  The argument is inherently contradictory, self-negating.  The same thing cannot be said about or done to the real argument.


----------



## G.T.

Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?


Really?



Really?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read Hollie's posts? She accuses everyone who disagrees with her a fundie because she thinks that shows she is smarter than they are.
> 
> Never mind, I se you agreed one of her posts where she used that tactic, what else can a zealot do but accuse other people of being crazy for knowing more than they do?
Click to expand...

To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.

Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?

But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting' a wet, snot-stained hanky feelin' here.
> 
> Right. First all theists are superstitious dumbasses who believe what they believe out of naiveté or blind faith, culturally conditioned robots in the slimely grips of spaghetti monsters, opines the ever-condescending atheist, full of sneer and superiority. The teleological argument is so silly it need not even be discussed.  Only dumbasses would consider it's implications to be important.  Right? The likes of you and Hollie are so smmaaaaaart.  Well, real scientists of the atheistic persuasion are discussing its implications and the weak anthropic principle is their default position. The potentiality of the multiverse came just in time.  It's your arrogance that has blinded you from the decades-old reality of the reemergence of the argument's influence on the recognition of the implications of life in a hostile cosmos.
> 
> Oops. So suddenly when a theist pulls the atheist’s pants down around his ankles and shoves his nose in his own sneering excrement, the atheist projects his psychology on the theist.
> 
> Is that your default position or did you have a real argument to make?  All this personal bullshit from you and Hollie is tiresome?  Is that what turns you on?  Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You poor, dear. You're just incensed that despite all your bloviating and pompous stuttering and mumbling, you have failed to make a single, supportable argument in favor of your preference for magic and supernaturalism vs. a rational, naturalistic cause for existence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological only en
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...




They're talking about the transcendental argument, not the teleological argument, and the thoughts you're attacking are G.T.'s.  Oh, just to let you know, your criticism of the teleological argument is a straw man.  The "empirical" arguments for God's existence take current science into account.  I can point you in the right direction if you want.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaxGrit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the first step toward the realization as to what the issue _is_ all about is grasping the thrust of the following kinds of questions. When you claim, for example, that the ultimate essence of objectivity is “a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys . . . nonsense, bullshit and utter garbage”: is that (1) an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate or (2) just your personal, subjective opinion?
> 
> If nothing more substantial than your personal, subjective opinion, then why did you assert it as if it were an objectively absolute, universally apparent postulate? If it's the latter, then you should be able to express it as an axiom or as a logically falsifiable argument. It's obviously not an axiom, as an axiom is an idea that is objectively and self-evidently true in the mere statement of it. So what's your logically falsifiable argument?
> 
> (And, please, don't waste my time with definitions pulled out of a common usage dictionary sans the term's full connotations. In doing so you concede that common usage dictionaries are authoritative, and I can cite voluminous definitions from both technical and common usage dictionaries *that contain the full connotations of the term, not just your cherry picked connotation*. In short, you're simply ignorant of the ultimate ontological essence of what the adjectival form/term denoting the concept of _object_ is, which is the thing from which the full connotations of the term representing this concept in the English language are derived.)
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that they are not smart enough to understand your explanations?
> 
> They have been brainwashed by the religion of atheism and are too stupid to escape the brainwashing by use of logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they're smart enough to know that they can't explain how it's possible for something to come from nothing.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regarding anyone missing your pointless and really, really silly babbling in bolded text, why would you presume anyone would give that nonsense anymore than a chuckle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Start with Kant or Cornelius Van Til, and the many, many, really, really smarter minds than yours who take it very seriously.  The teleological argument is not for weak minds, so, by all means, don't worry your pretty little head about it, just be your adorable self as the real men handle this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, what a shame you christian Taliban are throttled by secular laws that prevent you and the Ayatollah's you so admire from fulfilling your Dark Ages fantasies.
> 
> Not to worry sweety. You're hardly a real man.
Click to expand...


Did you see that theist yesterday chopped that woman's head off because she wouldn't convert?  

What does an atheist do if he or she disagrees with you?  We certainly don't get violent about it.  

So theists can talk all day about Pol Pot, Lenin & Hitler.  What we see today is that the concept of god in your head doesn't necessarily make you a good person.  I have the position that religion is bad for us or at least I don't think it is automatically a good thing.  

I see some very good religious people and they believe in god, and if every theist were like these people, I wouldn't have a beef with religion or "religious people".  Of course I don't include those people when I diss religion.  I don't agree with them but that doesn't matter with them ior me.

Notice theists say they feel sorry for us and we feel the same way about them.  They are naive, gullible, innocent, stupid, not so brite.  It would be cute if it weren't so sad.  LOL.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
Click to expand...


Help me out with something.  I just started reading Spinoza.  I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
Click to expand...




You didn't read the posts.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, no.matte  which way it is answered because I do indeed have a mind.
> 
> You might not, and certainly cannot prove that you do. But I do.
> 
> Knowledge needs a knower, to be known. But facts don't need a knower to be facts. Facts become knowledge when they're discovered, but they don't become facts when they're discovered.
> 
> It is a fact that I cannot know everything while not KNOWing that I know everything. It is a fact, and also  knowledge since I the knower have observed it. This all independent of god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
Click to expand...

I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I wish there was a better way to tell you you're the one cognitively inept, but I'll spare myself the 8 paragraphs of bloviating meaninglessness in response, especially if you can't think of why the argument from design is inept. Especially because of THAT, you are summarily dismissed. Peace. Gluck in the future with failed arguments.



From where I'm standing, it's looks like you and the moderator in that video are "the man in the crowd" and you guys just got your butts handed to you.  I'm starting to think that most of the atheists on this forum call everything they don't understand or don't like, things that blow their insults up, are meaningless.  Must be nice to be lazy all the time.  You insult.  You're shown to be wrong.  You insult.  That seems to be your routine.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant?  Keep an open mind.  There's a reason why the teleological argument has endured.
> 
> Excellent!  You got to the distinction between facts and knowledge right away.  In my experience, the fastest way to get another there is with an analogy like the multiverse.  We can dispense with it now.
> 
> Let's review what you said, just to make sure that I correctly understand what you believe to be true.
> 
> Unknown/undiscovered facts are _not_ knowledge.  Known/discovered facts are both facts and knowledge.
> 
> From this you believe that facts, unlike knowledge, can exist without a knower, because it is an incontrovertible fact that you and I don't know all there is to know, and this would be true even if somebody, not us as we know better, believed he knew all there was to know.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
Click to expand...


Even G.T. knows you're lying.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> If you are going to call the universe itself god if it always existed, then you're being lenient with the classical way humans perceive the word 'god.'
> 
> You can call it anything you want to, you can assign it any type of name imaginable so to give it the typical religious name given the creator is being a bit disingenuous and I'd stretch that to a bit intellectually dishonest.



Heaven in a hand basket! He's talking about the self-evident, hypothetical possibilities without bias. It doesn't indicate anything about his personal beliefs. You know, if you guys didn't waste so much time on irrelevancies you might learn something.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Ironic last sentence is ironic. Your diatribes are redundant cave man lyrics beating their chest and screaming I'm smaaaawt.



That's the irony?  The only people who came on to this thread beating their chests about how smart they are and how stupid theists are are people like you.  I'm stupid.  Q.W. is stupid.  Foxfyre is stupid.  M.D.R. is stupid.  Everybody's stupid who doesn't agree with you, but the funny thing is that everybody's stupid that doesn't agree with the atheist seems to be just about all the argument you guys make.  I mean some of you really smart people try to make arguments and then you're little arguments get blown up by the bigger arguments of the stupid people.    And then you call their arguments stupid.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, thumpy. The teleological argument is yet another failed attempt by Christian fundies to prop up their failed appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
Click to expand...

Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong Adorable.  G.T. and I are discussing the transcendental argument for God's existence here, not the teleological argument, which tells me you didn't even bother to read the posts in the above.  Even more embarrassing for you is the fact that the post you're saying is all wrong is in fact *my summarization of G.T.'s beliefs, not mine!*  I thought you were on his side.  LOL!
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about:  minds as closed as slammed-shut doors!
> 
> As for that wall of irrelevancy regarding the teleological argument, I've already quashed the scientifically and philosophically benighted bunk of the atheist _laymen_ here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
Click to expand...


What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was certain that direct refutations to your pointless claims would go unanswered.
> 
> The best way of dealing with pompous blowhards / religious extremists is to simply lay out for them in declarative terms just how bankrupt their appeals to magic and supernaturalism really are. Invariably, they react just as you did, they scramble for a hasty retreat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?
Click to expand...

Pick one for us.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Help me out with something.  I just started reading Spinoza.  I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.
Click to expand...


Spinoza is really REALLY tedious reading.  He really doesn't deal in self awareness of God though and I will say that such was probably irrelevant for both him and Einstein who came to many of the same conclusions.  For both it was pure reason and logic that allowed them to see a process, method, symmetry, logic in the universe that both considered mathematically improbable as being by pure accident or chance.  So for them, they saw the possibility/probability of some kind of cosmic intelligence permeating all and guiding the process.

Neither subscribed to a personal God who contemplates each of us individually and is involved with our lives and/or destinies.  So in that sense, I would conclude that neither thought of a God who was self-aware or involved in any way with our sense of right/wrong/good/bad/virtue/evil as we think of that in JudeoChristian concepts.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read the posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pick one for us.
Click to expand...


When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science?  I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles.  Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did.  Obviously you're a known quantity.  All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult.  Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie.  You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the pinhead who said, but cannot support, that "knowledge cannot exist without god."
> 
> Demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, you must have missed this:
> 
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism.  --M.D. Rawlings​
> "Demonstrably false", eh?  Are you and PrachettFan related?  He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premise is false.
> 
> Knowledge exists independent of god.
> 
> Whether god exists or doesn't, I possess the knowledge that I am not all knowing. This is true due to the impossibility of the contrary, if I don't know that I am all knowing, I am not all knowing because its something that I do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know knowledge exists independent of God or gods?  Can you prove it?  Can you prove that knowledge exists if there are no beings capable of comprehending knowledge?  Can you prove that such beings are possible without a creator or God who would then be the author of knowledge as well as the receptacles for that knowledge?  For the anti-religionists who insist there is no God because there is no scientific evidence of any kind for God--an insistence that in itself can be questioned but let's go with that theory for now--then, logically you have to have scientific evidence for knowledge other than the empirical experience claimed by those to possess it.
> 
> And we can continue down that road until it becomes so absurd that the most stubborn numbnut has to see the absurdity of that form of argument.
> 
> Ultimately, when logic instead of ideology or prejudice is set aside, it comes down to two possibilities:
> 
> 1.  The stuff of the universe has always existed which does not rule out that the entire universe is capable of a form of intelligence that directs it--that would be Spinoza and Einstein's "God". . .
> . . . .or. . . .
> 
> 2.  There is an entity we call God who called all that we know to exist into being.
> 
> It goes back to the syllogism:
> 
> The universe exists.
> So far as we know, everything has to come from something.
> Therefore God, whatever or whomever God is, exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Help me out with something.  I just started reading Spinoza.  I'm not clear on whether or not his god is self-aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spinoza is really REALLY tedious reading.  He really doesn't deal in self awareness of God though and I will say that such was probably irrelevant for both him and Einstein who came to many of the same conclusions.  For both it was pure reason and logic that allowed them to see a process, method, symmetry, logic in the universe that both considered mathematically improbable as being by pure accident or chance.  So for them, they saw the possibility/probability of some kind of cosmic intelligence permeating all and guiding the process.
> 
> Neither subscribed to a personal God who contemplates each of us individually and is involved with our lives and/or destinies.  So in that sense, I would conclude that neither thought of a God who was self-aware or involved in any way with our sense of right/wrong/good/bad/virtue/evil as we think of that in JudeoChristian concepts.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I was reading him right.  That's pretty much what I'm getting.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read that confused, misinformed babbling. That's precisely why I know it's a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pick one for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science?  I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles.  Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did.  Obviously you're a known quantity.  All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult.  Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie.  You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.
Click to expand...

You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even G.T. knows you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pick one for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science?  I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles.  Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did.  Obviously you're a known quantity.  All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult.  Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie.  You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.
Click to expand...


I'm confused?  I noticed that he gave you links to posts in which he had already addressed your kind of purely subjective argument.  All you did was attack the man.  So it appears that you didn't read his scholarly posts summarizing the meaning of the argument and our current scientific understanding.  Like PratchettFan who doesn't know the full connotations of "objectivity," I think you need to get yourself an unabridged dictionary and learn the difference between the word "pompous" and "scholarly."   You attacked the man even before he gave you those links, and he slapped you down along with those links.  That's not attacking the man.  That's an argument with a well-deserved kick in the butt. Now you're attacking the argument in the same fashion.  The argument is stupid, because. . . .  See your problem is that there's never any real becauses behind your claims.  Real arguments have becauses in them, and a real because would explain why such and such is so.  We have no evidence that you even understand what he's telling you.  See, I just made a real argument with a real because in it.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're the one who is lying. Why don't you give us a reliable, testable mechanism that we can use to assess the claim of the ridiculous "un-caused cause" argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What argument are you talking about?  Foxfrye's argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pick one for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you say "testable" is that supposed to mean you care about science?  I don't believe you. I see that M.D.R. showed you that your understanding of the teleological argument was unscientific and dated, and you just blew that off with more insults followed up with hypocritical, cry-baby sniffles.  Now I know why he slapped you down the way he did.  Obviously you're a known quantity.  All you've done on this thread from the beginning is lie and insult.  Q.W. is right, you're a religious zombie.  You're behavior in the face of scholarly arguments and demonstrations by people like Q.W., Foxfyre and M.D.R. has been disgraceful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused about the failure of the teleological argument as pointless and irrelevant. If you scroll back a few pages, you will see that I gave the pompous fundie Rawlings a schooling in just how pointless the teleological actually is. You will also notice he made no attempt to refute it. That was a wise choice as the teleological argument, being nothing more than manipulating the standards of sound reasoning, is simply a way religious zealots manufacture an argument that supports their predefined conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused?  I noticed that he gave you links to posts in which he had already addressed your kind of purely subjective argument.  All you did was attack the man.  So it appears that you didn't read his scholarly posts summarizing the meaning of the argument and our current scientific understanding.  Like PratchettFan who doesn't know the full connotations of "objectivity," I think you need to get yourself an unabridged dictionary and learn the difference between the word "pompous" and "scholarly."   You attacked the man even before he gave you those links, and he slapped you down along with those links.  That's not attacking the man.  That's an argument with a well-deserved kick in the butt. Now you're attacking the argument in the same fashion.  The argument is stupid, because. . . .  See your problem is that there's never any real becauses behind your claims.  Real arguments have becauses in them, and a real because would explain why such and such is so.  We have no evidence that you even understand what he's telling you.  See, I just made a real argument with a real because in it.
Click to expand...

You made no argument. Neither did the other fundie. You were both just whining like petulant children.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.



I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you ignore evidence that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.

Want to try again?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Did you see that theist yesterday chopped that woman's head off because she wouldn't convert?
> 
> What does an atheist do if he or she disagrees with you?  We certainly don't get violent about it.
> 
> So theists can talk all day about Pol Pot, Lenin & Hitler.  What we see today is that the concept of god in your head doesn't necessarily make you a good person.  I have the position that religion is bad for us or at least I don't think it is automatically a good thing.
> 
> I see some very good religious people and they believe in god, and if every theist were like these people, I wouldn't have a beef with religion or "religious people".  Of course I don't include those people when I diss religion.  I don't agree with them but that doesn't matter with them ior me.
> 
> Notice theists say they feel sorry for us and we feel the same way about them.  They are naive, gullible, innocent, stupid, not so brite.  It would be cute if it weren't so sad.  LOL.



Never?



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
Click to expand...

I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.

I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.



What arguments have I made for either magic or super naturalism?


----------



## Hollie

Quantum Windbag said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What arguments have I made for either magic or super naturalism?
Click to expand...

Your pointless argument that atheism is a religion with the attendant association to beliefs in magic and supernatural gods. 

Do you typically forget what you have posted even hours earlier?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
Click to expand...


This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.
Click to expand...

How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?
Click to expand...


How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed?  That's the same kind of religious argument you made.   So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds. 



Oh, that's right.  You didn't read it.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To correct your false claims and errors, I have no issue with applying the religious zealot label to the science-loathing, self-haters who press a religious agenda as a means to displace reason and rationality.
> 
> Have you noticed just how quickly the pompous zealots are forced to retreat to personal attacks when their failed arguments are shot down in flames?
> 
> But yeah, why don't you tell us how much more you know about the gods than others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed?  That's the same kind of religious argument you made.   So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You didn't read it.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe? 

Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?

Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything.  Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point, you are the religious zealot. Every single post you make revolves around the belief that you are 100% correct, and you are willing to ignore evince that proves you wrong simply to maintain your belief system. You defend that system against all challenges, and attribute a belief system to anyone that dares to challenge you that ignores anything they say. If you search this thread you will not find a single example of me defending my beliefs over yours, I have not even made an effort to explain to anyone what I believe. In fact, I have categorical refused to do so because my personal beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is about the structure of logic and how it can be used to prove anything, and why simply declaring that an argument is invalid simply because you don't like the conclusion is not proof of your ability to reason.
> 
> Want to try again?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed?  That's the same kind of religious argument you made.   So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You didn't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?
> 
> Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything.  Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see that theist yesterday chopped that woman's head off because she wouldn't convert?
> 
> What does an atheist do if he or she disagrees with you?  We certainly don't get violent about it.
> 
> So theists can talk all day about Pol Pot, Lenin & Hitler.  What we see today is that the concept of god in your head doesn't necessarily make you a good person.  I have the position that religion is bad for us or at least I don't think it is automatically a good thing.
> 
> I see some very good religious people and they believe in god, and if every theist were like these people, I wouldn't have a beef with religion or "religious people".  Of course I don't include those people when I diss religion.  I don't agree with them but that doesn't matter with them ior me.
> 
> Notice theists say they feel sorry for us and we feel the same way about them.  They are naive, gullible, innocent, stupid, not so brite.  It would be cute if it weren't so sad.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never?
> 
> 
> 
> Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Click to expand...


I'm going to make a sign that says US soldiers are cock suckers and are going to burn in hell for serving in Iraq and I'm going to march where a lot of Marines hang out.  Will they lay their hands on me?  That's what these asshole theists are doing to gay people.  They're saying stuff that is very offensive to gays.  They get away with it because our society is anti gay.  Free speech?  

I'm going to go to Detroit and have a sign that says black people are uncivilized.  Or I'm going to send a black into KKK territory and have him carry a sign that says white women are easy sluts.

Chances are those marines or racists will act the same way that gay guy did.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to declare that your arguments for magic and supernaturalism are bankrupt. I need only require that you support your arguments for magic and supernaturalism. Of course you can't.
> 
> I have no belief system for the processes of reason and rationality. None are required. It is only you believers in magic and supernaturalism who invent elaborate, and ultimately failed conceptions of gods and spirit realms. Don't come crying to me that you are hopelessly inept at providing testable evidence of your gods and your imagined magic realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I asked you if you were talking about Foxfyre's argument.  M.D.R.'s arguments aren't supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you miss the teleological argument being one used by the religious entities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did you miss M.D.R.'s demolition of the atheist's religious argument that God can't exist because God wouldn't design the universe the way its designed?  That's the same kind of religious argument you made.   So much for the lie that you guys don't have a definitive idea about God lurking in your minds.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You didn't read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect you're having difficulty with comprehending some pretty basic concepts. First, there is no reason to accept your gods or the gods of others as designing any universe. Secondly, why would anyone accept you or anyone else is in a position of authority to decide how the gods should, or should not have designed any universe?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that a universe poorly designed suggests that your gods are inept, incompetent designers?
> 
> Lastly, there is no "atheists' argument" about any gods designing anything.  Those arguments come from you fundie zealots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

Pointlessness seems to be an attribute that defines the comments of you hateful fundies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?




As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition.  I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God.  The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind.  Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?

Yes or no?

If _yes_, what is it?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition.  I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God.  The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind.  Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> If _yes_, what is it?
Click to expand...

Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> First of all, I SHOWED YOU knowledge independent of God. One always NECESSARILY knows whether or not they KNOW everything. That is ALWAYS TRUE. Independent of the Universe itself that is always true.




You just don't see the problem with your thinking.  You're seriously confused.

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*​
And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*​


Once again, the only things you have objectively shown is that knowledge can be _known_ by finite minds, and facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them.

*1.*  You have conceded that you are a finite mind.

*2*.  Hence, you concede that you don't have all knowledge.

*3.*  To know whether or not it is possible for knowledge to _exist_ without God (a notion that in and of itself is absurd, as God, by definition, _is_ all-knowledge:  knowledge is possible if all-knowledge doesn't exist?!), you would have to _be_ God.

*4.*  In spite of the fact that you pretend to be God when you claim that knowledge cannot exist without _you _(self-negation), you know that you are _not_ God.

*5.*  You necessarily assume God's existence in your argument, albeit, by absurdly usurping the place of God without justification.

*6.*  You have not proven that knowledge can exist without God.​

(By the way, don't deceive yourself into believing that because you defeated Foxfyre's cosmological argument that you have defeated _the_ cosmological argument.)


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really think facts can't exist without an omniscient mind?
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before my personal beliefs aren't relevant to the objectively verifiable realities of human cognition.  I know of no logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge of any kind to exist without God.  The only thing you're argument in the above objectively proves is that it's possible for facts to exist without being known by a finite mind.  Do you know of a logical proof which demonstrates that it's possible for knowledge to exist without God?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> If _yes_, what is it?
Click to expand...


Has this god or deity of yours ever talked to you or anyone on earth?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?



Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:

*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.

Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.

In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.

Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings

"Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.

Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​

Now read post #691.


----------



## G.T.

MD your #3 is a naked assertion.

The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.

"We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"

Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.


Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.

Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.


----------



## G.T.

Presupposition apologetics are basket cases.that is a fact, independent of god.

You're post 691 is full of naked assertions. Not arguments.


----------



## G.T.

"God is all knowledge therefore knowledge doesnt exist without god"

Is a stupid stupid stupid stupid

X30 more stupids.....argument.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings
> 
> "Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​
> 
> Now read post #691.
Click to expand...

You cut and pasted the nonsense in bolded text before. It was nonsense then as it is now.

You're an even bigger buffoon now, than you were before.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so dense as to not understand that your pointless question-begging presupposes one or more gods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, Adorable, you must have missed this:
> 
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> This syllogism _is_ logically valid, and its conclusion is factually true _if_ the major premise is true.
> 
> Circular reasoning (or sometimes, begging the question) is not a formal logical fallacy, but a commonsense/pragmatic defect _if_, in this case, the major premise provides no independent, rational ground or empirical evidence for itself. A serious presuppositional syllogism purports that its major premise is derived from an independent, rational ground, namely, the rational exigencies of reality itself, as any counterargument launched against it is inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> In the meantime, the major premise itself is not inherently contradictory or self-negating.
> 
> Go ahead. Try it. Forget about supposed informal criticisms for the moment, and, as an exercise in logic, attempt to overthrow the "truth" claim in the major premise with a logically consistent argument. I can confidently assure you that any attempt to do so will be inherently contradictory or self-negating, as in some way or another it will necessarily presuppose the very same major premise it purports to falsify in its refutation! Another way to say this is that there is apparently something wrong with the assertion of atheism that does not plague the assertion of theism. —M.D. Rawlings
> 
> "Demonstrably false", eh? Are you and PrachettFan related? He has a habit of dismissing facts or arguments with bald claims sans any discernible sign of argumentation, too.
> 
> Your initial objection is not valid against a presuppositional argument unless the major premise is in fact not derived from an independent, rational ground. I concede that presuppositional arguments like this one in particular are seemingly off somehow, but the reason it has endured is because of what happens with the attempts to falsify the major premise. It's almost as if, and this gets a bit esoteric, that God Himself is backing it. It's a declaration akin to I AM. It can be expressed in other ways, but I prefer this one for its elegant simplicity.​
> 
> Now read post #691.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cut and pasted the nonsense in bolded text before. It was nonsense then as it is now.
> 
> You're an even bigger buffoon now, than you were before.
Click to expand...

There was like a three second time frame where I thought this dude was smarter than this horseshit he believes is rational, but uh......no.

He's a tap dancer.


----------



## G.T.

I think if anyone holds William lane Craig as any type of deep or rational thinker - time to re examine predispositions and biases. I'd say that as a friend, but I don't really care as an internet poster to be honest.

Craig has been s0nned so many times in debate its ridiculous. Hed be embarrassed if he weren't making money hand over fist about it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> MD your #3 is a naked assertion.
> 
> The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.
> 
> "We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"
> 
> Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.
> 
> Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.




Nonsense. 

First.  You're obviously refuted right off the bat:

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*​
And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*​

I already provided the logical proof for #3.   It just hasn't sunk in for you, for as usual you haven't thought it through. 

*1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Now this presuppositional objection, meant to critique the supposedly unsupported major premise of the transcendental, meant to show that the transcendental begs the question, is _obviously_ defective, and both the major premise and the conclusion can readily be shown by simple logic to be untenable. The argument is inherently contradictory, self-negating. The same thing cannot be said about or done to the real argument.
__________________________________

The assertion that God exists, unlike the assertion that God does not exist, is not inherently contradictory.  The possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  You've already conceded that the assertion of atheism is not logically tenable.  In any event, God by definition is all-knowledge or else the thing being defined is not God.  You necessarily conceded that it is objectively apparent that #3 is a logically valid assertion, that the universally understood construct of God (or supreme being) is perfect knowledge, and you're very own argument proves that!  You just didn't realize what you had actually argued, what you had actually proved logically, until I showed you. 

Oh, by the way, your rational-agnostic assertion is invalid.  You unwittingly asserted it, and rightly so, against atheism on the grounds of logic, but one cannot validly assert it against theism on the grounds of logic.  Once again, logic dictates that God's existence cannot be denied without proof.  The very act of asserting agnosticism concedes that fact of logic.  I don't know if God exists _means_ I don't know if God exists. It doesn't mean that the understanding of the possibly of God's existence is irrational.  The universe is the evidence for God's existence, and your "nothingness objection" is not justifiable knowledge about anything.

You have been refuted on each one of these points individually and now in summary.  It's not my problem that you are either not bright enough to understand the reality of it or not honest enough to admit it.

You're dismissed.


----------



## G.T.

I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.

You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.

Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.

If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.


----------



## G.T.

And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.

You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."


So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.

That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD your #3 is a naked assertion.
> 
> The way god is defined does not equate to a logical proof that said defined god exists, and so your #3 is baseless.
> 
> "We define god as all knowledge therefore god exists or else knowledge doesnt!"
> 
> Well, no. It doesn't work like that. And its QUITE fuggin ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Read your #3 over and over and over. Your homework assignment is to tell me why its retarded.
> 
> Edit to add...this is regarding your #3 in post 691.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> First.  You're obviously refuted right off the bat:
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*​
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*​
> 
> I already provided the logical proof for #3.   It just hasn't sunk in for you, for as usual you haven't thought it through.
> 
> *1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> Now this presuppositional objection, meant to critique the supposedly unsupported major premise of the transcendental, meant to show that the transcendental begs the question, is _obviously_ defective, and both the major premise and the conclusion can readily be shown by simple logic to be untenable. The argument is inherently contradictory, self-negating. The same thing cannot be said about or done to the real argument.
> __________________________________
> 
> The assertion that God exists, unlike the assertion that God does not exist, is not inherently contradictory.  The possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  You've already conceded that the assertion of atheism is not logically tenable.  In any event, God by definition is all-knowledge or else the thing being defined is not God.  You necessarily conceded that it is objectively apparent that #3 is a logically valid assertion, that the universally understood construct of God (or supreme being) is perfect knowledge, and you're very own argument proves that!  You just didn't realize what you had actually argued, what you had actually proved logically, until I showed you.
> 
> Oh, by the way, your rational-agnostic assertion is invalid.  You unwittingly asserted it, and rightly so, against atheism on the grounds of logic, but one cannot validly assert it against theism on the grounds of logic.  Once again, logic dictates that God's existence cannot be denied without proof.  The very act of asserting agnosticism concedes that fact of logic.  I don't know if God exists _means_ I don't know if God exists. It doesn't mean that the understanding of the possibly of God's existence is irrational.  The universe is the evidence for God's existence, and your "nothingness objection" is not justifiable knowledge about anything.
> 
> You have been refuted on each one of these points individually and now in summary.  It's not my problem that you are either not bright enough to understand the reality of it or not honest enough to admit it.
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


You can't fix stupid or dishonest.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.



I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.


----------



## G.T.

I'm afraid of people who are stupid enough to assign explanations to the yet to be explained and they rationalize it in such a way that they consider it proof whereas proof is the farthest thing from being available in terms of the origins of 'everything,' and fuck, we don't even know if there WAS an origin. But, you know, we're here....so, like.....god, bro.


No.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.
Click to expand...

Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.


----------



## emilynghiem

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



If you equate God with forces of Life or Nature,
Universal laws, collective truth,
then you can prove that all people in some expression
of this abstract concept or energy.

The problem is we don't all agree that we are talking
about the same thing, that we attribute the same qualities
or interpret it the same, and we don't all forgive each other
for differences.

As long as we can forgive differences, we can resolve conflicts
even where our beliefs are different and don't need to change.

The issue is not so much whether or not God exists,
because this can never be proven or disproven but relies on faith.

What we can demonstrate is the ability to reach a consensus
on our language and terms for the concepts and principles in life
including ones that are expressed using God Jesus and other terms from religion.
All these same concepts can be expressed using secular terms
and explanations, and do not need to rely on the religious terminology
as long as we are talking about the same concepts.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie: 
Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
sharing this knowledge. 

The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.

If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.

Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.

It scares them to think you don't have to
treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!

It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.

All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.

There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.

They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> Your pointless argument that atheism is a religion with the attendant association to beliefs in magic and supernatural gods.
> 
> Do you typically forget what you have posted even hours earlier?



Are you arguing with the voices n your head again?

FYI, I never posted anything like you just claimed. Unlike you, I have a memory that is based in reality, not delusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I'm going to make a sign that says US soldiers are cock suckers and are going to burn in hell for serving in Iraq and I'm going to march where a lot of Marines hang out.  Will they lay their hands on me?  That's what these asshole theists are doing to gay people.  They're saying stuff that is very offensive to gays.  They get away with it because our society is anti gay.  Free speech?
> 
> I'm going to go to Detroit and have a sign that says black people are uncivilized.  Or I'm going to send a black into KKK territory and have him carry a sign that says white women are easy sluts.
> 
> Chances are those marines or racists will act the same way that gay guy did.



Tough fucking shit.


----------



## Foxfyre

MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.


----------



## ninja007

JakeStarkey said:


> atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."
> 
> Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "
> 
> Meaning atheists and *believers have no evidence for their choice *to believe or not.
> 
> Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.



Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...


----------



## JakeStarkey

not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it

let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.



A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:

All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.

This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.


----------



## PratchettFan

ninja007 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."
> 
> Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "
> 
> Meaning atheists and *believers have no evidence for their choice *to believe or not.
> 
> Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...
Click to expand...


How is it evidence?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
Click to expand...


Close-mindedness, conceptual and linguistic illiteracy, and rank intellectual dishonesty = garbage out.

False analogy.  The major premise in the above is manifestly false.  The major premise of the transcendental argument is neither inherently contradictory or demonstrably false, and you, Sir, don't grasp that what you're ultimately asserting with your informal allegation of begging the question—as you disregard the fact that the inability of the counter assertions to falsify the major premise constitutes the latter's objectively independent, rational ground—is an assault on the validity of the very exigencies of the classical laws of logic you now think to assert, albeit, incorrectly, against the transcendental argument's major premise:  a point I will drive home momentarily with the argument's subsequent defense of these exigencies, which reveal that the atheist is spouting things that are demonstrably absurd once again!

Hint:  there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is absolutely absurd.

Moreover, you're dismissed.  You previously claimed that the exigencies of the laws of logic do not constitute objective evidence or justifiable knowledge of any kind.  What did you call the unabridged and conceptually necessary essence of the adjectival term denoting _object_?  Answer:  Bullshit!  Well, as it turns out, you do in fact comprehend the essence of the adjectival term denoting _object_ after all. As, _after all_, that's one of the items in the forefront among the universally apprehended absolutes extrapolated from the exercise of focusing the laws of logic on the problems of existence and origin.  You _do_ recognize the fact that the exigencies of the laws of logic, the subsequent axioms, postulates and theorems of intuition, _do_ constitute objective evidence.  But if you're still pretending that the full connotations of _objectively_ do not exist after necessarily conceding that they do, take your bullshit somewhere else. 

Is this your concession that you have been artlessly walking around all your life with a definition of _objectively_ derived from an abridged dictionary or not?

That is, of course, a rhetorical question as you've already, unwittingly, pulled down your own pants in front of God and everybody by trying to foist a manifestly false, mentally deficient analogy on us in the first place.  Dude!


----------



## G.T.

The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.

That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.


----------



## G.T.

Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.

The contrary is impossible.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JakeStarkey said:


> not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it
> 
> let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'



Substantive objective evidence, Mr. Materialist, is not limited to empirical phenomena.  Notwithstanding, the existence of the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence.  Shut the hell up!  Atheism cannot be rationally asserted, for a sentient origin of the universe cannot be rationally ruled out without proof.  You're illegitimate and unwitting superimposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is NOT scientifically falsifiable, begs the question _in fact_ unlike the rationally unjustifiable drool alleged about the major premise of the transcendental argument.

And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead.  DUH!  Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.


----------



## G.T.

You're not conceding that there is a god when you deny that there is a god, sorry sye ten bruggencate.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.



True.  But the argument is much more than just a logical demonstration as we shall see.


----------



## JakeStarkey

M. D., you write very prettily as you demonstrate your "rank intellectual dishonesty."

You are only telling us why you think God exists, but your belief without concrete empirical data and repeatable proof remains only your belief.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Notwithstanding, the existence of the universe incontrovertibly is the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence._ 

The universe is simply not any sort of _pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence_.  It is merely your statement that you cannot validate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge" is merely an opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.

A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.

No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..

. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:

All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.

There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.

Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:

All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.

And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:

Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Is "Everything must come/evolve/develop from something" provable?

And thank you for the most reasonable explanation in this thread.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it
> 
> let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'



On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves.

For example, the issue of transitional fossils in evolution. Many scientists confidently point to actual examples of these types of fossils, yet people who have a problem with evolution look at the same fossils and see something different. Does that mean the fossils are not empirical? Only in the minds of people who do not understand the term.

Life exists, it is empirical evidence of something. That neither validates, or invalidates, the claim that life has an external cause.


----------



## G.T.

JakeStarkey said:


> "Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge" is merely an opinion.


Of course it is.

Not one human being has solved the puzzle to a provable degree of our origins.

That is not an opinion. Life would be far different if that puzzle were cracked, by ANYone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
Click to expand...


Wrong.



> Implication in detail
> 
> Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.
> 
> The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach a true conclusion. For example:
> 
> Premise: All fish live in the ocean
> Premise: Sea otters are fish
> Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean
> 
> There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion.
> 
> We can summarize these results as a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.
> Truth Table for Implication Premise    Conclusion    Inference
> A    B    A => B
> false    false    true
> false    true    true
> true    false    false
> true    true    true
> 
> If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false. (Lines 1 and 2.)
> If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid. (Line 3.)
> If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true. (Line 4.)
> 
> So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds--it may have started from false premises.



Atheism Logic Fallacies

The part that is being forgotten hear is that logic is inapplicable to the real world, which is why any debate about logical arguments conclusively proving anything is stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> How is it evidence?



How is it not evidence?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
> 
> The contrary is impossible.



Why?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Is "Everything must come/evolve/develop from something" provable?
> 
> And thank you for the most reasonable explanation in this thread.



Only if you accept that cause and effect is an actual law of physics.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> not empirically in the sense you suggest, but you can try to prove it
> 
> let's see you replicate it from the 'beginning'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves.
> 
> For example, the issue of transitional fossils in evolution. Many scientists confidently point to actual examples of these types of fossils, yet people who have a problem with evolution look at the same fossils and see something different. Does that mean the fossils are not empirical? Only in the minds of people who do not understand the term.
> 
> Life exists, it is empirical evidence of something. That neither validates, or invalidates, the claim that life has an external cause.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.


Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
> 
> The contrary is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

The why was the last sentence.

You cannot be an all knowing knower if you don't KNOW you're all knowing, because if you didn't know THAT, you're NOT ALL KNOWING.

its axiomatic.
Its absolute.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Of course it is.
> 
> Not one human being has solved the puzzle to a provable degree of our origins.
> 
> That is not an opinion. Life would be far different if that puzzle were cracked, by ANYone.



The fact that you refuse to accept evidence of something is not proof that the evidence does not exist. If it worked that way the creationists would have wiped out the theory of evolution by now.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> Not one human being has solved the puzzle to a provable degree of our origins.
> 
> That is not an opinion. Life would be far different if that puzzle were cracked, by ANYone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you refuse to accept evidence of something is not proof that the evidence does not exist. If it worked that way the creationists would have wiped out the theory of evolution by now.
Click to expand...

I accept evidence, I don't accept that there's proof.

Big difference, and also the 'evidence' in discussion is debatable in terms of what its evidence OF.

Also you wasted your time with this post because i do not assert that god doesnt exist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.



If that was his real point he would not be saying that the evidence that exists is open to interpretation, not that it doesn't exist at all, which is the beef I have with him.

Feel free to keep demonstrating your ignorance by misrepresenting what other people are saying.



G.T. said:


> The why was the last sentence.
> 
> You cannot be an all knowing knower if you don't KNOW you're all knowing, because if you didn't know THAT, you're NOT ALL KNOWING.
> 
> its axiomatic.
> Its absolute.



In other words, you are bloviating.

That is the word you use when someone says something that is fundamentally unprovable, yet they declare it to be an absolute proof, isn't it?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your last sentence is the exact essence of why life existing is not smoking gun proof of god, which was his real point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that was his real point he would not be saying that the evidence that exists is open to interpretation, not that it doesn't exist at all, which is the beef I have with him.
> 
> Feel free to keep demonstrating your ignorance by misrepresenting what other people are saying.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The why was the last sentence.
> 
> You cannot be an all knowing knower if you don't KNOW you're all knowing, because if you didn't know THAT, you're NOT ALL KNOWING.
> 
> its axiomatic.
> Its absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you are bloviating.
> 
> That is the word you use when someone says something that is fundamentally unprovable, yet they declare it to be an absolute proof, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Well, no.

No, not at all. 

I'm not bloviating because I have both a logical and a rational proof which is irrefutable.

When I say another is bloviating, its because they are asserting something that has infinite other explanations making their bloviation fall short as a proof.

If I'm bloviating, let me know the other possibilities: how can an all knower not know whether or not they're all knowing......when not knowing THAT necessarily MEANS they're not all knowing.

Come on contrarian. If I'm bloviating, fill me in on another possibility there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I accept evidence, I don't accept that there's proof.
> 
> Big difference, and also the 'evidence' in discussion is debatable in terms of what its evidence OF.
> 
> Also you wasted your time with this post because i do not assert that god doesnt exist.



You do understand that evidence and proof are synonyms, don't you, and that by saying you don't accept that there is proof you are actually contradicting yourself when you claim that you accept evidence?

Proof - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Of course you don't, because you think you have all the answers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Well, no.
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> I'm not bloviating because I have both a logical and a rational proof which is irrefutable.
> 
> When I say another is bloviating, its because they are asserting something that has infinite other explanations making their bloviation fall short as a proof.
> 
> If I'm bloviating, let me know the other possibilities: how can an all knower not know whether or not they're all knowing......when not knowing THAT necessarily MEANS they're not all knowing.
> 
> Come on contrarian. If I'm bloviating, fill me in on another possibility there.



Funny thing about logic, no argument you can make is irrefutable.


----------



## G.T.

Proof and evidence may be synonyms for you guy.....I'm cool with that.

I disagree. 

To me...proof is irrefutable, whereas evidence can go either way.

But have at it killer.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no.
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> I'm not bloviating because I have both a logical and a rational proof which is irrefutable.
> 
> When I say another is bloviating, its because they are asserting something that has infinite other explanations making their bloviation fall short as a proof.
> 
> If I'm bloviating, let me know the other possibilities: how can an all knower not know whether or not they're all knowing......when not knowing THAT necessarily MEANS they're not all knowing.
> 
> Come on contrarian. If I'm bloviating, fill me in on another possibility there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about logic, no argument you can make is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about my premise, it is absolute truth and cannot be refuted.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
Click to expand...


That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
Click to expand...

Are you not seeing that you utterly devalue your argument when you arbitrarily excuse your gods as necessarily "coming from something" with the "uncaused cause" exception?  There is really no logical way of reaching the conclusion that “an eternal and uncaused supernatural entity was responsible for the creation of all.” That conclusion itself is a direct contradiction to the position that everything has a cause. 

If there was one such uncaused thing, why not many?

If there can be an unlimited thing after all, why does that unlimited thing have to be god, rather than simply the universe itself?

Now would be a good time to point out another total failure in this set of arguments. Let’s pretend just for the sake of argument that the asserter of an uncaused supernatural entity had not directly contradicted himself. Let’s pretend that we somehow did reach the conclusion that at the end of this eternal chain of causation, there was an “unlimited cause” that started the whole thing.

What does this argument tell us about the nature and character of that “unlimited cause?”

Not a thing. It could be Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or some as yet undiscovered and unnamed giant cosmic syndicate of gods; _Gods Intl., Inc._ for example. Even were this argument correct (which it is not) it offers no evidence for the existence of your gods. Your gods are but one particular version of “gods” unique to one particular religious group. And there is no basis for connecting your sectarian deity with any of the arguments we have been offered to this point.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it not evidence?
Click to expand...


That is not an answer.  The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I'm afraid of people who are stupid enough to assign explanations to the yet to be explained and they rationalize it in such a way that they consider it proof whereas proof is the farthest thing from being available in terms of the origins of 'everything,' and fuck, we don't even know if there WAS an origin. But, you know, we're here....so, like.....god, bro.
> 
> 
> No.



The apprehension of the existence of the universe necessarily entails the presupposition of an origin, but you already knew that.  You just forgot again.  Put down the spaghetti monsters of atheism obstructing your vision and step away from the slime.

And I see that you're still shoveling that purely subjective, fatuously pompous shit as argumentation:  the typical atheist's default position of intellectual superiority, the mindless arrogance that he absolutely knows and/or understands something, which, by the way, the axioms of logical intuition utterly refute, better than the vast majority of the human race.

No one who rightly understands the matter is asserting that logical proofs, like the transcendental argument, are absolute proofs in terms of ultimacy, but you obtuse, mentally deficient materialists.  Straw man.

Bottom line:  the atheist necessarily concedes that _all_ of the universally apparent imperatives of human apprehension touching on the problems of existence and origin (Everybody knows! *post #99*,  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9835074/) are objectively pertinent, beginning with premise number *#3* of the syllogism in *post #691*, once again, every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe; that is, he admits his awareness of the fact that a supremely sentient origin of the universe cannot be rationally ruled out without proof, that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence.

You're the bucktooth, nose-picking hayseed stupidly misapprehending the nature of what logical proofs are, not me.  With regard to the problems of existence and origin, the pertinent, universally apparent imperatives of human apprehension coupled with the implications of the classical arguments for God's existence are the objectively rational evidence predicated on the objectively apparent empirical evidence.  Whether one is convinced by this evidence or not, it's more than reasonable to assert that theism overwhelming has the stronger case.


----------



## G.T.

Yes, no.

But.nice try again!

Necessarily" entails the presupposition of an origin" is not passable because the contrary is not impossible: there could be NO origin.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Proof and evidence may be synonyms for you guy.....I'm cool with that.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> To me...proof is irrefutable, whereas evidence can go either way.
> 
> But have at it killer.



Did you miss the link I posted that showed they were synonyms?

Another person that thinks there personal definitions trump the actual dictionary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.



You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> That is not an answer.  The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.



Sigh.

Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof and evidence may be synonyms for you guy.....I'm cool with that.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> To me...proof is irrefutable, whereas evidence can go either way.
> 
> But have at it killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the link I posted that showed they were synonyms?
> 
> Another person that thinks there personal definitions trump the actual dictionary.
Click to expand...

I said I'm cool with it dude. 

Good for you if you and your dictionary say they're the same.

They're not, in my eyes. Evidence builds a proof. Proof can't build evidence. Well, that's just my opinion - gluck, we cannot have a conversation I guess.

I'm gonna cry


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Yes, no.
> 
> But.nice try again!
> 
> Necessarily" entails the presupposition of an origin" is not passable because the contrary is not impossible: there could be NO origin.



What are you talking about?  At the very least, the cosmological singularity is the origin, while the quantum vacuum is the origin of the singularity.

Spaghetti monsters!

Are you scientifically illiterate as well as conceptually illiterate?  A material origin is one of the options, whether it be eternally existent or not.  Origin doesn't mean whatever confused notion you have in your mind.  The old steady state model of the Classical ear, for example, sans our current knowledge, which held that the universe was virtually eternal would arguably make the universe its own origin for the atheist.  How far back one goes, existence entails origin.   

Dude!


Are harping on the unjustifiable concept of something from nothing again?   In that case nothingness, though it be unintelligible, would conceptually be the origin!

Move on!  I am not making Foxfyre's cosmological argument.


----------



## G.T.

The cosmological singularity isn't proven to have an origin, dude.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *MD:* And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.










 ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







> ... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe



there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
Click to expand...


Caveat.  He has a valid point in general.  His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false.  The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false.  His purely academic objection does not hold.  And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The cosmological singularity isn't proven to have an origin, dude.



The concept of proof/evidence, in and of itself, another thing you don't understand, or, for that matter, whatever the ultimate origin of ANYTHING is, is not relevant, dummy.  Existence entails origin.  Period.  End of thought. I will not entertain another obtuse post from you on this.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caveat.  He has a valid point in general.  His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false.  The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false.  His purely academic objection does not hold.  And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.
Click to expand...

Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cosmological singularity isn't proven to have an origin, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of proof/evidence, in and of itself, another thing you don't understand, or, for that matter, whatever the ultimate origin of ANYTHING is, is not relevant, dummy.  Existence entails origin.  Period.  End of thought. I will not entertain another obtuse post from you on this.
Click to expand...

"Existence entails origins."

Let me help you here, fundie whack job. You should have written, "existence requires origin."  So then, define for us the hierarchy of gods who designed your designer gods, who in turn were designed by super-designer gods, who in turn.....


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
Click to expand...


We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.

But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.

Now if we go with the opening statement that:

*Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*

. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?

Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?  

But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:

*Knowledge exists.*

*Therefore there is a God.*


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
Click to expand...


I agree you can do that, but the conclusion will be true of itself, not established by a syllogism.  If the premise is false, then the conclusion must be proven in another manner.  In this case, we are faced with a premise which we are to take as self-evident and without question.  The conclusion is to be taken as true based upon an unsupported premise.  If the premise is not demonstrated, then any conclusion derived from it must be proven independent of the premise.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer.  The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.
Click to expand...


How is that evidence of God?  Connect the two things.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cosmological singularity isn't proven to have an origin, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of proof/evidence, in and of itself, another thing you don't understand, or, for that matter, whatever the ultimate origin of ANYTHING is, is not relevant, dummy.  Existence entails origin.  Period.  End of thought. I will not entertain another obtuse post from you on this.
Click to expand...

No, existence doesn't entail that. Existence may have been ETERNAL. 

It is speculation - even scientifically - that the singularity was or was not eternal.

You're lazy as fuck with how lax you are in terms of a demand for solid answers. You play fast and loose, but anyone who is not agnostic is experiencing greater levels of being gullible than an agnostic so, you're not alone.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
Click to expand...


Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.


----------



## G.T.

The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.

So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
Click to expand...


You're not being honest. Sorry, but you're pressing an agenda, not an honest attempt at argument.

From the top, then. You posted:

*Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*

Without appending ".... because I say so" to your statement, there is absolutely no reason to accept the above as true.


*
Knowledge exists.
*
Pretty much stating the obvious. There's nothing to connect the attainment of knowledge to your gods or anyone else's gods.


*Therefore there is a God.
*
Wha.... wha.... wait, what? What happened to the "creator" in your opening sentence? The sentence identified the inclusive "or" term, "creator or God". Was the creator fired or just dropped because he got in the way?

I'm thinking your "syllogism" was rigged from the start to achieve a predetermined conclusion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
Click to expand...


But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined. 

From nothing, nothing comes.
The universe exists.
God exists.

Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is. 

The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.  

Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. We had to endure your sloppy pontificating when you could have saved us from the motion sickness induced nausea of your pointless rattling with a simple "the gawds did it... because I say so!"


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
Click to expand...


No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.

Going back to my original wording:

*Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.

The universe exists
.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
*
We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.



Again, the mundane as if it were profound!

And once again, Mr. Slogan Think of the premeditated circumvention of those things that inconveniently render your guff moot, we already covered that. No more digressions. Until you can explain to me _how_ something could come from nothing, you're not packing anything remotely like a rationally justifiable objection to stop (*sound of screeching wheels and a crash*) the analysis of the rationally justifiable knowledge pertaining to the issue of origin. Besides, you guys have already asserted arguments presupposing the justifiable knowledge that _is_ reasonably pertinent, demonstrating that you understand that the spaghetti monsters of nothingness, while curious, though not really, are of no practical significance.  Dead end. 

So that will be the last time I entertain that silliness. This along with your silliness regarding the existence-origin dichotomy: File 13.

By the way, why don't you  define _existence_ so that we may all see just how conveniently closed-minded your thinking is.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caveat.  He has a valid point in general.  His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false.  The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false.  His purely academic objection does not hold.  And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?
Click to expand...


_H - o - l - l - i - e_.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> I agree you can do that, but the conclusion will be true of itself, not established by a syllogism.  If the premise is false, then the conclusion must be proven in another manner.  In this case, we are faced with a premise which we are to take as self-evident and without question.  The conclusion is to be taken as true based upon an unsupported premise.  If the premise is not demonstrated, then any conclusion derived from it must be proven independent of the premise.



Now you are stepping outside the realm of logic, which is a pretty useless field outside of philosophy and mathematical proofs. Even in math it is limited in what you can accomplish using logic because, at this point in time, we are not capable of devising a system that controls the universe.


----------



## G.T.

MD, that's the glory of not merely accepting something that isnt currently falsifiable without further proof.

I don't HAVE TO explain how something could come from nothing - to NOT submit as absolute knowledge that something CANT, because WE DONT KNOW.

Therein (the inability to admit that we cannot know) lies the bedrock of your bloviation.

Not to mention, the other possibility that THERE WAS NEVER NOTHING.

You continue to display as I had already gathered - your rationale is remedial.


----------



## G.T.

EXISTENCE: ANYthing that EVER or ALWAYS was.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> How is that evidence of God?  Connect the two things.



I am saying that it is evidence, and that people can interpret that evidence in different ways. The same thing happens in forensics. despite the myth you see in movies that the evidence can only mean one thing. If the police find a fingerprint on a cup at a crime scene they will automatically assume that the evidence proves that the owner of that finger was at the crime scene. In reality, there are dozens of possibilities about how that cup came to be there, which is why you cannot look at a single piece of evidence and draw a valid conclusion about something.

There is a lot of evidence out there, and life is only one piece of data. Look at everything available before you form an opinion, and always be ready to change your opinion when new evidence comes in. Dismissing one piece of evidence, and then doing the same thing with another piece, simply because no single bit of data confirms the existence of something you don't understand, is the sign of a closed mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, existence doesn't entail that. Existence may have been ETERNAL.



I am pretty sure that science says the universe had a beginning. 

Not that facts like that matter to you.



G.T. said:


> It is speculation - even scientifically - that the singularity was or was not eternal.



If the singularity was eternal, without beginning or end, we wouldn't be here discussing it, would we? I guess that makes you wrong.



G.T. said:


> You're lazy as fuck with how lax you are in terms of a demand for solid answers. You play fast and loose, but anyone who is not agnostic is experiencing greater levels of being gullible than an agnostic so, you're not alone.



Yet you are the one claiming that you have all the answers.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caveat.  He has a valid point in general.  His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false.  The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false.  His purely academic objection does not hold.  And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _H - o - l - l - i - e_.
Click to expand...


I didn't expect you would quibble over your pompous bluster.


----------



## G.T.

Hey quantum, you can address my posts all along but uh...I dont give a fuck. 

You're irrelevant, to me. Call that a concession of defeat or whatever boosts your ego - fact is- you come in quibbling about minutia like a little priss. No thanks.

Science has not established that there was once 'nothing,' was my point. You, again, babble in your contrarian way speaking past people instead of with people. You don't have discussions, you attempt to hold lectures. You're undesirable to converse with. And if you feel the same of me? GOOD.

BUZZ THE FUCK OFF, THEN.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
Click to expand...


*sigh* 

It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.



What supportive evidence have you offered for your claim that anyone making a statement has to support it?

The thing is, if I don't like something you said, the way I respond is to challenge your statement in an attempt to disprove your position. Sitting back and demanding that you prove you have to prove everything you say would just make me look even sillier and lazier than the image I cultivate. It is also a lot more work than I want to get involved in.

Not to mention that, in syllogism, the premises are assumed to be true, and the only option you really have if you disagree with them is to challenge them.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.



I don't recall saying anything about nothing, oh he who constantly bloviates. I said that, if the singularity was eternal, we wouldn't be here. 

Maybe if you were half as smart as the village idiot you wouldn't have said something so stupid in response to evidence that directly contradicts your misguided view of the universe.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying anything about nothing, oh he who constantly bloviates. I said that, if the singularity was eternal, we wouldn't be here.
> 
> Maybe if you were half as smart as the village idiot you wouldn't have said something so stupid in response to evidence that directly contradicts your misguided view of the universe.
Click to expand...

No dummy.

Md said something about nothing.

You were thrown in because you're merely distasteful, to me. Mmkay? That gunna be OK, or naw?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
> 
> You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
> 
> 
> So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is *a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.*
> 
> That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.



Seriously?  You poor thing.  How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause?  Dude! 

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*

And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*


The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic  = God does not exist.

Prove it, not all-knowing one.  LOL!

But never mind.  Moving on.  Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
> 
> The contrary is impossible.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
> 
> You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
> 
> 
> So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is *a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.*
> 
> That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You poor thing.  How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause?  Dude!
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> 
> The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic  = God does not exist.
> 
> Prove it, not all-knowing one.  LOL!
> 
> But never mind.  Moving on.  Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.
Click to expand...

This post....

Means that my post......


Went WELL the fuck over your head.


Also, I reject the comment 'god is the necessary uncaused cause' just as easily as you asserted it.


Oh.....that was easy. Huh? Just rejecting it like that? Out of hand, sort of like you asserted it???

Lol god damn you're dull.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
> 
> The contrary is impossible.
Click to expand...

Good luck asserting the contrary. I'll watch closely. Mr bloviator.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No dummy.
> 
> Md said something about nothing.
> 
> You were thrown in because you're merely distasteful, to me. Mmkay? That gunna be OK, or naw?



I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts because you were tired of getting bitch slapped, did your masochistic side assert itself again?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dummy.
> 
> Md said something about nothing.
> 
> You were thrown in because you're merely distasteful, to me. Mmkay? That gunna be OK, or naw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts because you were tired of getting bitch slapped, did your masochistic side assert itself again?
Click to expand...

Do you feel better now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

"On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.

That conclusion is wrong.  Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion.  If you can't, you can only suggest.

The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## JakeStarkey

One, the story above about the Marine is not true.

Two, vigi has a perverted fascination with using violence to protect his idea of religion.

Three, so does ISIL ISIS.


----------



## Vigilante

JakeStarkey said:


> One, the story above about the Marine is not true.
> 
> Two, vigi has a perverted fascination with using violence to protect his idea of religion.
> 
> Three, so does ISIL ISIS.



It's not supposed to be true, it's a parable, but I keep forgetting that a 2 digit IQ'd misfit, such as yourself would NEVER recognize it as such!

You truly are a subversive piece of pond scum, and I imagine you and the rest of the 2 digit btigade, won't understand what it says!


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> "On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.
> 
> That conclusion is wrong.  Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion.  If you can't, you can only suggest.
> 
> The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.





JakeStarkey said:


> "On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.
> 
> That conclusion is wrong.  Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion.  If you can't, you can only suggest.
> 
> The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.


The above fails on many levels. "Looking at the evidence" is fine but in connections with gods, there is no evidence. Further, which gods are we going to be receiving evidence for? Is there competing evidence that adds plausibility to the Hindu gods vs. some other gods?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.
> 
> That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.



*(Now back to the train of logic that utterly destroys your and PratchettFan's credibility to claim anything whatsoever . . . according to your very own logic.)*

You just refuted yourself again! You are _not_ God. The syllogism in *post #691* is merely the detailed logical proof of the axiomatic annihilations of your song and dance in brief:

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*​And:
*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*​

It is the atheist who is the bloviating, arrogant, pompous ass, claiming to know something that only an omniscient mind could possibly know or prove.  Notwithstanding, what is this thing the atheist claims to know or prove?

Answer: as I have shown (*post #691 and #693*)—or was it G.T. who showed? albeit, unwittingly—the absurdity that knowledge can exist _even if _all knowledge doesn't exist. Whaaaaa?

(Though last time I checked it hadn't sunk in yet, mostly because *G.T.* keeps rattling on about _independently of God_ as one who doesn't grasp existential contingency.  But we must move on.  In the meantime *G.T.*, read:  Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry  I don't have enough time to answer all of the conceivable objections that the terminally obtuse or dishonest might raise.  The matter's self-evident.  There's only one potentially valid objection in terms of ultimacy!)

In truth, of course, God remains God, the all-knowing Mind or, objectively speaking, the construct of God remains, by definition, the Entity of Perfect Knowledge.  Hence, God wouldn't  know or prove such an absurdity.  The absurdity arises when the atheist imagines himself to be something/someone he's not as he claims to know something he can neither logically nor empirically demonstrate.

The syllogism is _your_ argument, *G.T.*, i.e., the ramifications of what you conceded to be true sans the spaghetti monsters obstructing your vision, causing you to imagine that categorically different/unequal things are synonymous/equivalent.

It is the atheist who is forever bloviating subjective mush, blowing off the objectively verifiable facts and, especially, the _limitations_ of human cognition. It is the atheist who is the "science-hating" religious zealot unwittingly superimposing his purely metaphysical apriority of materialism as if it were scientifically falsifiable on reality and the problem of origin.

*G.T.*, you're not stupid. You're just being stubbornly obtuse or intellectually dishonest, as one who has deceived oneself all one's life with mindless sloganeering. You are now being hammered by something that has been in your mind all along.

Your very own assertions constitute the major premise for an argument that can be formally expressed in the light of what everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows to be intuitively true. *The rationally independent ground that substantiates the major premise of the transcendental argument are the universally absolute exigencies of human cognition that do not permit atheism to be asserted without contradiction; that is, the atheist necessarily presupposes the major premise to be true, in some fashion or another, in any attempt to refute it.* You just never saw that coming, and all you're trying to do now is backpedal to the very same academically superficial objection you initially raised that makes no practical difference to what can be objectively verified.

But that's not the only problem for *the only potentially legitimate objection the atheist can possibly assert, albeit, only in terms of ultimacy*: his allegation of begging the question *is yet another vicious circle of absurdity followed by absurdity* as shall see in a more comprehensive analysis of his counter syllogism which none of the atheists on this thread have ever formally asserted or examined.

So I'll shall have to do it for them tomorrow. . . .


----------



## G.T.

How many times are you going to post what you bolded before you show where I even argued that, in the first place?

Jeebus Christ you're retarded.


----------



## G.T.

Also...sye ten, knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely, and I showed you how.

And that stands until you can show the possibility of the contrary: a knower necessarily knows if it is all knowing, or not.

That is absolute truth, and the contrary is impossible. No god necessary.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
Click to expand...


Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vigilante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, the story above about the Marine is not true.
> 
> Two, vigi has a perverted fascination with using violence to protect his idea of religion.
> 
> Three, so does ISIL ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not supposed to be true, it's a parable, but I keep forgetting that a 2 digit IQ'd misfit, such as yourself would NEVER recognize it as such!
> 
> You truly are a subversive piece of pond scum, and I imagine you and the rest of the 2 digit btigade, won't understand what it says!
Click to expand...


All you imagine is why is your manhood physically and emotionally so small.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think anyone here is going to challenge the possibility that something is true.

What is challenged is that possibly true means conclusively proven: can't be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_

That is a premise without conclusive proof.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> "On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.
> 
> That conclusion is wrong.  Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion.  If you can't, you can only suggest.
> 
> The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.



You want me to prove that people can think? Someone already did that.

Cogito ergo sum.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie:
> Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
> has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
> and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
> sharing this knowledge.
> 
> The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
> religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.
> 
> If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
> and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.
> 
> Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
> many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.
> 
> It scares them to think you don't have to
> treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
> to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!
> 
> It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
> but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.
> 
> All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
> using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.
> 
> There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
> Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.
> 
> They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
> and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
> that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.
Click to expand...


Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science?  I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they're relics of fundamentalism.  As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie:
> Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
> has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
> and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
> sharing this knowledge.
> 
> The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
> religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.
> 
> If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
> and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.
> 
> Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
> many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.
> 
> It scares them to think you don't have to
> treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
> to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!
> 
> It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
> but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.
> 
> All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
> using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.
> 
> There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
> Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.
> 
> They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
> and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
> that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science?  I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they relics of fundamentalism.  As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.
Click to expand...

Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.



So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been refuted, you bloviated baselessly.
> 
> You cannot prove that god is necessary for knowledge without saying 'god is knowledge,' but unfortunately for bloviators of america, that doesn't work. Proof doesnt work like that. You're ten levels below me, step your life game up.
> 
> Agnosticism is the only rational disposition within current human knowledge.
> 
> If you haven't reduced your studies to that point yet, you've got MILES to go. Get going, don't let your typing walls of meaningless text stop you. You're behind already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read this thread with much interest.  You have conceded everyone of the points.  All of you atheists have.   Sometimes outright, because not to would make you look foolish because it's so obvious, other times without realizing what your really saying.   Hollie doesn't even realize what she's really saying most of the time more than any of you other atheists.  It's sick, but it's also hilarious.  I get it now more than ever after that demonstration.  The things that make the teleological argument unassailable are the same things that are logically universal.  These things just are logically, whether they're real or not outside our heads.  Once you see the argument altogether, it's self-evident that it can't be logically countered.  You're smart enough to see this.  Why are you intentionally fooling yourself?  What are you afraid of?  What is is.  That's nothing to be afraid of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typically pointless. The teleological doesn't exist in the relevant science community. It only survives as a relic of christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie:
> Actually, Francis MacNutt who teaches and trains people in spiritual healing
> has found that the doctors he worked with were more open to scientific studies
> and proof of the process than religious followers who were OBSTRUCTING the process of
> sharing this knowledge.
> 
> The spiritual knowledge has survived DESPITE the abuses and corruption of
> religious churches that have censored and denied this knowledge to others.
> 
> If you bothered to research the methods of spiritual healing practiced
> and taught effectively by well reputed sources (some are listed at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> you would see that science and medicine backs up what is taught in religion.
> 
> Because religious fundamentalists fear that people will worship and depend on science,
> many of them have OPPOSED studying and proving these methods work medically.
> 
> It scares them to think you don't have to
> treat natural healing energy and processes as "theological or faith based"
> to prove these same things work naturally in keeping with science!
> 
> It's still the same process, and no, it does not just exist because of Christian fundamentalism
> but this knowledge has been suppressed because of the religious extremism rejecting science.
> 
> All the same things taught in Christianity can be proved and demonstrated
> using scientific methods of research and documenting stats and studies.
> 
> There is no conflict as you imagine, the same way that
> Christian Fundamentalists fear the worship of science.
> 
> They have not pushed but have impeded the process of spiritual healing
> and understanding the process, due to the same fear and unforgiveness
> that makes you reject anything "theological" the same way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you imagining the that arguments for God's existence are not sustainable in the face of real science?  I'm asking because your comments follow her allegation that they relics of fundamentalism.  As far as I can tell from Hollie's posts it doesn't look she knows much of anything about real science except what atheistic scientific authorities have told her to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse me.  I'm still trying to figure out what came first, the tree or the monkey in the tree.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.
> 
> That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.



Well, from where I'm standing the prospect for an absolute ground for knowledge doesn't look good unless the ever-changing material world is firmly anchored to something that's constitutionally immutable.  What you do't get about this is that you are either saying that you can prove God doesn't exist or that you are God. But what do I know?  I'm still trying to figure out if the roof on my house came first or the dog pooping on my roof came first.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.
Click to expand...


Justin, put down the drink.  No one said anyone should worship me.  You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you.  Yes, you are very confused.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.
> 
> That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, from where I'm standing the prospect for an absolute ground for knowledge doesn't look good unless the ever-changing material world is firmly anchored to something that's constitutionally immutable.  What you do't get about this is that you are either saying that you can prove God doesn't exist or that you are God. But what do I know?  I'm still trying to figure out if the roof on my house came first or the dog pooping on my roof came first.
Click to expand...


What I am saying is that _you _cannot prove God exists or doesn't exist.

Not to worry: I will keep you straight every time you go off the rails of reality.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin, put down the drink.  No one said anyone should worship me.  You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you.  Yes, you are very confused.
Click to expand...


That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true.  Wait a minute.  You are telling me that's true now.  Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago?  Man alive, now I'm really confused.  What came first, the box or the drink?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin, put down the drink.  No one said anyone should worship me.  You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you.  Yes, you are very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true.  Wait a minute.  You are telling me that's true now.  Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago?  Man alive, now I'm really confused.  What came first, the box or the drink?
Click to expand...


That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't?  The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters.  Yes, you are very confused.  Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the mundane as if it were profound!
> 
> And once again, Mr. Slogan Think of the premeditated circumvention of those things that inconveniently render your guff moot, we already covered that. No more digressions. Until you can explain to me _how_ something could come from nothing, you're not packing anything remotely like a rationally justifiable objection to stop (*sound of screeching wheels and a crash*) the analysis of the rationally justifiable knowledge pertaining to the issue of origin. Besides, you guys have already asserted arguments presupposing the justifiable knowledge that _is_ reasonably pertinent, demonstrating that you understand that the spaghetti monsters of nothingness, while curious, though not really, are of no practical significance.  Dead end.
> 
> So that will be the last time I entertain that silliness. This along with your silliness regarding the existence-origin dichotomy: File 13.
> 
> By the way, why don't you  define _existence_ so that we may all see just how conveniently closed-minded your thinking is.
Click to expand...


God I hope so.  If that nothing monster rears its head again I will start drinking.  Where's my box?  It was here a minute ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Until you can explain to me _how_ something could come from nothing" is a wonderful condemnation of both natural morality and atheism because neither can prove or disprove the premise.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good point, if you ignore the fact that you can have a false premise and still reach a true conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caveat.  He has a valid point in general.  His charge, however, that some "step is being skipped", i.e., that the major premise in the teleological argument is merely being declared to be true is patently false.  The universally apparent imperatives of human intuition prove his claim to be patently false.  His purely academic objection does not hold.  And I will drive home that point momentarily with regard to what he's ultimately implying in this case utterly unawares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you spell "pompous blowhard who tries to make a point but trips over his own inability to string words into meaningful sentences"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _H - o - l - l - i - e_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't expect you would quibble over your pompous bluster.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
> 
> You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
> 
> 
> So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is *a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.*
> 
> That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You poor thing.  How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause?  Dude!
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> 
> The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic  = God does not exist.
> 
> Prove it, not all-knowing one.  LOL!
> 
> But never mind.  Moving on.  Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This post....
> 
> Means that my post......
> 
> 
> Went WELL the fuck over your head.
> 
> 
> Also, I reject the comment 'god is the necessary uncaused cause' just as easily as you asserted it.
> 
> 
> Oh.....that was easy. Huh? Just rejecting it like that? Out of hand, sort of like you asserted it???
> 
> Lol god damn you're dull.
Click to expand...


That was an "if" in front of "God is the necessary uncaused cause."  He's trying to help you see what you're missing.  You just don't get it.  You keep forgetting that you can't prove God doesn't exist or you don't know if He exists.  Add that to what the idea of God means.  Put those things together, and you can see that what you're saying is absurd.  How do you keep missing the obvious:   *exist independent of and/or without God.  *Your argument contradicts what you're trying to prove.  This is the funniest thing I've  seen in a long time.  He's dull?  From where I'm standing you're talking about the edge on your knife blade.  It's hilarious.   But I'm still looking for my box.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither the unthinking believer or the unthinking atheist above can prove their points.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> "Until you can explain to me _how_ something could come from nothing" is a wonderful condemnation of both natural morality and atheism because neither can prove or disprove the premise.



It's official.  I'm off the wagon.  Now I'll have to start worrying about those spiders again.  Damn you to perdition, Jake.  But seriously that's not the point.  I'm getting more from M.D.R.'s explanations than I've gotten from books.  His way of putting things isn't hard.  Read the book I'm trying to read right now on Christian theology by Henry.  That's hard.  M.D.R. has got these things down to a level that some of Henry's ideas are finally starting to make sense to me.  And don't get me started on Spinoza.  That guy's a full bottle of aspirin headache.  But nothing has nothing to do with proving or disproving atheism.  That much I can tell you.  I don't know what you mean about natural morality and nothing though.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.
Click to expand...


Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false.  Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else.  Some things have to be experienced in order to be known.  And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither the unthinking believer or the unthinking atheist above can prove their points.



Not true.  You just don't understand what the point of the teleological argument is.  You keep thinking it all wrong.  I don't have any problem understanding M.DR. You don't understand it.  If you did you wouldn't say that.  Like I said, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> M. D., you write very prettily as you demonstrate your "rank intellectual dishonesty."
> 
> You are only telling us why you think God exists, but your belief without concrete empirical data and repeatable proof remains only your belief.
> 
> .



This is hilarious.  That's not what he's telling you.  That's not even what the argument is telling you.  Where is that dang box?


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> MDR, I just figured out what the problem is.  None of these people trying to beat you up have a clue what a syllogism or what a syllogistic argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
Click to expand...


But they're not being declared to be true by default.  The teleological syllogism is a presuppositional syllogism.  That's what you don't understand.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer.  The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.
Click to expand...


From where I'm standing it seems like 99% of the obvious has to be pointed out to some over and over again.  Like I said, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> *MD:* And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.
> 
> .
Click to expand...




That's your personal belief.  Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists.  I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is.  I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God.  And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God.  It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational.  But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying.  They don't even care about personal beliefs.  They don't matter.  All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.  Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds.  Why is this so hard for some?  My five-year-old knows this.   What is going on of this thread?


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not an answer.  The claim is made that it is evidence and it needs to be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Life exists, and that has been proven by science, that makes it evidence. The only real question now is what conclusion we draw from the evidence, not whether or not it actually is evidence. The fact that anyone has to point this out just indicates how pathetic the education system in this country has become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that evidence of God?  Connect the two things.
Click to expand...


We're the link!  You and me, self-aware and other-aware homo *sapiens*.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your personal belief.  Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists.  I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is.  I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God. And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God.  It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational.  But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying.  They don't even care about personal beliefs.  They don't matter.  All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.  Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds.  Why is this so hard for some?  My five-year-old knows this.   What is going on of this thread?
Click to expand...


That's it exactly.  None of us have been arguing for a religious faith or doctrine or anything paranormal.  We have all been arguing a rational argument for something existing before the universe or rational thought existed--that something that, since we don't have another name or description to call it, we refer to as God.  And the basis of the argument is, at least for me, that we have no theory or empirical evidence or even ability to reason how something can come from nothing.  MDR and QW get more technical than that which is fine, but for me, I prefer to utilize the KISS principle as much as possible.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion.  The conclusion is true if the two statements are true.  That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true.  This is a syllogistic argument:
> 
> All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
> My dog is a human being.
> Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
> 
> This is pretty much the argument being presented.  What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true.  I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient.  Garbage in.... garbage out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
Click to expand...


Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.



Something else I forgot to say.  I don't want to quibble, and I don't thjnk M.D.R. means to either.  The gist I'm getting from his post is to be prepared.  Boy howdy!  I agree with that.  That guy wiped the floor with me because I thought the argument was just a straightforward thing.  I totaling misunderstood it.  But that was me.  I'm sure you appreciate these other things too.  Unlike you and M.D.R. I didn't have a handle on them several months ago.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
> 
> You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
> 
> 
> So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is *a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.*
> 
> That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You poor thing.  How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause?  Dude!
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> 
> The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic  = God does not exist.
> 
> Prove it, not all-knowing one.  LOL!
> 
> But never mind.  Moving on.  Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.
Click to expand...


That's the problem exactly.  Thank you.  That confirms what I was thinking.  The atheist or the materialist has a certain mindset that's divorced from his own concsiousness in some kind of bizarre way.  I get that the argument needs a little practice or thought, but its not rocket science.  It's as if these guys are not practiced in living in their minds, if you know what I mean, or used to exploring their contents.  Take PrachettFan, for example.  What is the link?  Are there any mirrors in his house?  There's no help for that but God's grace.  What is going on with these guys?  Q.W. mentioned the education system.  No doubt about that, but there's something else here too that's very disturbing.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
Click to expand...


Trust me.  Most of the anti-religionist and/or Atheists probably are cutting and pasting their arguments and don't know as much as you do since you are into the studies.  If they had to discuss it without being able to look up the terms and copy somebody else's work, most would be at a total loss.

Actually I've had the theological training and can argue the more complex theological arguments if I have to. But for those who have not had the training nor the interest in the heavy duty theological stuff, I usually prefer to keep it at a level all can understand. Alas, however, even that seems to be beyond the ability of some to grasp.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin, put down the drink.  No one said anyone should worship me.  You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you.  Yes, you are very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true.  Wait a minute.  You are telling me that's true now.  Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago?  Man alive, now I'm really confused.  What came first, the box or the drink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't?  The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters.  Yes, you are very confused.  Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.
Click to expand...


Well, I realize that's not what you think you said, and that's what's disturbing.  The claim of the major premise cannot be refuted but not for the reason you guys seem to believe. It's not just a statement that can't be refuted because the reality it claims can't be absolutely verified one way or another.  Nobody's even disputing that with you.  Instead, what telling you is that *any counter argument against the claim of the major premise will logically make the claim of the major premise true.*   That is the independent verification for the major premise.  *It's not logically possible to say that knowledge can exist without God without actually saying that God must exist in order for knowledge to exist.*  But to get what I mean, you have to think it through.  That's why it's so hilarious to here you guys say it's not independently verifiable or that it's not true for some reason or another.  Anyone can see this.  It's self-evident.  Only a person refusing to think his counter argument through would not see that he's actually making the statement true with his argument.  You people aren't stupid.  There's some weird mind sickness going on here.  And the only thing that explains it is that you guys are either pretending to see it or you're not thinking it through because you don't want to see it.  It's the craziest I've ever seen, and I've never before been told by an atheist that the universe isn't evidence for God's existence or ask what's the link.  I have heard atheist say that they don't think the evidence convincingly indicates God's existence, but until now I've never heard an atheist say that the universe wouldn't be the evidence for God's existence.  Do you guys understand the difference between those two beliefs?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Don't confuse me.  I'm still trying to figure out what came first, the tree or the monkey in the tree.



An example given by a Buddhist monk implies that living things were created together in an interconnected ecosystem.

He pointed out that the eye of a frog is already designed to see the insects and foliage it needs to identify in order to survive, before it is even formed. 

So how can this eye develop by "natural selection" and the flora and other insects at the same time?
Clearly their roles and the balance of relations between them is already set up inter-dependently!

Neither one could come before the other. They develop simultaneously.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Justin: The most intellectually honest people whether Theist or Atheist/Nontheist
will agree that because God represents something infinite and/or beyond the scope of man,
then God can neither be proven nor disproven but rely on faith either way.

If you are okay with that, we can stop arguing about who has or hasn't proved this or disproved that.

And just agree to accept some people are biased this way or that way, and share information and ideas that have helped resolve conflicts, learning to communicate objectively despite differences in our beliefs and biases.

Justin, my take on the deal is that a consensus on what people mean by God, Jesus and teh Bible
does NOT depends so much on whether someone is Atheist or Theist; but whether or not people are Forgiving of both groups, one or the other, etc. The degree to which we are able to include each other's views determines the degree to wihch we are able to reach an AGREED understanding regardless of our beliefs.

The issue that makes the difference is Forgiveness or Unforgiveness.

The people who hold grudges against one group or another will not be able to reconcile
to the same degree as people who don't blame people for differences, but work with everyone.

I believe this factor can be proven by example, experience and/or statistics if you want to make a study or proof of it. After this factor is determined to be the key, maybe more people will look into this idea of forming a consensus on religion, and also politics, once we AGREE the key factor in whether conflicts can be resolved is the level of forgiveness or unforgiveness in the parties involved. 

So if we were smart, we would consult religious and political leaders with high levels of forgiveness and inclusion to share wisdom and insights on how to resolve conflicts.

And quit letting the people who are out to bash and blame take dominance in public policy and leadership.
Maybe we could clean up religion and politics if we started listening to the people
with experience in resolving issues across diverse groups, beliefs, and even conflicting opposite ideologies!

Thanks, Justin
I wish everyone could be OKAY with the understanding
that God can neither be proven nor disproven without relying on faith.




Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _knowledge can exist independent of.god absolutely_
> 
> That is a premise without conclusive proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that I should worship you seeing as how you're omniscient?   But if you're God how can knowledge exist independent of you?  Do you exist or not? Wait a minute.  I got it now.  What came first, the chicken crossing the road or the Mack truck that ran it down?    I'm so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin, put down the drink.  No one said anyone should worship me.  You cannot limit or box God, because he is independent of you.  Yes, you are very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I've always believed but now you're telling me that's not true.  Wait a minute.  You are telling me that's true now.  Why did you have Him in that box a few minutes ago?  Man alive, now I'm really confused.  What came first, the box or the drink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said, and now you say you didn't?  The thread is testimony against your futile attempt to muddy the waters.  Yes, you are very confused.  Not to worry, I am here to keep you straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I realize that's not what you think you said, and that's what's disturbing.  The claim of the major premise cannot be refuted but not for the reason you guys seem to believe. It's not just a statement that can't be refuted because the reality it claims can't be absolutely verified one way or another.  Nobody's even disputing that with you.  Instead, what telling you is that *any counter argument against the claim of the major premise will logically make the claim of the major premise true.*   That is the independent verification for the major premise.  *It's not logically possible to say that knowledge can exist without God without actually saying that God must exist in order for knowledge to exist.*  But to get what I mean, you have to think it through.  That's why it's so hilarious to here you guys say it's not independently verifiable or that it's not true for some reason or another.  Anyone can see this.  It's self-evident.  Only a person refusing to think his counter argument through would not see that he's actually making the statement true with his argument.  You people aren't stupid.  There's some weird mind sickness going on here.  And the only thing that explains it is that you guys are either pretending to see it or you're not thinking it through because you don't want to see it.  It's the craziest I've ever seen, and I've never before been told by an atheist that the universe isn't evidence for God's existence or ask what's the link.  I have heard atheist say that they don't think the evidence convincingly indicates God's existence, but until now I've never heard an atheist say that the universe wouldn't be the evidence for God's existence.  Do you guys understand the difference between those two beliefs?
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Are you imagining that you have a point to make? What other science beside real science is there? And lastly, no, there are no supportable arguments for the existence of your gods or anyone else's gods.



My point is that since God can neither be proven nor disproven without relying on faith,
we are better off using science to prove Spiritual Healing works by forgiveness,
using the same process taught in Christianity. That can be proven and would do
more good for society. 

That's my point.

Hollie if you already know God cannot be proven, then why keep pushing that?
Why not prove something like Spiritual Healing that CAN be documented and demonstrated by
science as natural and bringing all the "miraculous" healing as practiced for centuries,
yet show this is NOT supernatural but follows the laws of science and medicine.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prove that?


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant.  Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true.  The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true.  You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true.  In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false.  Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else.  Some things have to be experienced in order to be known.  And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.
Click to expand...

 
No, I haven't.  Nor am I going to.  It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct. 

Let me tell you about an experience I had.  Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session.  I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog.  I recall it vividly.  It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back.  By large, I mean large.  About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog.  It stared at me and I stared back.  Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared.  Which ended that session abruptly. 

You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me.  Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog?  Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation?  Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use?  Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value.  You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.

He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.

And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.


----------



## G.T.

Which means agnosticism is honest and rational.


----------



## Freewill

DNA and the Natural Law


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.



None of the persons on this thread who understand how things work are saying they can prove God exists in the way that you mean, including me.  All of those persons have already said they cannot prove God's existence in the way that you mean, including me.  Now I see why Q.W. keeps asking you guys about the voices in your head.  It's hilarious.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism.  But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument.  But a valid syllogistic argument?  Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
> 
> But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
> 
> Now if we go with the opening statement that:
> 
> *Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.*
> 
> . . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that?  Or what is your argument for that?
> 
> Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
> 
> But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
> 
> *Knowledge exists.*
> 
> *Therefore there is a God.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false.  Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else.  Some things have to be experienced in order to be known.  And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't.  Nor am I going to.  It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct.
> 
> Let me tell you about an experience I had.  Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session.  I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog.  I recall it vividly.  It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back.  By large, I mean large.  About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog.  It stared at me and I stared back.  Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared.  Which ended that session abruptly.
> 
> You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me.  Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog?  Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation?  Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use?  Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value.  You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.
Click to expand...

 
Good example actually to illustrate that what one thinks, what one experiences, what one contemplates cannot be PROVED to another soul.  All we can do is report our perceptions and experience and thought processes and which is considered evidence in any court in the land.  Credible or unshakable evidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it is evidence just the same.

Demanding that somebody PROVE an experience or what they have concluded or what they have interpreted or what they have reasoned is not only close minded and prejudicial, but impossible for the other to comply with.  You call expert witnesses not to PROVE the testimony of others or what is or is not possible, but to add their expertise to the body of evidence as to what is or is not probable or possible.

A theory is that which cannot be proved and is valid only because it is judged plausible and reasonable.  It can be accepted as sufficiently credible to go forward with if sufficient others agree that the theory is plausible and reasonable.

As for your frog, I would not accept your conclusion that the frog was God.  Nor would I automatically discount that you did not have that experience.  I would think it probable that you had dosed off and were dreaming but it could also have been a vision of a type reported by many over the millennia or a prank somebody was playing on you or you pulling my leg or  any number of other possible explanations.  But having no reason to believe you are given to making up stories for purposes of deception, I would have no reason to automatically disbelieve that for you, the experience was real.  But since you are the only person to have ever described God as a frog, I would think it highly unlikely that you were interpreting it correctly that God is a frog.  Most especially since my own experience with God is not froglike.  But neither, from an investigative or scientific perspective, would I expect you to prove what you think, what you believe, or what you report as your experience.

However if millions of people reported experiences with frogs in that way. . . .then it would be reasonable and logical to believe that something significant was going on and I, personally, would be very curious about what it was and would approach it, I believe, with an open mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.

_that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com

I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Hi Justin: The most intellectually honest people whether Theist or Atheist/Nontheist
> will agree that because God represents something infinite and/or beyond the scope of man,
> then God can neither be proven nor disproven but rely on faith either way.



And no honest person on this thread who understands how things work would disagree with that.  The people on this thread who know how things work are not saying they can prove God's existence in the way that you mean.  Hollie doesn't understand what these people are telling her at all.  She is wrong and confused on everything.  That does not mean that a person needs faith to believe God exists, because faith is not required to use evidence and sound logical arguments to validly prove God's existence and it does not require faith to see that the evidence and the sound logical arguments for God's existence all point to His existence.  It does not take faith to see that the arguments for atheism are not logical.  The understanding of these things is based on reason, not faith.  The kind of faith you're talking about, like the kind of "proof" you're talking about, is something altogether different.  The atheists on this board are the ones claiming to know and prove things in the way that you mean, not the theists who understand how science and logic work.  Evidence and sound logical proofs and the idea of proving God's existence in the way you mean are not the same thing.  The atheists on this thread are the one's who are confused, not the people who know how things work, and most of them are theists.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true.  It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it.  If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid.  It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false.  Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else.  Some things have to be experienced in order to be known.  And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't.  Nor am I going to.  It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct.
> 
> Let me tell you about an experience I had.  Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session.  I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog.  I recall it vividly.  It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back.  By large, I mean large.  About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog.  It stared at me and I stared back.  Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared.  Which ended that session abruptly.
> 
> You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me.  Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog?  Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation?  Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use?  Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value.  You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good example actually to illustrate that what one thinks, what one experiences, what one contemplates cannot be PROVED to another soul.  All we can do is report our perceptions and experience and thought processes and which is considered evidence in any court in the land.  Credible or unshakable evidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it is evidence just the same.
> 
> Demanding that somebody PROVE an experience or what they have concluded or what they have interpreted or what they have reasoned is not only close minded and prejudicial, but impossible for the other to comply with.  You call expert witnesses not to PROVE the testimony of others or what is or is not possible, but to add their expertise to the body of evidence as to what is or is not probable or possible.
> 
> A theory is that which cannot be proved and is valid only because it is judged plausible and reasonable.  It can be accepted as sufficiently credible to go forward with if sufficient others agree that the theory is plausible and reasonable.
> 
> As for your frog, I would not accept your conclusion that the frog was God.  Nor would I automatically discount that you did not have that experience.  I would think it probable that you had dosed off and were dreaming but it could also have been a vision of a type reported by many over the millennia or a prank somebody was playing on you or you pulling my leg or  any number of other possible explanations.  But having no reason to believe you are given to making up stories for purposes of deception, I would have no reason to automatically disbelieve that for you, the experience was real.  But since you are the only person to have ever described God as a frog, I would think it highly unlikely that you were interpreting it correctly that God is a frog.  Most especially since my own experience with God is not froglike.  But neither, from an investigative or scientific perspective, would I expect you to prove what you think, what you believe, or what you report as your experience.
> 
> However if millions of people reported experiences with frogs in that way. . . .then it would be reasonable and logical to believe that something significant was going on and I, personally, would be very curious about what it was and would approach it, I believe, with an open mind.
Click to expand...

 
I agree.  Which is the very reason the particular syllogism being presented fails.  While the premise may be based upon personal experience that itself might well be completely valid, it cannot be demonstrated beyond that experience.  For the syllogism itself to be valid, the premise must be demonstrably true.  That the syllogism fails does not mean the conclusion is wrong, only that it is not proven by the syllogism.  It may not be proven by anything or even supported by anything and still be true.  Under those conditions, one accepts or rejects it on faith alone.  Personally, I have no problem with doing that and living comfortably in the knowledge that what I believe is based upon faith.  Evidence would be nice, but it is not required.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
> 
> A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is a mammal.
> Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
> 
> No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
> 
> . . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
> 
> All mammals are warm blooded.
> My dog is warm blooded.
> Therefore my dog is a mammal.
> 
> There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate.  Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
> 
> Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
> 
> All humans with vocal chords can speak.
> My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
> Therefore my parrot is human.
> 
> And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
> 
> Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
Click to expand...


I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect. 

If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.

Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.

The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it could be true.  I am not making any attempt to say that it is not true.  I haven't got a clue if it is true or not.  In fact, your premise could be completely false and your conclusion true.  I am only saying this particular argument is not valid because you have not demonstrated the validity of your premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have you challenged or made any effort to expose it as false.  Nor do either of us have any means known to humankind that can challenge or support the statement to the satisfaction of anybody else.  Some things have to be experienced in order to be known.  And some things are left for us to wonder about and continue to search for answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I haven't.  Nor am I going to.  It is not my job to prove it false, it is the job of the person making the claim to prove it correct.
> 
> Let me tell you about an experience I had.  Perhaps 30 years ago I was in a particularly heavy meditation session.  I'm not sure how long I had been sitting staring at the floor when suddenly I saw before me a large frog.  I recall it vividly.  It was bright green with yellow stripes on its eye ridges and down his back.  By large, I mean large.  About the size of a small dog, perhaps 20 or 25 pounds of frog.  It stared at me and I stared back.  Then it jumped into my lap and disappeared.  Which ended that session abruptly.
> 
> You'll have to accept my word no drugs were involved in this experience, but it was a quite real experience for me.  Will you accept the conclusion from my experience that God is a frog?  Or will you consider that that experience might be the result of an altered brain pattern brought on by the meditation?  Or even disbelieve my claim of no drug use?  Personal experience can be quite real and I do not discount its importance, but as evidence in this context, it is of little value.  You can try to describe it, but you can't share it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good example actually to illustrate that what one thinks, what one experiences, what one contemplates cannot be PROVED to another soul.  All we can do is report our perceptions and experience and thought processes and which is considered evidence in any court in the land.  Credible or unshakable evidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it is evidence just the same.
> 
> Demanding that somebody PROVE an experience or what they have concluded or what they have interpreted or what they have reasoned is not only close minded and prejudicial, but impossible for the other to comply with.  You call expert witnesses not to PROVE the testimony of others or what is or is not possible, but to add their expertise to the body of evidence as to what is or is not probable or possible.
> 
> A theory is that which cannot be proved and is valid only because it is judged plausible and reasonable.  It can be accepted as sufficiently credible to go forward with if sufficient others agree that the theory is plausible and reasonable.
> 
> As for your frog, I would not accept your conclusion that the frog was God.  Nor would I automatically discount that you did not have that experience.  I would think it probable that you had dosed off and were dreaming but it could also have been a vision of a type reported by many over the millennia or a prank somebody was playing on you or you pulling my leg or  any number of other possible explanations.  But having no reason to believe you are given to making up stories for purposes of deception, I would have no reason to automatically disbelieve that for you, the experience was real.  But since you are the only person to have ever described God as a frog, I would think it highly unlikely that you were interpreting it correctly that God is a frog.  Most especially since my own experience with God is not froglike.  But neither, from an investigative or scientific perspective, would I expect you to prove what you think, what you believe, or what you report as your experience.
> 
> However if millions of people reported experiences with frogs in that way. . . .then it would be reasonable and logical to believe that something significant was going on and I, personally, would be very curious about what it was and would approach it, I believe, with an open mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Which is the very reason the particular syllogism being presented fails.  While the premise may be based upon personal experience that itself might well be completely valid, it cannot be demonstrated beyond that experience.  For the syllogism itself to be valid, the premise must be demonstrably true.  That the syllogism fails does not mean the conclusion is wrong, only that it is not proven by the syllogism.  It may not be proven by anything or even supported by anything and still be true.  Under those conditions, one accepts or rejects it on faith alone.  Personally, I have no problem with doing that and living comfortably in the knowledge that what I believe is based upon faith.  Evidence would be nice, but it is not required.
Click to expand...


See my post #842 responding to Justin a minute or two.  Other than it being necessary for the syllogism to be demonstrably true, we are getting dangerously close to agreement here.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your personal belief.  Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists.  I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is.  I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God. And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God.  It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational.  But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying.  They don't even care about personal beliefs.  They don't matter.  All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.  Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds.  Why is this so hard for some?  My five-year-old knows this.   What is going on of this thread?
Click to expand...


*
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*



> *JD:* All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.








 ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.
I agree with your post, there simply may be / is a distinction between the non sentient Universe and the sentient Creator of Life those in the discussion, MDR seem unjustifiably dismissive as being a basis for partial justification of the Atheistic point of view - the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.



And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
Click to expand...


I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.

But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane.  But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.

Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny."  The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible.   Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* And the atheist necessarily concedes that the universe incontrovertibly _is_ the pertinent empirical evidence for God's existence every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe in his pinhead. DUH! Only idiots and liars go on spouting this rank stupidity after necessarily conceding the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to deny there be any substance behind the construct of a sentient Creator of the universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is not a necesary reason to believe the "sentient Creator" of Life is the same as the creation of the Universe.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your personal belief.  Q.W. and M.D.R. are not telling you that you have to believe God exists.  I don't even know what Q.W.'s belief is.  I think he might believe in panspermia, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he believes in God. And it looks like M.D.R. believes in a semi-personal Deist God like some do or in the Christian God.  It's hard to tell because his arguments are naturalistic and rational.  But their personal beliefs have nothing to do with what they're saying.  They don't even care about personal beliefs.  They don't matter.  All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.  Where else would we look but at the ideas in our minds or the things outside our minds.  Why is this so hard for some?  My five-year-old knows this.   What is going on of this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *JD:* All they're saying is that the universe or life is part of the evidence that we have to look at to decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I agree with your post, there simply may be / is a distinction between the non sentient Universe and the sentient Creator of Life those in the discussion, MDR seem unjustifiably dismissive as being a basis for partial justification of the Atheistic point of view - the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it.
Click to expand...


While what youre saying doesn't make sense to me as that looks like a chicken-egg thing, where did MDR dismiss the idea of pantheism, if that's what it is, as being something he could prove wrong in an ultimate way other than with a standard logical proof?  I think that's highly unlikely that he tried to argue anything like that.  That would be totally the opposite of everything else he has said that I know of.  What I do know is that I can't make heads or tails out of "the sentient Creator need not have been the creator of the universe but created by it."  If that's the idea he dismissed I'd agree with him.  That's strikes me as absurd as it appears to violate the logic of cause-and-effect.  While I'll reserve my judgment on that until you explain it further, if it's what it appears to be MDR's rejection would be justified in my opinion.  But maybe its the way you presented it to him.  I don't know.  The only thing I read from him was a totally open statement regarding the conceivable possibility of pantheism.  All I remember him saying about that is that it wouldn't make a difference to us.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.
> 
> But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane.  But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.
> 
> Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny."  The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible.   Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
> Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton
Click to expand...


That's one of my favorite movies.  I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part:  "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence."  In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence.  You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
Click to expand...


I agree, but it's at the point where they ask where God came from, which is really a question about who or what God is, that the arguments get into the more complex issues.  I've read Aristotle's unmoved Mover argument and he anticipates these issues with a brilliant summary about what God is as opposed to what "moving things" are, and its all based on the same epistemological principle of knowledge that just is because it can't be alternately understood without contradiction.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.
> 
> But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane.  But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.
> 
> Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny."  The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible.   Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
> Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of my favorite movies.  I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part:  "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence."  In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence.  You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?
Click to expand...


I am not arguing anything theologically.  My argument here is strictly of a practical and rational nature.  If we go with Spinoza and Einstein's theories that there is a symmetry and order in the universe that goes beyond the mathematical probability that it could have all happened by accident or chance, then there is a strong argument for some kind of intelligence to be guiding the process.  And if we go with that argument, it is reasonable to believe that the universe itself is infused with some sort of cosmic intelligence or there was a Creator that called it all into being.  Either way, the intelligence could be labeled "God".

So would that be natural?  Or supernatural?  It doesn't really matter if you keep religious faith out of the equation does it?


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know that there is a right or wrong way to say it.
> 
> But when you have a witness sworn in on the stand and he testifies that he saw Dick shoot Jane and identifies Dick as the man he saw, there is absolutely no way to PROVE that he in fact saw Dick shoot Jane.  But if the defense cannot shake his testimony with evidence that the witness was someplace else or otherwise could not have witnessed the shooting or that he was known to be unreliable or impaired or some such, that witness's testimony will carry a great deal of weight.
> 
> Think of the trial in "My Cousin Vinny."  The prosecution put up three people, all who appeared to be entirely credible, all who unequivocably claimed to have seen the defendants enter the store and then run out of the store immediately after the shooting and speed away in the lime green Buick Skylark convertible.   Had there been no other evidence available to clear the defendants, and had Vinny not been able to discredit the testimony of each one of those three witnesses, the defendants would have been in serious jeopardy based on that testimony alone.
> Movie Speech My Cousin Vinny - Gambini Cross Examines Mr. Tipton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one of my favorite movies.  I totally agree with you. What I meant about the right way to say was this part:  "You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence."  In other words, these guys keep confusing the two kinds of evidence.  You guys aren't arguing anything supernatural, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not arguing anything theologically.  My argument here is strictly of a practical and rational nature.  If we go with Spinoza and Einstein's theories that there is a symmetry and order in the universe that goes beyond the mathematical probability that it could have all happened by accident or chance, then there is a strong argument for some kind of intelligence to be guiding the process.  And if we go with that argument, it is reasonable to believe that the universe itself is infused with some sort of cosmic intelligence or there was a Creator that called it all into being.  Either way, the intelligence could be labeled "God".
> 
> So would that be natural?  Or supernatural?  It doesn't really matter if you keep religious faith out of the equation does it?
Click to expand...


I agree.  MDR made the same point about pantheism as you which is what Breezewood is asking me about now.  Basically, he said the same thing: would it matter?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the persons on this thread who understand how things work are saying they can prove God exists in the way that you mean, including me.  All of those persons have already said they cannot prove God's existence in the way that you mean, including me.  Now I see why Q.W. keeps asking you guys about the voices in your head.  It's hilarious.
Click to expand...


Hi Justin: It goes FURTHER than that.

If you read the observations and conclusions by Scott Peck in his book "Glimpses of the Devil"
he comes to the understanding that even though the spiritual phenomena cannot be proven,
the EFFECTS and PROCESS of resolving conflicts CAN be Quantified, Measured, and shown to follow a prescribed
pattern of stages, based on the methods he studied of Deliverance and Exorcism to
HEAL schizophrenia patients of "demonic voices,"

Dr. Peck did not believe this spiritual process was real until he experienced the process, step by step,
and witnessed and recorded all the stages as predicted, using the Scientific Method.

Like you and Hollie,  he went into the proof ASSUMING the opposite, that he would debunk this spiritual nonsense
and prove it was delusional in people's heads, since he was a licensed practicing psychiatrist and knew what schizophrenia was.

UNLIKE you and Hollie, he actually conducted his own observations.

He decided if it were true, then he should be able to observe the symptoms, the stages and the end signs the person is "delivered" of demonic voices or personalities, and follow all the same patterns in a logical observable and quantifiable process.

So he observed two schizophrenic patients, deemed incureable by traditional process of medication and therapy,
and changed his mind within the second interview that this WAS spiritual and not just mental illness or delusion.

By the end of the successful treatment, he not only witnessed the changes where both patients regained their normal minds, reason and free will, without obstruction by the destructive "demonic personality and rages," but he lost one patient to medical conditions she accumulated from denying herself medical care all the years she was in this sick state without help.

So not only did he change his mind, but drew several conclusions:
1. the idea of a hierarchy of Satanic and demonic entities was still not proveable
but the effects of this were real and observable, and he was convinced although he could not prove this
to others because it was on a spiritual level of experience or perception (similar to what PF witnessed
from another plane of reality that can intersect with ours, and be real but not proveable, like we cannot
prove physically what we dreamed last night and have to take it on faith that everyone is telling the truth)

2. the process of deliverance and exorcism did succeed in identifying the sickness, the stages
and the progression of treatment, cure or failure which requires additional intervention to overcome the reason for blockage.
Specifically, for case of schizophrenia or mental illness INVOLVING such demonic voices,
this method should be fully and formally researched, developed and made available just like other steps of therapy
which follow the stages of someone's sickness from diagnosis to progression to cure and recovery.

3. the diagnosis and process should be applied EARLY on for best chances of success and less risk of losing someone
to longterm effects of not getting treated and cured, as Peck watched one of his patients make it, but the other died of some physical diseased conditions where she had abused her body, refusing medical help until after she was cured of the "demonic" personality first, which happened too late in life where she died of lifetime damage inflicted on her own body
as part of her self-destructive sickness.

Out of pure compassion for people, both the mentally ill, and the victims of criminally ill people
who have even a chance of being monitored, managed, treated or cured with these methods,
that reason alone should be enough to study it.

Any chance or theory of finding a cure for AIDS or Cancer is jumped on by doctors with lots of funding for research.

Where is the research support for spiritual healing that has Centuries of testimonies that it has
cured cases of cancer, diabetes, incureable liver and kidney diseases, multiple  personalities,
schizophrenic, sex abuse or addiction, drug abuse or addiction, rheumatoid arthritis and other crippling or fatal conditions.

Why is there money for marijuana research
but not spiritual healing that can cure all the same things plus treat the addiction behind drug use?

Is that just not popular because it would change society so much
that the people who want to be in control would not have it?

Medical monopolies and profits off the prison system and mental health medications
would no longer have power over manipulating people by fear of incureable conditions?

Or is it like Peck and other authors have said:
because the fundamentalists in both religion are against science being worshipped
and in science against religion being worshipped, they both block research that would prove these are not opposites.

What fear of change is holding this up?
It seems obvious to me, but maybe because I do have friends
who conduct spiritual healing for free and have literally saved lives
as well as sanity, relations and entire families from sickness, abuse and addiction
by breaking the cycle in the spirit and bringing full and natural healing.

As long as this process is made mystical and kept hidden in the faith-based communities,
how many more people die of suicide, homicide, abuse, addictions, depression and other mental illness
who could have been saved.

Where does the selfishness stop
and where do people put the spiritual health of people
above the petty politics preventing this from being researched, resolved and recognized?

how much longer?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
Click to expand...


Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.

Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the only problem with this is that the something called God is not well-defined.
> 
> From nothing, nothing comes.
> The universe exists.
> God exists.
> 
> Why that construction? Well, ideally to save time.  But the meaning of "from nothing, nothing comes" is not universally understood here.  A little background is required in this instance in order for us to the properly understand, once again, what the cosmological argument actually is.
> 
> The expression "from nothing, nothing comes" means _ex nihilo_ creation in the cannon of philosophical/theological thought. A lot of information is crammed into that "short-hand" expression, including the sub-syllogism of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind/of the infinite regression of origin which reveals the universally apparent imperatives of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin . . . which everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows (*post #99*). _Ex nihilo_ creation means out of nothing material, i.e., from the substance of the unadulteratedly immaterial Creator, comes the cosmological order, and the Creator is understood to be the very highest, most perfect construct conceivable: eternally and transcendently self-subsistent and self-aware; omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> Now of course, the wont of any number of atheists on this forum would be to waste our time quibbling over what they have already conceded, for everybody knows this construct of God would in fact be the very highest and most perfect understanding, and it is in fact anything less than this understanding that would not only be what actually begs the question, but unnecessarily gives rise to the irrelevancies of _argumentum ad absurdum_ regarding the ultimate alternatives: inanimateness or sentience.
> 
> Finally, this expression also alludes to the implications of the irretrievably divisible nature of material existence, as opposed to the indivisible nature of a non-contingent transcendence, and the distinction between agency and mechanism.  With a firm grasp of these things in mind, one has everything one needs to detect the logical fallacies of any attempts to refute it.  Now, of course, I realize you know the nuts and bolts of it.  This explanation is for the sake of others with the traditional expression for the major premise and the entirety of its meaning in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
Click to expand...

 
While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Like you and Hollie, he went into the proof ASSUMING the opposite, that he would debunk this spiritual nonsense
> and prove it was delusional in people's heads, since he was a licensed practicing psychiatrist and knew what schizophrenia was.



Actually, I have no opinion on this one way or the other regarding the claims that you're making.  My personal perspective about such things is Christian.  What can be, can be, and will express itself in the natural in a well-regulated and discernible pattern.  I don't know what Hollie personally believes about these things.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be well defined.  It only has to be possible within the syllogistic equation.
> 
> Going back to my original wording:
> 
> *Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
> 
> The universe exists
> .
> Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
> *
> We don't have to describe or define the something.  We only have to see the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something.  What that something is would be a different discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
Click to expand...


If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.

He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.

So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:

Everything that exists must have a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.

Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> It's the _terms_ that don't matter as long as they're reasonably representative of its guts, as you say:  "the logic that if something cannot come from nothing, and the universe exists, then the universe had to come from something."  Defending the cosmological argument against the well-developed counters of significant sophistication requires definition and a boarder understanding of what it means to assert _ex nihilo_ creation, especially in the face of the scientific considerations.  Otherwise, assigning the theological conclusion to the _something_ does not follow and cannot withstand the full arsenal of materialistic challenges.   All I'm telling is that these things will equip one to defend the theological conclusion.  After all, I intend to defend it.  Foundation.  Copy and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
Click to expand...

 
When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.

Ok, to the argument.

Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am from the school of not making things harder/more complicated than they have to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
Click to expand...


Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.

And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, this is the argument I know best.  It's the only one I've got down now after getting clobbered by an atheist who' really smart about science and philosophy.  His arguments as it turns out were all wrong but I didn't now how to deal with them, but not because I didn't know the science.  I understand from the things that M.D.R. has said what the central ideas of the teleological and the transcendental arguments are now but I wouldn't feel comfortable making full arguments, just comments.  I know how to argue the cosmological now against all comers, which is to say I know how to think my way around the issues even in the face of something new.  But from that first experience and from Henry, I know you have to define God adn understand other thngs too to defend it against the kind of arguments that real scientists and philosophers will raise.  He teaches the same thing M.D.R. is talking about.  The heart of this argument is the _reductio ad absurdum _regarding cause_.  _Henry uses the terms "irreducible consciousness" and "cosmological regression" to denote the two sides of that coin.  The argument is not very persuasive without these and other things.  I'm just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...


I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?

There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.


----------



## sealybobo

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
Click to expand...


Including god?


----------



## PratchettFan

sealybobo said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Including god?
Click to expand...


Certainly.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been thinking more about this post of yours and I still come down to Aristotle's view expressed in _Posterior Analytics _that all knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge; i.e. knowledge does not depend on demonstration.  Many of our friends here don't seem to agree with him about that.  They demand proof.  Or in lieu of that, they go with what Aristotle described as _infinite regress _or a never ending sequence of cause and effect.
> 
> If we use the argument that nothing can come from nothing, then it logically follows that the universe had to come from something.  So we label that something God--whoever or whatever God may be is immaterial to the concept.  But they then challenge that with God would have to come from something so where did God come from?  And that which created God.  And so forth.
> 
> Ultimately, if the witness of millions of believers is counted as meaningless to the nonbeliever, then we are left with pure logic and nothing else.
> 
> The nonbelievers can embrace the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, the big bang, the eternal expansion since that time, how life began out of some sort of cosmic soup way back when, yadda yadda.  But not one can tell us where the original stuff of the universe came from.  And that makes a belief in God as reasonable as any theory they can come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
Click to expand...


I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.  If it is important that I know what a tiddly wink is, that could be important evidence that I probably do know what a tiddly wink is.

I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket and therefore can be concluded that I probably know what a tiddly wink is..

The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth, ie knowledge, just the same.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
Click to expand...


When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are wrong about some things, should we conclude that you are then wrong about all things?  The discussion was not about Aristotle's Ptolemic view of the solar system.  That he was subsequently proved to be in error about that does not negate what he was right about.  Aristotle was restricted to the physical restrictions of his time and culture but nevertheless contributed more to the understanding of basic science than any other figure of his time.  He is basically the father of the modern scientific method i.e. a statement of a concept, a definition of terms, a statement of the rational that goes into the analysis, observation, argument on how well the concept is justified via observation, and finally what could be concluded.
> 
> He had no means to measure time or speed and he dismissed all concepts of invisible force because it was unobservable so he did not conceive of gravity.  Drawing on Platonian reasoning, he concluded that things fell to the ground and the moon orbited the Earth because that was their nature.  But even with such limitations in understanding, he proved that infinite linear motion and voids and infinite velocities could not exist on Earth  and came up with the theory that time was even flowing, infinite, and the same everywhere.  He was able to make amazing contributions to physics that laid a groundwork for Galileo, Newton, and even Einstein to build on.  We can learn much from Aristotle's manuscripts.  And as for his observation he coined as _infinite regress_ which is the only reference I made to Aristotle in my argument, I don't think anybody can argue with the concept.
> 
> So returning to the thesis of the thread, the syllogistic argument:
> 
> Everything that exists must have a beginning.
> The universe exists.
> Therefore the universe had a beginning and some call that beginning God.
> 
> Aristotle's infinite regress concept then kicks as to where God came from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
Click to expand...


Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."
> 
> Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "
> 
> Meaning atheists and *believers have no evidence for their choice *to believe or not.
> 
> Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it evidence?
Click to expand...


You said you believed in God.  Why do you believe in God?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JakeStarkey said:


> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.




*As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?   

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.  

I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.

In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all! 

How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*

*The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?
> 
> My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.
> 
> In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*
> 
> *The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*
Click to expand...

".... because I say so"


----------



## JakeStarkey

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ninja007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> atheist "Depending upon each individual atheist *they only need to individually satisfy *themselves that there is no evidence."
> 
> Believers "on the other hand *don't need to prove their God exists to satisfy themselves *since they have simply have faith instead. "
> 
> Meaning atheists and *believers have no evidence for their choice *to believe or not.
> 
> Believers and not, you always be opposite sides of the same coin of faith.  Always.  You're both believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Life is evidence, nature is evidence, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said you believed in God.  Why do you believe in God?
Click to expand...

Answer the question, mutton head.  You are not leading a seminar, you are being instructed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?
> 
> My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.
> 
> In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*
> 
> *The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... because I say so"
Click to expand...

*I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.*

Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.


----------



## haissem123

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


since I can't trust any of my fellow untrustworthy scumbag humans, in God I must trust. lol.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.



Ironically, Aristotle's general epistemology is more like yours, which caused him to get some things wrong. But it wasn't because his intuitive logic or his logic about that data of his sensual perceptions was wrong. The necessary mathematics and technology had not been developed yet. Neither had the modern scientific method.  That's all.  So your criticism of Aristotle's view of intuitive knowledge is distorted, and you just intuitively proved what he held to be true about it, in contradiction to what you claimed to be the only reliable basis for knowledge in other posts as if empirical data interprets itself, though you've never provided a coherent idea about what objective evidence is in your mind.  Aristotle was not an idealist, but an empiricist.  You seem to be under the impression that he was the former.  He did believe that physical evidence was the first priority of knowledge, but all he had to go on was how things appeared to his naked senses.  He accurately described what appeared to be guided by intuitive logic and the mathematics of the time.  Guess what?  Most of his ideas, including his cosmological ideas, that we now know to be wrong were accurate relative to the tools at his disposal.  That's why he remains important, for his work in formal logic was origin and is faultlessly brilliant.  That was not wrong and science uses the logical conventions that he formally developed.  There's a wicked twist here that you don't get and you have closed off your mind to the only way of getting it.


----------



## Justin Davis

JakeStarkey said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?
> 
> My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.
> 
> In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*
> 
> *The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... because I say so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.*
> 
> Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.
> 
> Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.
Click to expand...


False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously.  I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?
> 
> My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.
> 
> In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*
> 
> *The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... because I say so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.*
> 
> Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.
> 
> Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously.  I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.
Click to expand...


Jake and Hollie are pathological nitwits and liars.  Don't waste your time.  I gave Jake one last chance to pull his head out of his ass and try to understand what I'm talking about.  He just argues to argue.  That's all he's ever done on this forum.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Aristotle's view on knowledge may well be convenient, I would point out that based upon that view we knew the earth was the center of the solar system.  So I wouldn't call it a dependable method if we are looking for any degree of accuracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, Aristotle's general epistemology is more like yours, which caused him to get some things wrong. But it wasn't because his intuitive logic or his logic about that data of his sensual perceptions was wrong. The necessary mathematics and technology had not been developed yet. Neither had the modern scientific method.  That's all.  So your criticism of Aristotle's view of intuitive knowledge is distorted, and you just intuitively proved what he held to be true about it, in contradiction to what you claimed to be the only reliable basis for knowledge in other posts as if empirical data interprets itself, though you've never provided a coherent idea about what objective evidence is in your mind.  Aristotle was not an idealist, but an empiricist.  You seem to be under the impression that he was the former.  He did believe that physical evidence was the first priority of knowledge, but all he had to go on was how things appeared to his naked senses.  He accurately described what appeared to be guided by intuitive logic and the mathematics of the time.  Guess what?  Most of his ideas, including his cosmological ideas, that we now know to be wrong were accurate relative to the tools at his disposal.  That's why he remains important, for his work in formal logic was origin and is faultlessly brilliant.  That was not wrong and science uses the logical conventions that he formally developed.  There's a wicked twist here that you don't get and you have closed off your mind to the only way of getting it.
Click to expand...


This is right on the money.  Locke the empiricist developed his epistemological construct of the _tabula rasa_, from Aristotle's construct of the blank slate.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it came to the idea that knowledge does not require evidence, he was flat out wrong.  He may have been right about other things, but not about this.
> 
> Ok, to the argument.
> 
> Aside from assertion, how do you know everything that exists must have a beginning?  Everything that currently exists, as far as we know, has always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
Click to expand...


What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.

I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> How many times are you going to post what you bolded before you show where I even argued that, in the first place?
> 
> Jeebus Christ you're retarded.



It's not my fault you can't grasp what's going on due your intellectual dishonest and closed-mindedness.  Carry on. . . .  Your noise is refuted by the following rendering anything more you have to say on the matter moot. 

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*

And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*


 Justin wants to understand the arguments.  If you had any commonsense you'd shut the hell up and start thinking rather than reacting.  People like you and Hollie and Jake just argue to argue.  Piss off.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis continues to be perplexed.
> 
> He and his ilk don't want to admit they cannot concretely prove that God exists.
> 
> And the radical atheists can't prove that He does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *As Q.W. says, still arguing with those voices in your head, eh?
> 
> My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the price of beans in China whatsoever.  In the few instances I've shared bits of my personal beliefs or experiences, I have always qualified those statements as not being things I can objectively demonstrate to anyone else in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.
> 
> In fact, I'm not even trying to prove God's existence at all!
> 
> How many times do you need to be told this before it dawns on you to pull your head out of your ass and start thinking about what I am arguing?*
> 
> *The only things I've been arguing and have in fact proven, in spite of the terminally obtuse and dishonest claims of the mentally challenge, in the sense that you mean are the objectively empirical and rational facts human apprehension that everybody of a sound, developmentally mature mind knows.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ".... because I say so"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I have never claimed anywhere on this thread that I can prove God's existence in the absolute sense of ultimacy either.*
> 
> Thank you for admitting this is over, and you have nothing but your belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ways are linguistic fancies, nothing more.  My way is accurate and precise.  So all of you continue to dance on the head of a pin: worthless.
> 
> _that which tends to prove or disprove something ;ground for belief; proof._
> Evidence Define Evidence at Dictionary.com
> 
> I believe with all of my being that God exists, but I know through our limited abilities, I cannot prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's hilarious is that you just pointed to a definition that is telling you the same thing that people like Foxfyre, M.D.R. and Q.W.  (as those are the people who consistently show they understand things the right way) are telling you.  I also understand things the same way.  They're talking about objective evidence and logical proofs, which are the same thing.  Also what Foxfrye is telling you about evidence in court is objective evidence even if its substance is the subjective impressions of beliefs of the person giving it.  Once it's given it becomes something that can be empirically or logically weighed in an objective fashion to figure out if it's valid (credible or reliable).  Incidentally, when I showed PrachettFan what objectivity is from an unabridged dictionary and from a technical, philosophical dictionary, evidence that he was totally wrong, I thought about giving him the legal definition too.  But I thought that might be too much at one time.  The problem of understanding is with you, not us.  You guys keep confusing the common or practical meaning/use of objective evidence and proof with the kind of proof or evidence that only God can provide.  None of the people who understand how things work are saying they can provide that kind of proof or evidence.  Foxfyre, is that the right way to say it?   In other words, let's say we were in court on this issue.  While you're testimony would be permissible as evidence for your idea, it would not be reliable or credible evidence because your personal or subjective opinion is obviously false and confused in the face of reality.  Your testimony about what common evidence and proofs are together with your inability to objectively make valid distinctions would cause the judge to disregard the evidence of your testimony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.
> 
> Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously.  I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake and Hollie are pathological nitwits and liars.  Don't waste your time.  I gave Jake one last chance to pull his head out of his ass and try to understand what I'm talking about.  He just argues to argue.  That's all he's ever done on this forum.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to post what you bolded before you show where I even argued that, in the first place?
> 
> Jeebus Christ you're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you can't grasp what's going on due your intellectual dishonest and closed-mindedness.  Carry on. . . .  Your noise is refuted by the following rendering anything more you have to say on the matter moot.
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> 
> Justin wants to understand the arguments.  If you had any commonsense you'd shut the hell up and start thinking rather than reacting.  People like you and Hollie and Jake just argue to argue.  Piss off.
Click to expand...

You're quite mistaken. With your frantic, and ultimately failed attempts to write a coherent argument, you come across as just another self-hating religious zealot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

M. D., Justin, and Hollie: no one really cares what you think.  None of you can concretely prove your *assertions*.  That means you have been dicking along for 44 pages.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.



*Continued from Post #794: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-27#post-9877513*


*The Transcendental Argument 
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists. *​

On the terms of logical proofs: since any argument that attempts to falsify the claim made by the major premise of the transcendental argument (See *Post #691*.) will actually prove the claim to be logically valid, we may justifiably dismiss those who claim that there exists no objectively discernible, independent justification that the claim in the major premise is true; for the naysayers themselves prove it to be logically valid with their very own arguments. In other words, they demand independent verification, provide independent verification themselves and then assert that their logical proof for the validity of the major premise's claim doesn’t exist or isn't logically valid. Neither one of these claims is _factually_ true.

*(By the way, Kant was the first to formally assert it. It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia. But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification merely because it's expression is logically coherent or because the essence of its object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe.  If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.)*

Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition. * In other words, the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid.*

Notwithstanding, while the observation that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument is conceivably false outside of our minds is _not_ justifiable knowledge, it remains a propositionally justifiable objection, and that's due to the nature of presuppositional arguments. But the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever with regard to the legitimacy of propositionally justifiable objections. In other words, while the discrete objection in this case is _not_ justifiable knowledge, the _understanding_ that propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate, insofar as they are not absurdities, _is_ justifiable knowledge.

Let me further underscore the distinction:

*A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection ≠ justifiable knowledge or truth.

The understanding that coherent, propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate = justifiable knowledge.*​

A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection is something that is conceivably true, but not explicably or demonstrably true. On the other hand, justifiable knowledge or truths are things that are demonstrably and authoritatively true from experience, or true by their very nature intuitively. Ideally, an instance of justifiable knowledge is something that is demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively true.

The only discernibly practical objection that the naysayer can assert against the transcendental argument is purely academic: the notion that it begs the question, albeit, strictly in terms of its structural expression, which makes no difference to the fact that the major premise logically holds true against all comers. Hence, this objection is even weaker than the propositionally justifiable objection, which is a dead end, analytically!

But lets take a look at this academic objection in its syllogistic form:

*1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.*​
Now the most interesting thing about this objection is not the fact that its major premise, unlike that of the real McCoy, is inherently contradictory and that it actually serves as yet another major premise for yet another argument that actually proves that the conclusion of the real McCoy is logically valid, but the fact that it attacks, without success, the validity of the universal laws of logic by presupposing the universal laws of logic.

But before we move on to why that's so and why that's important, let's make sure that our atheist friends of god-like omniscience are on the same page with us benighted theists:

*God = omniscience (or all knowledge).

Thus, the major premise of the academic objection = Knowledge is not possible if all knowledge exists.*

Or:

*= Knowledge is possible if all knowledge doesn't exist.*​

That brick never gets off the ground, let alone gets a flight plan.

Continued tomorrow. . . .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Argue all you want, M. D., you are wrong.  No more "just one time again".


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Continued from Post #794: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-27#post-9877513*
> 
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists. *​
> 
> On the terms of logical proofs: since any argument that attempts to falsify the claim made by the major premise of the transcendental argument (See *Post #691*.) will actually prove the claim to be logically valid, we may justifiably dismiss those who claim that there exists no objectively discernible, independent justification that the claim in the major premise is true; for the naysayers themselves prove it to be logically valid with their very own arguments. In other words, they demand independent verification, provide independent verification themselves and then assert that their logical proof for the validity of the major premise's claim doesn’t exist or isn't logically valid. Neither one of these claims is _factually_ true.
> 
> *(By the way, Kant was the first to formally assert it. It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia. But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification merely because it's expression is logically coherent or because the essence of its object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe.  If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.)*
> 
> Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition. * In other words, the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid.*
> 
> Notwithstanding, while the observation that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument is conceivably false outside of our minds is _not_ justifiable knowledge, it remains a propositionally justifiable objection, and that's due to the nature of presuppositional arguments. But the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever with regard to the legitimacy of propositionally justifiable objections. In other words, while the discrete objection in this case is _not_ justifiable knowledge, the _understanding_ that propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate, insofar as they are not absurdities, _is_ justifiable knowledge.
> 
> Let me further underscore the distinction:
> 
> *A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection ≠ justifiable knowledge or truth.
> 
> The understanding that coherent, propositionally justifiable objections are legitimate = justifiable knowledge.*​
> 
> A discrete, propositionally justifiable objection is something that is conceivably true, but not explicably or demonstrably true. On the other hand, justifiable knowledge or truths are things that are demonstrably and authoritatively true from experience, or true by their very nature intuitively. Ideally, an instance of justifiable knowledge is something that is demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively true.
> 
> The only discernibly practical objection that the naysayer can assert against the transcendental argument is purely academic: the notion that it begs the question, albeit, strictly in terms of its structural expression, which makes no difference to the fact that the major premise logically holds true against all comers. Hence, this objection is even weaker than the propositionally justifiable objection, which is a dead end, analytically!
> 
> But lets take a look at this academic objection in its syllogistic form:
> 
> *1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.*​
> Now the most interesting thing about this objection is not the fact that its major premise, unlike that of the real McCoy, is inherently contradictory and that it actually serves as yet another major premise for yet another argument that actually proves that the conclusion of the real McCoy is logically valid, but the fact that it attacks, without success, the validity of the universal laws of logic by presupposing the universal laws of logic.
> 
> But before we move on to why that's so and why that's important, let's make sure that our atheist friends of god-like omniscience are on the same page with us benighted theists:
> 
> *God = omniscience (or all knowledge).
> 
> Thus, the major premise of the academic objection = Knowledge is not possible if all knowledge exists.*
> 
> Or:
> 
> *= Knowledge is possible if all knowledge doesn't exist.*​
> 
> That brick never gets off the ground, let alone gets a flight plan.
> 
> Continued tomorrow. . . .
Click to expand...





> *In other words, the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid.  *



This expression really sharpens my focus. Though it's now self-evident to me why this would necessarily happen to any argument, I tried to do this with a few different arguments from suggestions on the internet yesterday in syllogisms just for practice and just like you said I kept proving the premise true though you have to make sure your premises stay true so you don't get a false positive.  I noticed on a personal websites where the owner claimed his argument countered it, but to see why he's wrong you just put it into a syllogism and it falls apart.  He didn't do that, just stated the objection and did a therefore that sort of looked right unless you really thought about it.  Some people are really gullible.


----------



## Justin Davis

haissem123 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> since I can't trust any of my fellow untrustworthy scumbag humans, in God I must trust. lol.
Click to expand...



I wish I knew what this meant but I don't.


----------



## Justin Davis

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
Click to expand...


Once again, your understanding of what is meant by knowledge without demonstration is the very thing you just did commonsensically about what you wrongfully believe him to be saying. You keep dismissing things out of hand that you don't understand, just like your rejection of the unabridged meaning of objectivity that showed you out right that you were wrong. So what is happening here is that you're going around in your life believing things that might not kill you but keep you from understanding reality better. Aristotle is not saying that demonstration isn't required. Some kinds of things have to be demonstrated to be reliable knowledge. What's funny is that you're so gullible to believe that what he's saying is what you think he's saying. What you think he's saying is obviously stupid. So you think that Aristotle arguably the most important formal logician in history believes something that stupid? That should tell you there's something wrong with your understanding.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a bit of reading comprehension problems today?  I did not say that Aristotle said knowledge did not require evidence.  That would be absurd.  What I said he said is that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable in order to be knowledge.  A very different thing.
> 
> And I accept the reasoned conclusion that everything must have a beginning because there is zero evidence, zilch, nada, nothing--no eye witnesses, no testimony, no theory put forth by anybody--that suggests otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
Click to expand...


I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.

You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, your understanding of what is meant by knowledge without demonstration is the very thing you just did commonsensically about what you wrongfully believe him to be saying. You keep dismissing things out of hand that you don't understand, just like your rejection of the unabridged meaning of objectivity that showed you out right that you were wrong. So what is happening here is that you're going around in your life believing things that might not kill you but keep you from understanding reality better. Aristotle is not saying that demonstration isn't required. Some kinds of things have to be demonstrated to be reliable knowledge. What's funny is that you're so gullible to believe that what he's saying is what you think he's saying. What you think he's saying is obviously stupid. So you think that Aristotle arguably the most important formal logician in history believes something that stupid? That should tell you there's something wrong with your understanding.
Click to expand...


PF knows the difference.  He does this kind of knowledge all the time.  None of us can live without.  Fox is helping put a name it.  A rose is rose.  She's good at explaining things that way.  He'll get it.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am notoriously thick.  What is the difference between not being demonstrated and not having evidence?
> 
> There is an equal amount of evidence which suggests everything must have a beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
Click to expand...

 
I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
Click to expand...


If I may.  Yes.  Almost.  You _can_ express it.  And the moment you express or explain it to others, then they have it, in the sense that they are aware of what you experienced or what you know.  They _know_ this now about _you_.  They _know_ what _you_ experienced or what _you_ believe to be true.  But the thing you experienced or believe to be true is not always something that can be empirically demonstrated. 

Now if the kind of knowledge that _you_ have and are sharing with others is _not_ merely a subjective opinion about something that could arguably have any number of interpretations, then you're getting into the kind of knowledge that I've been talking about on this thread, which _is_ demonstrably, authoritatively or intuitively objective _because_ it is something that is universally understood by all, and others can see that it's universally understood by all once they grasp it for what it is, _not_ for what they always thought it to be due to a lack of simply thinking it out.  

In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.

But for the moment imagine this for purposes of analogy.  You do extreme driving.  I don't know anything about that.  Without knowing what you know, if I just got behind the wheel and tried to go as fast and be as aggressive as you without knowing these things, I'd kill myself, or at the very least crash in no time flat!  Right?  Might I be able to do what you do with time and experience as _you_ teach me or tell me or express to me what you know, things like certain techniques or  tactics that you can't immediately or empirically demonstrate?  Maybe, it I have the inclination and essential motor skills. 

Let's say I do have the basic stuff to do it.  I still can't do it successfully until I learn some things that can't be immediately demonstrated.  They have to be learned from experienced over time.  The more I learn from experience the sharper my skills get.  Eventually, I'll have a store of knowledge that is in fact empirically demonstrable as someone watches me do it successfully.  In other words, it's empirically demonstrable that I know how to do extreme driving with your training. But while the observer can plainly see or _know_ that I _know_ what I'm doing, that doesn't mean that the observer has my knowledge or experience to do it, and the knowledge about how to do it is not something I can immediately demonstrate to the observer.  But I can express it or tell it to him, which gives him an understanding that is knowledge.  If he wants to give it a go, I can express more and more as he experiences more and more.  More and more knowledge.  But it's not the kind of knowledge that's immediately demonstrable, because its the _experience_ of this knowledge that's immediate.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*



And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!


----------



## G.T.

lol oyyy!


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you truthfully that I have had a tiddly wink in my pocket, and you now have knowledge that I claim to have had a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> I can take a tiddly wink out of my pocket and show it to you and put it back in my pocket and you now have knowledge that I have a tiddly wink in my pocket.
> 
> The same truth/knowledge applies in both cases.  In one case the truth was demonstrated.  In the other it was not, nor is there any way to demonstrate that I once had a tiddly wink in my pocket, but it is a fact and a truth just the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
Click to expand...


That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.


----------



## G.T.

ngt: "whats that going on between our legs? we've got like...............a sewage system mixed with an entertainment complex. BAD DESIGN! BAD DESIGN!"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
Click to expand...


Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*

And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
*
And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*

And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?

Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *

He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you told me, I had no evidence other than your word.  When you showed, me I had evidence of the object.  I am still not getting the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
Click to expand...

 
I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.


----------



## G.T.

Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists. 

So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I think most people do get the difference.  Both are knowledge.  One is  a different form of knowledge but both are based on evidence and both are knowledge.  If you are one who has to see, feel, hear, taste, smell  experience something for yourself before you will even consider it, you may not be able to see that.  And your knowledge will be extremely limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
Click to expand...


But the reason he closed his mind again is because he thinks that just because the arguments can't prove "to another in the absolute, ultimate sense" that God exists that what they do prove or show doesn't matter.  What I've learned from you is that once people look at the other things "everybody knows" and them look at the arguments in the light of those things they can see that the premises for the arguments are objectively and independently verified, which means that the conclusions of these arguments are logically valid.  They don't fail like the OP thinks.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the reason he closed his mind again is because he thinks that just because the arguments can't prove "to another in the absolute, ultimate sense" that God exists that what they do prove or show doesn't matter.  What I've learned from you is that once people look at the other things "everybody knows" and them look at the arguments in the light of those things they can see that the premises for the arguments are objectively and independently verified, which means that the conclusions of these arguments are logically valid.  They don't fail like the OP thinks.
Click to expand...


Right!  But it's not just that, which is what I think even some of the theists think.  If the premises are in fact objectively and independently verifiable in some way, and you see why that's true because you have been paying attention to what some have thought to be "overly technical" or limiting factors, *that means the conclusions are universally true . . . in our minds!*  And that being true means that all the atheist is really saying in the end is that it is conceivable that the conclusions aren't true outside of our minds.  Okay.  But what is their argument that would constitute justifiable knowledge.  I can assure that their is no major premise, let alone a subsequent argument they can raise that, unlike the premises of the classical arguments, constitutes justifiable knowledge.

*But folks can't see any of this until they (1) understand things like what objective evidence is, what proofs are and what real knowledge is (both subjective and objective, demonstrable and non-empirically demonstrable in the immediate sense) and (2) what the fundamental absolutes that everybody knows once they look at them with regard to the problems of existence and origin are!*


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
Click to expand...


One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.

Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.

One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God. 

To put that into a syllogistic argument:

One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
Therefore God exists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you dance and prance and saying different things than you diid before, when I have been consistent and clear from the beginning.
> 
> Justin, a hint for you: we recognize long paragraphs for justification for what they are ~ you fool no one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. You're understanding of what I said before is wrong. You're understanding of what the others have been telling you is wrong. And so if what you're now implying is that you agree with what I just said, which is the same thing I've been saying all along, you are now contradicting yourself. You're also implying that I lied. You are a very disturbed and confused person. You’re not to be taken seriously.  I see that you don't care about the truth or about real human interaction.
Click to expand...


And G.T. is same kind of mind. Closed! G.T. is still thinking he refuted the teleological argument, not even realizing that he actually proved its major premise to be logically valid. For crying out loud! It is a well-established fact in academia that *the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem . . . as any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid. 
*
It can't be falsified! Ever! And it is objectively and independently verified by that fact! And this cannot be repeated too much: *it's not impervious to falsification just because it's expression is logically coherent or just because the essence of its object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe. If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.*

And I can show the same thing about the major premises for everyone of the arguments to anyone as long as *they open up their minds and look at the things that everybody knows regarding the problems of existence and orgin, which are objectively verifiable as they are incontrovertibly self-evident!*


----------



## JakeStarkey

That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.

Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.

Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am not getting is the distinction you are making between evidence and demonstration.  Another way of looking at it, of course, that instead of me limiting my knowledge, you are confusing belief with knowledge.  Which is ok when it has no consequences.
> 
> I have two major hobbies.  The first is motorcycles and the second diving.  I do some extreme diving involving closed circuit rebreathers with extended decompression.  It's what I love.  But if I confused what I believed to be true with what I knew to be true, I would have died years ago.  There is a definite difference between the two. So when Aristotle says you can have knowledge without demonstration, I can only presume he had an indoor job with no sharp objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
Click to expand...

 
If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
Click to expand...


Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't. 

The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable. 

Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?

Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.


----------



## Taz

If god not there, then me scared!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that you are struggling with this, but I think it is only because you aren't thinking through the difference between knowledge that is or is not demonstrable.  If you see your friend that you love grieving over the loss of a loved one, even if you had never experienced or witnessed grief before and did not know the proper word for grief or nobody had ever explained it to you, you would see and have a sense of what your friend was experiencing and that it was an unpleasant and hurtful experience.  You would have gained knowledge about grief that you did not posses before.
> 
> You can relate or describe your friend's grief to another person once you have knowledge about grief, but you cannot demonstrate it.  You have knowledge of many things that you saw or heard or experienced yesterday or last week or last month, and you can relate your best description of these to others, but you cannot demonstrate many of them to a single other soul.  If you or nobody you are aware of took a picture, how do you demonstrate to me the glorious sunset you saw last night?  You have the knowledge.  But the knowledge is not demonstrable.  Ergo Aristotle's teaching that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.
Click to expand...


Sigh.  I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.

Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter.  The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.

The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.  It is knowledge but was not demonstrated to you but told to you.

You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.

There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems.  Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems.  That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge.  But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying.  I require evidence to have knowledge, but simply because I can't express that knowledge to you does not mean I do not have that knowledge.  Is that it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.
> 
> Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter.  The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.
> 
> The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.
> 
> You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.
> 
> There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems.  Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems.  That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge.  But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.
Click to expand...

 
No.  We have not reached an understanding.  There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle.  So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine.  But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable.  You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.
> 
> Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter.  The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.
> 
> The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.
> 
> You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.
> 
> There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems.  Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems.  That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge.  But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We have not reached an understanding.  There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle.  So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine.  But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable.  You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.
Click to expand...





All of which is moot, even if you did correctly understand the matter, which you _still_ don't.  The _evidence_ for God's existence _is_, in any event, of the demonstrable kind; it's not of the non-demonstrable kind.  And your real problem is that you _still_ have your mind closed to the fact that objective evidence is not limited physical evidence and never has been.

*Demonstrable evidence ≠ physical evidence*, just like *objective evidence ≠ physical evidence, only*.

Demonstrable evidence can be both rational or empirical. 

Non-demonstrable evidence can be both rational or empirical.

Foxfyre, he's not going to understand the matter until he gets it through his head that his silly abridged-dictionary definition of _objectivity_ is wrong, that objective evidence is not limited to physical evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> ngt: "whats that going on between our legs? we've got like...............a sewage system mixed with an entertainment complex. BAD DESIGN! BAD DESIGN!"



Is it? Or is the problem that you think you know more than you do?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ngt: "whats that going on between our legs? we've got like...............a sewage system mixed with an entertainment complex. BAD DESIGN! BAD DESIGN!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Or is the problem that you think you know more than you do?
Click to expand...

i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.
> 
> So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.



Is that like you thinking you have proven the opposite by claiming that something is axiomatic when it favors your position, or is that just different?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.
> 
> So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like you thinking you have proven the opposite by claiming that something is axiomatic when it favors your position, or is that just different?
Click to expand...

well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.

it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.

im an agnostic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> No.  We have not reached an understanding.  There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle.  So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine.  But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable.  You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.



This is where you get lost.

Knowledge does not have to be able to be communicated to matter. It is entirely possible for a person to know something that is undeniably important, but be unable to communicate it because no one else can possibly understand it. Einstein faced that problem when he first developed the Theory of Relativity, it was so advanced that less than a handful of people understood it. Even today the people that actually understand it is limited to a very small percentage of the population of the planet, despite the fact that most of us think we understand it.

There will always be people rarefied intellectual capacity that are able to develop knowledge that they cannot demonstrate to the rest of us. That does not, in any way, make what they learn less important.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.  IMO all knowledge is based on what we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, read, observe, experience, reason,understand and I try hard not to put artificial limits on any of that.  If you label all that 'evidence', I have no problem with that.  Is all that knowledge demonstrable to others?  No it won't be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.
> 
> Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter.  The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.
> 
> The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.
> 
> You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.
> 
> There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems.  Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems.  That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge.  But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We have not reached an understanding.  There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle.  So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine.  But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable.  You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.
Click to expand...


Okay.  So we don't have an understanding.  I know a great deal of knowledge that is of major, even critical, consequence that I cannot demonstrate to a single other soul and so do you.  But some are unable to grasp the concept I guess.  I won't accuse you of being in the deliberately obtuse and intentionally disruptive group, but I gave the explanation my best shot.  I don't know if the failure to understand is in your inability to understand or whether I am a shitty teacher.  But either way we tried.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels



Let me guess, you threw in a random quote you don't believe just because you are stupid.

If that is the position you want to take, I won't argue you out of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.
> 
> it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.
> 
> im an agnostic.



So that post where someone claimed that it is impossible to know everything without knowing you know everything wasn't really your post.

Got it.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.
> 
> The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.
> 
> Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?
> 
> Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.
Click to expand...


Hey!  I believe in god and the devil now.  Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.  

Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night?  So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.
> 
> it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.
> 
> im an agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that post where someone claimed that it is impossible to know everything without knowing you know everything wasn't really your post.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

That was a post about god existing or not, or about knowledge?

God damn you're fucking extra extra douchey sauce huh?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was quoting someone epic fail wizard, of quantum levels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, you threw in a random quote you don't believe just because you are stupid.
> 
> If that is the position you want to take, I won't argue you out of it.
Click to expand...

Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it. 


Lighten up, douche towels.


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, they will see that it is something that everybody knows to be true once they actually look at it and stop imagining it to be something it's not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.
> 
> The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.
> 
> Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?
> 
> Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey!  I believe in god and the devil now.  Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.
> 
> Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night?  So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?
Click to expand...


It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it?  There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel.  Would I believe it was in fact an angel?  Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up.  I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.

Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.

And other people not so much.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> That was a post about god existing or not, or about knowledge?
> 
> God damn you're fucking extra extra douchey sauce huh?



Like all of your posts, it was about the non existence of God. Did you forget what your goal throughout this thread has been?


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what is so annoying about people like Hollie and Jake.  They think they know what this is all about.  First they think that people like you, QW, Fox and me are claiming that we can prove God's existence in the absolute, ultimate sense, and that's totally false.  And the only reason they don't know that is because they're not even reading or thinking about anything we're saying.  Then when Jake finally gets the fact that we're not claiming that, he tells us that what we're actually talking about is not important.  But once again he doesn't know what that is either!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.
> 
> The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.
> 
> Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?
> 
> Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey!  I believe in god and the devil now.  Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.
> 
> Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night?  So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it?  There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel.  Would I believe it was in fact an angel?  Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up.  I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.
> 
> Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.
> 
> And other people not so much.
Click to expand...


Oh I believe they believe it too.  I know my friends are sincere every last one of them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.
> 
> 
> Lighten up, douche towels.



Like I said, I won't argue with your position that you posted something you don't believe because you are stupid. It actually makes it easier for me because you have admitted something I have been saying about you for years.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, silly, i never even tried to prove the opposite.
> 
> it's not currently provable, and i've certainly not claimed i could do so.
> 
> im an agnostic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that post where someone claimed that it is impossible to know everything without knowing you know everything wasn't really your post.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...



I'd love to see you present me the possibility of a knower -

who can possibly know everything and not KNOW that he/she/it knows everything. 

Because by default, that one thing they do not know - means they do not know everything. 


But somehow, you disagree. I'll entertain"why/how" it could ever be untrue. 

so - go ahead, big mouth.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.
> 
> 
> Lighten up, douche towels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I won't argue with your position that you posted something you don't believe because you are stupid. It actually makes it easier for me because you have admitted something I have been saying about you for years.
Click to expand...

You've been saying something about ME for YEARS?

WTF? 

I'm not even sure I remember aside from this maybe 1 other conversation I've even been in with you, I could be wrong. But I'm glad to be relevant to you to remember, I guess. 

Thanks?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.
> 
> 
> Lighten up, douche towels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I won't argue with your position that you posted something you don't believe because you are stupid. It actually makes it easier for me because you have admitted something I have been saying about you for years.
Click to expand...


I just said in a previous post that I don't think you theists are lying when you say you believe in god.  Do you really believe we aren't being sincere when we tell you that you are delusional for believing in gods?


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.
> 
> 
> Lighten up, douche towels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I won't argue with your position that you posted something you don't believe because you are stupid. It actually makes it easier for me because you have admitted something I have been saying about you for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just said in a previous post that I don't think you theists are lying when you say you believe in god.  Do you really believe we aren't being sincere when we tell you that you are delusional for believing in gods?
Click to expand...

We are know it alls for being agnostic,

whereas believers and non believers are........................................................totally open minded. 

Up is down, you know.


----------



## mudwhistle

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


Is faith a difficult concept for you?


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, it was a funny quote - so I posted it.
> 
> 
> Lighten up, douche towels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I won't argue with your position that you posted something you don't believe because you are stupid. It actually makes it easier for me because you have admitted something I have been saying about you for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been saying something about ME for YEARS?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> I'm not even sure I remember aside from this maybe 1 other conversation I've even been in with you, I could be wrong. But I'm glad to be relevant to you to remember, I guess.
> 
> Thanks?
Click to expand...


If you tell him you are a god and that you have performed miracles in the past he will worship you.  And tell him part of being a member is not asking for any proof.  Just have faith you are a god.


----------



## sealybobo

mudwhistle said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Is faith a difficult concept for you?
Click to expand...


Faith isn't a virtue it is willful ignorance.


----------



## mudwhistle

Rikurzhen said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not a flaw in the use logic, reason, and evidence. *This is how all claims are examined,* and your wish to be exempt because of the nature of your claim, is simply special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim: I still love me ex-girlfriend.
> 
> What evidence can I provide? I married a different woman, I had kids with a different woman, I love my wife, I have no pictures of my ex. I never send her gifts or letters or phone her. My love lives only in my heart and my memory.
> 
> So how do we proceed? What evidence is needed, what logic is required to evaluate the claim? How do you, an outsider, evaluate what is in my heart and what I know to be true?
Click to expand...

I'm tellin.


----------



## mudwhistle

sealybobo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> Is faith a difficult concept for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith isn't a virtue it is willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


Neither is pride a virtue.


----------



## G.T.

I like @mudwhistle when he's not being a nihilist but more lighthearted. 

hug it out broski


----------



## Foxfyre

sealybobo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  *Everybody knows* that God's existence _can't_ be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense.  *These people have been thinking all this time that we've been arguing something we're not . . . after how many friggin' posts now?  Eight-hundred and some posts!*
> 
> And what is one of the things I've been telling them all along that *everybody knows*:  *God's existence can't be proven to another in the absolute, ultimate sense!  *
> *
> And it is because everybody knows this, including them as they simultaneously think that we're arguing the opposite, that their minds are closed.  Hence, they will not shut up, read, think about or understand what we are arguing.*
> 
> And now that that Jake finally understands, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *that we haven't been arguing that all along, what is his response?
> 
> Answer:  whatever we _are_ talking about isn't important or doesn't matter, but he doesn't have the first clue about what that is.  *IDIOT!  *
> 
> He opens his mind long enough to get just one item of what we're talking about, after *Eight-hundred and some posts, *which is more of the things that *everybody knows*, only to shut the door of his mind again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.
> 
> The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.
> 
> Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?
> 
> Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey!  I believe in god and the devil now.  Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.
> 
> Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night?  So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it?  There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel.  Would I believe it was in fact an angel?  Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up.  I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.
> 
> Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.
> 
> And other people not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe they believe it too.  I know my friends are sincere every last one of them.
Click to expand...


You sure couldn't have discerned that from your post that came across as rather snotty, condescending, judgmental, and intentionally combative.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'd love to see you present me the possibility of a knower -
> 
> who can possibly know everything and not KNOW that he/she/it knows everything.
> 
> Because by default, that one thing they do not know - means they do not know everything.
> 
> 
> But somehow, you disagree. I'll entertain"why/how" it could ever be untrue.
> 
> so - go ahead, big mouth.



I see no need to even attempt it until you actually provide evidence your claim is correct, and that the fact that it is correct somehow proves that everyone who believes in a non omniscient god is somehow wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> You've been saying something about ME for YEARS?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> I'm not even sure I remember aside from this maybe 1 other conversation I've even been in with you, I could be wrong. But I'm glad to be relevant to you to remember, I guess.
> 
> Thanks?


That is because you are stupid, just like I have been saying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I just said in a previous post that I don't think you theists are lying when you say you believe in god.  Do you really believe we aren't being sincere when we tell you that you are delusional for believing in gods?



Perhaps it was because the stupid person I responded to said he wasn't sincere about the post he made.

Any other stupid questions?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JakeStarkey said:


> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks



Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all. 

Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If you tell him you are a god and that you have performed miracles in the past he will worship you.  And tell him part of being a member is not asking for any proof.  Just have faith you are a god.



Why would I do that? Especially after he posts something he claims does not represent his position?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to see you present me the possibility of a knower -
> 
> who can possibly know everything and not KNOW that he/she/it knows everything.
> 
> Because by default, that one thing they do not know - means they do not know everything.
> 
> 
> But somehow, you disagree. I'll entertain"why/how" it could ever be untrue.
> 
> so - go ahead, big mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no need to even attempt it until you actually provide evidence your claim is correct, and that *the fact that it is correct somehow proves that everyone who believes in a non omniscient god is somehow wrong*.
Click to expand...

Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth. 

But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true. 

If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.

I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary. 

You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the fuck down about it.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been saying something about ME for YEARS?
> 
> WTF?
> 
> I'm not even sure I remember aside from this maybe 1 other conversation I've even been in with you, I could be wrong. But I'm glad to be relevant to you to remember, I guess.
> 
> Thanks?
> 
> 
> 
> That is because you are stupid, just like I have been saying.
Click to expand...

im rubber youre glue...blah blah blah

good for you, man. hope this all helps your massively inflated ego. you post so angry day in and day out. 

pm me if youre really sad about something, swear to the universe ill be sincere in trying to be a shoulder. and i mean that.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you tell him you are a god and that you have performed miracles in the past he will worship you.  And tell him part of being a member is not asking for any proof.  Just have faith you are a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? Especially after he posts something he claims does not represent his position?
Click to expand...

i posted a pretty funny joke you epic moron.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.
> 
> But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.
> 
> If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.
> 
> I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.
> 
> You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the fuck down about it.



Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all.
> 
> Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.
Click to expand...

The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.

Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated. 

If at all, it could be eternal.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.
> 
> But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.
> 
> If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.
> 
> I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.
> 
> You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the fuck down about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?
Click to expand...

I'm asserting something. 

I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing. 

And that is axiomatic knowledge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> i posted a pretty funny joke you epic moron.



Funny is a matter of opinion.

For example, I think the fact that you posted something you now claim you do not believe is hilarious. On the other hand, you think me pointing out how funny that is indicates that I am angry.

FYI, it is almost impossible to be angry about anything when you are rolling around the floor laughing at the stupidity of idiots.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, the second clause of your sentence, that I bolded, was not my conclusion. You made that up out of whole cloth.
> 
> But the first clause, is that it's an axiom - the impossibility of the contrary makes it true.
> 
> If it could somehow be wrong - name one instance or situation in which it could..............I'll be very open minded for you.
> 
> I claim it is absolute, because of the impossibility of the contrary.
> 
> You can either name a scenario where the contrary works, or sit the fuck down about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you abandoning your position that the only possible definition of god is the one you reject?
Click to expand...

by the way, thats not my position at all



and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine

but carry on, ego driven.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
> 
> Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
> 
> If at all, it could be eternal.



Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i posted a pretty funny joke you epic moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny is a matter of opinion.
> 
> For example, I think the fact that you posted something you now claim you do not believe is hilarious. On the other hand, you think me pointing out how funny that is indicates that I am angry.
> 
> FYI, it is almost impossible to be angry about anything when you are rolling around the floor laughing at the stupidity of idiots.
Click to expand...

so everytime you tell a joke you believe in its contents?

you're a weird guy.


----------



## mudwhistle

Foxfyre said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> One bit of knowledge I have acquired purely via observation and reason doing this message board stuff for a number of years now, is that some people play obtuse, stupid, belligerent, hateful, insulting for sport.  I can't say for certain, but I suspect some people--maybe Hollie and Jake?--entertain themselves by trying to goad or manipulate us in that way.  It can be by being deliberately personally insulting while using diversionary tactics or it can be by being deliberately obtuse or non sequitur.  They don't care that they don't have our respect because we certainly don't have theirs.  But we give them exactly what they want when we take the bait.  I don't always succeed, but I do make an effort not to take that bait.
> 
> Even more interesting is how often the Atheists and anti-religionists are drawn to religious threads like flies.  They almost never are interested in discussing concepts but are there to declare how stupid anybody is to believe in God or really in anything larger than ourselves.  I don't understand those who are so driven to destroy the faith of those to whom their faith is important and beneficial, but I do wonder what is at work that makes the subject so fascinating to so many non-believers.
> 
> One might even think it is another bit of evidence for the existence of God.
> 
> To put that into a syllogistic argument:
> 
> One cannot be passionate about something that does not exist.
> Atheists/anti-religionists are passionate about discrediting God.
> Therefore God exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.  But sometimes I do take the bait in order to highlight precisely why the atheist is so obviously wrong, and the difference between those who are earnestly trying to understand things and those who aren't.
> 
> The interesting thing about Jake, *which further undermines his credibility for all to see*, is that he _does_ believe God exists.  So what he's really telling all us is that his belief is *blind faith*, when in fact there is good reason to believe that God is, that this conviction can be solidly based on evidentiary facts and logical proofs, with the premises of the latter being objectively and independently verifiable.
> 
> Hence, just what kind of fool believes God exists but closes his mind to the very evidentiary facts and logical proofs which substantiate his instinctual inclination?
> 
> Answer:  A damn fool, one that is even more foolish than the closed-minded atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey!  I believe in god and the devil now.  Last night I saw an angel in the middle of the night and it told me to believe.
> 
> Do you believe I saw an angel in the middle of the night?  So why the hell would we believe any unbelievable story you tell us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would rather depend on your reputation for veracity and commitment to truth wouldn't it?  There are people who could tell me they saw an angel the middle of the night, and I would know beyond all reasonable doubt that they saw something that they identified as an angel.  Would I believe it was in fact an angel?  Not so much but I would believe the person believed it was an angel and that he wasn't hallucinating or making it up.  I would file it away as knowledge that could be useful if I ran into other credible people who testified to such phenomena.
> 
> Whether I accept their interpretation of things or not, there are people I believe to be sincere, honest, and truthful to the best of their ability.
> 
> And other people not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I believe they believe it too.  I know my friends are sincere every last one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure couldn't have discerned that from your post that came across as rather snotty, condescending, judgmental, and intentionally combative.
Click to expand...

Yeah,....fucker......


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
> 
> Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
> 
> If at all, it could be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.
Click to expand...


Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity. 

It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal. 

And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'm asserting something.
> 
> I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.
> 
> And that is axiomatic knowledge.



Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.

If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> by the way, thats not my position at all
> 
> 
> 
> and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine
> 
> but carry on, ego driven.



It isn't?

Then why do you continually argue that there is no evidence that the god I believe in exists? Especially given the fact that you don't know what I believe, or what evidence I used to reach that belief?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asserting something.
> 
> I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.
> 
> And that is axiomatic knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.
> 
> If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.
Click to expand...


In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.

You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."

The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.

Try again.

Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, thats not my position at all
> 
> 
> 
> and thats like the 80th time you argued against something i didnt even hold as a position of mine
> 
> but carry on, ego driven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't?
> 
> Then why do you continually argue that there is no evidence that the god I believe in exists? Especially given the fact that you don't know what I believe, or what evidence I used to reach that belief?
Click to expand...


I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.



Even if that was true, which it isn't, science predicts the future hot/cold death of the universe because entropy is increasing constantly, which proves it is not eternal. That  makes your claim that it might be eternal flat out wrong.

Just to give you a basic primer of why you are wrong to claim the science says all the energy of the universe was in the singularity, the laws we now consider universal did not exist until after Big Bang. I don't remember the exact time frame, but there was a time the laws of physics did not exist. Thus, any argument based on the laws of physics, which is what you are trying to d when you say all the energy of the universe existed in the singularity, is inherently flawed. Essentially, you are arguing that the universe had a creator when you make your argument, you are just to stupid to understand what you are saying.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Edit post #897*

The second paragraph should read:

*But folks can't see any of this until they (1) understand things like what objective evidence is, what proofs are and what real knowledge is (both subjective and objective, demonstrable and non-demonstrable) and (2) what the fundamental absolutes regarding the problems of existence and origin are, which everybody knows once they look at them.*​
(Thank you, Justin, for the tip.  It is poorly written and confusing.  This is better.  The terms _non-empirical_ and _immediate_ are confusing.  These guys are rubbing off on me.  Simply:  *demonstrable and non-demonstrable.  *There's also a disagreement in a number in the first paragraph.  LOL!  Multitasking.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.



Unless you are arguing for the existence of a God that managed to override the laws of physics, you are not making any sense.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that was true, which it isn't, science predicts the future hot/cold death of the universe because entropy is increasing constantly, which proves it is not eternal. That  makes your claim that it might be eternal flat out wrong.
> 
> Just to give you a basic primer of why you are wrong to claim the science says all the energy of the universe was in the singularity, the laws we now consider universal did not exist until after Big Bang. I don't remember the exact time frame, but there was a time the laws of physics did not exist. Thus, any argument based on the laws of physics, which is what you are trying to d when you say all the energy of the universe existed in the singularity, is inherently flawed. Essentially, you are arguing that the universe had a creator when you make your argument, you are just to stupid to understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.

But I did not invoke the laws of physics. 

So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said. 

Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are arguing for the existence of a God that managed to override the laws of physics, you are not making any sense.
Click to expand...


I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.

I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.



I did, oh he who thinks he understand things.



G.T. said:


> You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."
> 
> The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.



Prove it, oh he who thinks axioms are real.



G.T. said:


> Try again.



After you.



G.T. said:


> Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.



Yet, if it is unable to access the fact that it has all knowledge, my point still stands. You, on the other hand, are stuck with declaring you are right, and then proclaiming that anyone who doesn't recognize that fact, is stupid, all without providing any evidence beyond your belief in the existence of axioms.

Perhaps you should read some science fiction, you might discover how limited your understanding of thought is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.


You argue from ignorance then.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to question it, you need to present a basis for said questioning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, oh he who thinks he understand things.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said: "I see no eason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it."
> 
> The unawareness you describe, is knowledge they don't know hence negating their all knowingness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it, oh he who thinks axioms are real.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edit to add: the computer's inability to supersede its programming and access its contents is an example of knowledge that it does not know. Plus, bad example because the "all knowledge" its set to collect would necessarily include the fact that it itself contains all knowledge - therefore, it KNOWS it knows everything - or else it hasn't COLLECTED all knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet, if it is unable to access the fact that it has all knowledge, my point still stands. You, on the other hand, are stuck with declaring you are right, and then proclaiming that anyone who doesn't recognize that fact, is stupid, all without providing any evidence beyond your belief in the existence of axioms.
> 
> Perhaps you should read some science fiction, you might discover how limited your understanding of thought is.
Click to expand...



You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail. 

A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge.  Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous. 

You said it collects "all knowledge."

That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.
> 
> But I did not invoke the laws of physics.
> 
> So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.
> 
> Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.



Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.

Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I argue that the evidence is not conclusive, or even suggestive since it is a "choice" what you consider it evidence OF, since there remains other, also unproven or not disproven, explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> You argue from ignorance then.
Click to expand...

No, actually, to assign the evidence to something without having concrete reason to.............is arguing from ignorance.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.
> 
> But I did not invoke the laws of physics.
> 
> So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.
> 
> Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.
> 
> Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

keep responding, you fall more and more apart with every post, windbag.

you possess the most accurate screen-name of all of them


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thye laws of physics break down within the singularity, yes.
> 
> But I did not invoke the laws of physics.
> 
> So - time #81 or so where you argued against something I never said.
> 
> Keep going, silly. Your blood pressure can handle it I promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, when you invoked conversation of energy to argue that the singularity contained all the energy of the universe, you didn't actually invoke it.
> 
> Good call, and a definitive proof that I was right when I said you are too stupid to understand what you are saying.
Click to expand...

also - way to ignore that the singularity's origins are unknown, which is in effect the POINT. 

You NEED to bloviate and dance in order to ignore the essence, AS ALWAYS, you're  WINDBAG.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.
> 
> I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.



Keep trying.

The issue here is your claim that the singularity is eternal. FYI, eternal means without beginning or end. I don't need to provide any evidence of the origin of the singularity to disprove your claim, all I have to do is point at the existence of the universe.

The singularity is not eternal, and never was. Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail.
> 
> A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge.  Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous.
> 
> You said it collects "all knowledge."
> 
> That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.



Dayam.

You really have a problem with English, don't you?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not invoking the law that energy cannot be created n'or destroyed.
> 
> I'm invoking the fact that the gravity of the universe was once a singularity - *but* said singularity's age & origin is not yet determined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep trying.
> 
> The issue here is your claim that the singularity is eternal. FYI, eternal means without beginning or end. I don't need to provide any evidence of the origin of the singularity to disprove your claim, all I have to do is point at the existence of the universe.
> 
> The singularity is not eternal, and never was. Just admit you used the wrong word and move on.
Click to expand...

I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the *beginning* which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not presented an example of where the axiom could fail.
> 
> A computer that possesses all knowledge necessarily knows it possesses all knowledge.  Its access to said knowledge is irrelevant to whether or not it possesses it and knows it possesses it, you example was horrendous.
> 
> You said it collects "all knowledge."
> 
> That it then possesses "All knowledge" becomes knowledge. Does it not collect that bit? Then it doesnt even possess all knowledge. Ya rick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayam.
> 
> You really have a problem with English, don't you?
Click to expand...


I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> also - way to ignore that the singularity's origins are unknown, which is in effect the POINT.



How the fuck is that the point? The point is that it is not eternal, oh he who says stupid things and then blames others for them.



G.T. said:


> You NEED to bloviate and dance in order to ignore the essence, AS ALWAYS, you're  WINDBAG.



Actually, since you are the one that made the idiotic claim that the singularity might be eternal, you are the one doing everything you are accusing me of?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the *beginning* which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.



Even if that is what you meant, you used a word that meant something else.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit you're a douchey prick and knew I just meant the *beginning* which was obvious by the surrounding text and the context of the conversation, but your OCD forced you to quibble over the meaninglessness because THATS WHAT YOU DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that is what you meant, you used a word that meant something else.
Click to expand...

It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.



Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, just like the computer I described.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.



Yet you used a word that means without beginning or end.

Lack of an education in English might explain that.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't know what all knowing means. Which is sort of a good reason to deflect, here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, just like the computer I described.
Click to expand...


"The capacity to"

is a distinction you're drawing.

I didnt say that, this is an axiom  I presented. I was not invoking the bible.


I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."

The contrary is impossible.

When you say that the computer has all knowledge, the computer knows it has all kowledge -

OR IT DOESNT HAVE THAT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ISNT ALL KNOWING. 


I'll await a better example of how it could be false. My mind's open................you just need the ability. G'luck.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was obvious to anyone who knew we were talking about the origins of everything. Dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you used a word that means without beginning or end.
> 
> Lack of an education in English might explain that.
Click to expand...

or being casual in conversation with an asshole who knows or should know what ya meant but theyre hell bent on being an asshole


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all.
> 
> Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.
Click to expand...


All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all.
> 
> Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.
Click to expand...


Yeah, _if_. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections.  He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.

Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!

All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!

What do they have?

*crickets chirping*

The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there.   The burden of proof has _never_ been on the assertion of theism.  That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all.
> 
> Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, _if_. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections.  He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.
> 
> Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!
> 
> All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!
> 
> What do they have?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there.   The burden of proof has _never_ been on the assertion of theism.  That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.
Click to expand...



This has got to be screwing up science if materialists are imposing their metaphysical assumption on their findings while corrupting the conventions justifiable knowledge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you admit that concrete proof for the existence of or not of deity is all that matters to me, guys.  You can dance on the head of a pin all you want: go for it.
> 
> Now having made sure we are all on the same sheet of music, I am a believer in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  He calls me by my first name and I call Him Lord.  Although Satan knows your name, some of you are letting it call you by your addictions, where as Jesus, who always knows your addictions (consider our radical atheists), calls you by your name.
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to share, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, you idiot.  You have concrete evidence, beginning with the universe itself and it's contents, including the things in your pin head that *everybody knows*:  objectively, universally and absolutely, dummy.  You don't care about concrete evidence at all.
> 
> Yours is the stuff of a purely academic substance that amounts to nothing more than a propositionally justifiable objection, which, of course, is _not_ justifiable knowledge, as such is _not_ explicable or demonstrable. And like others, you still don't understand what evidence and proof and knowledge are. In the meantime, every piece of the evidence for God's existence is justifiable knowledge: demonstrably, authoritatively and intuitively, you dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the OP is saying is that the arguments fail because of an academic distinction that makes no difference to the fact that the premises are verified and the conclusions are valid, only not really because it's doubtful the OP grasps anything of things you've shown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, _if_. What's sad is that newpolitics is under the impression that "all the great minds" somehow missed, in terms of justifiable knowledge, the understanding of propositionally justifiable objections.  He does not grasp what I've shown on this thread.
> 
> Yes. The premises are absolutely verified, independently and objectively!
> 
> All that's going on in the post-modern world today is the baby talk of ignoramuses who do not realize that the classical arguments are as solid as a rock. There is no argument that can lay a finger on them in terms of justifiable knowledge and the rules of formal logic. They are objectively valid in our minds! The only objection is the academic objection: These theorems might not be valid outside of our minds. Once again, okay. Prove it!
> 
> What do they have?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> The arguments have objectively established, justifiable knowledge on their side. Atheism is a negative. In the face of these things there's no there, there.   The burden of proof has _never_ been on the assertion of theism.  That's unmitigated hokum from drooling children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This has got to be screwing up science if materialists are imposing their metaphysical assumption on their findings while corrupting the conventions justifiable knowledge.
Click to expand...


It is. But not so much the hard sciences as we have both mathematics and well-established methods of gauging the behavior of phenomena. They do this or that. Ironically, it’s in the sciences closer to home, i.e., the life sciences, that are being badly distorted.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get you now.  And this is fine so long as the outcome really doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by outcome.  I don't see knowledge as necessarily requiring any outcome as much knowledge involves a journey of discovery that we are still on with no outcome yet in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are sitting in a seat on an airliner about to take off from New York to London, don't you think the fact the pilot can demonstrate his knowledge there is sufficient fuel to make the trip is a bit important?  If you are about to grab an exposed electrical wire, wouldn't you think your ability to demonstrate it isn't live might impact your future in some way?  If there is no outcome to this claim of knowledge, then I suppose it really doesn't matter whether you can demonstrate it or not.  But that is often not the case.  When it matters, you need to be able to demonstrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I thought we had reached an understanding of the difference between demonstrability and knowledge that is not demonstrable.
> 
> Unless you witnessed or participated in the fueling of the airplane and have the knowledge to know how much fuel is required to go X miles under X conditions, you are taking on pure faith that there is sufficient fuel to get you to your destination or that the plane is capable of utilizing it and getting you there for that matter.  The ONLY way the pilot could DEMONSTRATE that to you is by removing the fuel, showing it to you, and then have you watch him put it back into the plane and then in fact flying you to your destination.
> 
> The pilot's testimony about the fuel is a form of evidence and, if you trust the pilot to give you accurate information about that, it will be considered credible evidence.
> 
> You possess both knowledge and evidence that it is likely, within a high degree of mathematical probability, that the airplane will take you safely to your destination. But there is no way to demonstrate that until the flight happens.
> 
> There is no telescope capable of allowing us to see planets in other solar systems.  Scientists deduct they are there via differentiations in light emitting from other solar systems.  That is both scientifically calculated and definitely a form of evidence of what they conclude are planets that exist out there, and it is knowledge.  But we have absolutely no way to DEMONSTRATE that they are in fact identifying planets by that method.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  We have not reached an understanding.  There is a difference between my not demonstrating my knowledge to you and my being unable to demonstrate it, which is what I believe you meant with Aristotle.  So long as the knowledge itself is of no real consequence, this is fine.  But if it matters, then it must be demonstrable.  You can think you know about God without demonstrating it because it just doesn't matter, but you have to demonstrate you know how to operate a car to get a license, because that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  So we don't have an understanding.  I know a great deal of knowledge that is of major, even critical, consequence that I cannot demonstrate to a single other soul and so do you.  But some are unable to grasp the concept I guess.  I won't accuse you of being in the deliberately obtuse and intentionally disruptive group, but I gave the explanation my best shot.  I don't know if the failure to understand is in your inability to understand or whether I am a shitty teacher.  But either way we tried.
Click to expand...


Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.
> 
> So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.



So the people who have told you from the beginning, and told you again and again after that all through this discussion, that God's existence cannot be proven in the sense that you're talking about and have exhaustively explained to you what things like evidence, proofs and knowledge are, are to blame for your ignorance?

Just curious, are you still operating under the impression that the premises of the classical arguments have not been objectively and independently verified?  Do you still not understand that your distinction, which _we_ have always been cognizant of, is academically moot?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.



. . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.


----------



## G.T.

@Justin Davis 

Which argument, and which premise?

Let's do it one by one.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
Click to expand...


Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Food for thought: when you say things like "god is necessary for knowledge to exist," it appears as though you believe you've proven in the ultimate absolute sense that god even exists.
> 
> So forgive those who think you've been deluded into thinking that you're able to prove god in the ultimate absolute sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the people who have told you from the beginning, and told you again and again after that all through this discussion, that God's existence cannot be proven in the sense that you're talking about and have exhaustively explained to you what things like evidence, proofs and knowledge are, are to blame for your ignorance?
> 
> Just curious, are you still operating under the impression that the premises of the classical arguments have not been objectively and independently verified?  Do you still not understand that your distinction, which _we_ have always been cognizant of, is academically moot?
Click to expand...



It's the atheist and, apparently, the uneducable theists on this thread who routinely slam the door of their minds, not only on the larger philosophical and theological considerations, but even on the pertinent scientific implications!

It has been these on this thread who have imagined that the assertion of theism is the stuff of mere blind faith even after is has been incontrovertibly shown just how stupid that allegation is! *Yet these are the very same people who claim to know all kinds of things well beyond what any of the rest of us have ever even imagined we could prove in any way, shape or form!*  The rational connotations of _objectively_ don't exist! (*Forget about the fact that scientists are in search of the physiological-neurological basis for the manifest universality of humanity's apprehension of a number of certain absolutes.)* The universe is not evidence for a sentient first cause! The existence of the universe axiomatically proves atheism! (In truth, the atheists on this thread are still scratching their heads over my counter to that silliness, you know, their utterly empty slogan, the substance of which is beyond subjective, but resides somewhere in the Twilight Zone.) Theism doesn't have an epistemological leg to stand on! The objectively and universally apparent imperatives of the problem of origin, which *everybody knows or may know the moment they open their eyes,* don't exist! The fact that science itself necessarily rests on a metaphysical presupposition of one kind or another isn't true!  Demonstrable knowledge is necessarily physical!  We can do science without non-demonstrable knowledge!  Inexplicable/indemonstrable, academic distinctions (analytical dead ends) carry more weight than well-established justifiable knowledge!  All of the arguments for God's existence fail! (Oh? Well, I've shown that one of them pushes the more sensible materialists of professional standing to the brink of this universe and beyond. Of course the know-nothing atheists on this forum don't grasp that or why that's so. And that's just one of the arguments.)

None of these on this thread grasp what the nature of the classical arguments for God's existence is because they've never thought them through, let alone objectively considered them on their own terms.

What the hell does the typical atheist or the rabidly ignorant theist know about objectivity, anyway?

The fact of the matter is that all we've gotten from the know-nothings on this thread is subjective mush. They want to talk about everything else _but_ that which is objectively pertinent.

In the meantime, the learned theist considers all the evidence without prejudice, and _is_ a theist precisely because he knows that the preponderance of the _whole_ evidence overwhelming refutes the notion of a mindless origin.

This former atheist, yours truly, knows that the preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that God must be. What the hell was I thinking thirty years ago? I wasn't thinking about the _whole _of the evidence, that's what. What a damn fool I was.


----------



## ninja007

the sad thing is when these unbelievers realize the truth, it will be too late.


----------



## dblack

There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.
Click to expand...


As I suggested before, although it was Justin, I think, who first zeroed in on his problem: until he wraps his head around the more general, *unabridged* connotations of objectively, all we're ever going to get from him is subjective mush; after all, how do you fix someone who thinks we can do science without non-demonstrable knowledge? It would be funny, well, it still is, kind of, if it weren't so tragic.

Look, you're talking to a person who goes on and on about objective evidence as he argues classical skepticism! Aristotle, the man who is arguably the most important logician in history with regard to the developmental foundation for the modern scientific method, refuted the Skeptics who essentially argued that credible scientific knowledge wasn't possible. PFan thinks he's an empirical realist! LOL! He thinks he's Aristotle, if you get my meaning, and we're the Skeptics of guess work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> "The capacity to"
> 
> is a distinction you're drawing.
> 
> I didnt say that, this is an axiom  I presented. I was not invoking the bible.
> 
> 
> I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."
> 
> The contrary is impossible.
> 
> When you say that the computer has all knowledge, the computer knows it has all kowledge -
> 
> OR IT DOESNT HAVE THAT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ISNT ALL KNOWING.
> 
> 
> I'll await a better example of how it could be false. My mind's open................you just need the ability. G'luck.



We both agree you said that, the problem is I disagree with your assertion that universal truths, AKA axioms, exist outside the imagination of philosophers. You don't like the fact that I actually came up with an example that disproves your axiom, so you are claiming your belief in a concept trumps the reality that you cannot prove universal truths exist.

I won't wait for you to prove your assertion because we both know you cannot, nor will I wait for you to admit you cannot prove it because, again, we both know you won't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> or being casual in conversation with an asshole who knows or should know what ya meant but theyre hell bent on being an asshole



Newsflash, idiot, I never claimed the ability to read minds, all I can do is read what you wrote. You tried to argue that the singularity could be eternal, which is demonstrably false. When I pointed out you were wrong you tried to argue that the singularity was subject to the laws of physics, and suddenly discovered I knew enough to debunk that claim. You then claimed you didn't actually say that, even though it is what you meant. When I pointed out how absurd that was you switched to trying to argue you were saying that there is no evidence the singularity had a beginning. 

Funny that you didn't just take that position from the beginning, isn't it? Why did you wait for me to show you how stupid every possible defense you could muster is before you settled on the fact that I should be able to read your mind?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The capacity to"
> 
> is a distinction you're drawing.
> 
> I didnt say that, this is an axiom  I presented. I was not invoking the bible.
> 
> 
> I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."
> 
> The contrary is impossible.
> 
> When you say that the computer has all knowledge, the computer knows it has all kowledge -
> 
> OR IT DOESNT HAVE THAT PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ISNT ALL KNOWING.
> 
> 
> I'll await a better example of how it could be false. My mind's open................you just need the ability. G'luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both agree you said that, the problem is I disagree with your assertion that universal truths, AKA axioms, exist outside the imagination of philosophers. You don't like the fact that I actually came up with an example that disproves your axiom, so you are claiming your belief in a concept trumps the reality that you cannot prove universal truths exist.
> 
> I won't wait for you to prove your assertion because we both know you cannot, nor will I wait for you to admit you cannot prove it because, again, we both know you won't.
Click to expand...

Umm.your example didn't disprove it.

Your example was inept and I proved how.

Oy vey


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.



Yet more ill-educated mush.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.



Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.



> While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.
> 
> Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.


You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today

It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.



> Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.
> 
> Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."
> 
> The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.
> 
> The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.
> 
> Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.



Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic

As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Umm.your example didn't disprove it.
> 
> Your example was inept and I proved how.
> 
> Oy vey



Yet it did, you just refuse to accept that you are wrong.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm.your example didn't disprove it.
> 
> Your example was inept and I proved how.
> 
> Oy vey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it did, you just refuse to accept that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

You're just retarded.

If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -

Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.

Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.

Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains.
Click to expand...


From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
Click to expand...


Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.
> 
> Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today
> 
> It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.
> 
> Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."
> 
> The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.
> 
> The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.
> 
> Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic
> 
> As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.
Click to expand...


Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life.  I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away.  I didn't do AA or anything of that kind.  I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough!  That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum.  That was the beginning of my search for God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
Click to expand...


Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of.

But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.
> 
> Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today
> 
> It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.
> 
> Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."
> 
> The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.
> 
> The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.
> 
> Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic
> 
> As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life.  I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away.  I didn't do AA or anything of that kind.  I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough!  That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum.  That was the beginning of my search for God.
Click to expand...


If I may, how old are you, Justin?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.
Click to expand...


But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.
Click to expand...


Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how  is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.
> 
> Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today
> 
> It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.
> 
> Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."
> 
> The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.
> 
> The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.
> 
> Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic
> 
> As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life.  I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away.  I didn't do AA or anything of that kind.  I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough!  That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum.  That was the beginning of my search for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may, how old are you, Justin?
Click to expand...


Not very old actually. I'm 31.  I started my drinking career at 16 and got really good at in just a few months.  I married young too.  I quite drinking when I was 24, with a wife and two toddlers.  It seems like a long time ago because I changed my entire life and friends.  I had to.  I just made up my mind that I wasn't going to visit my dad on my family.  He wasn't a bad man, abusive or anything like that.  He just wasn't there, not mentally or emotionally.  I've run the family's plumbing business since I was 22.


----------



## PratchettFan

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.
Click to expand...


I thought I was clear on my point of view.  But let me make it as clear as possible.  The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge.  However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter.  Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion. 

But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned.  So I shall leave you alone.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has proven that free will exists, which means that the choices we make are not hardwired into our brains. That means that something beyond the physical confines of the brain allows us to do things that nothing in biological makeup can explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While passionate academic disagreement can be quite interesting, and even entertaining at times, it doesn't help us much in our everyday lives. So, do we have the power to influence our brains or not? Obviously, Dr. Schwartz and I believe that we do have the ability to harness the power of focused attention to change our brain in ways that are healthy and beneficial to us. Even more to the point, many of the thoughts, impulses, urges and sensations we experience do not reflect who we are or the life we want to live. These false missives are not true representations of us, but rather are inaccurate, and highly deceptive, brain messages.
> 
> Recognizing this fact, you likely will rapidly begin to see all the places where your brain is less than helpful - where it is working against you and your true goals and values in life. When you think about the brain and how it is structured, it makes sense. The brain's chief job is to keep you alive, so it tends to operate in a survival of the fittest mode. While that's certainly imperative when dealing with life-threatening situations, that approach does not help us much in society or in our relationships. Rather, it often gets us into trouble and cause us to act in ways we later regret. In short, the brain likely has run your life in a less than optimal way and caused you to experience one or more of the following at some point in your life: anxiety, self-doubt, perfectionism, behaving in ways or engaging in habits that are not good for you (e.g., over-texting, over-analyzing, stress eating, drinking too much and so on), ignoring your true self and/or wholeheartedly believing the stream of negative thoughts coursing through your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Are Not Your Brain Psychology Today
> 
> It is possible to overcome the "programming" that leads us into behavior we want to change, even when science can document physical changes to the brain that would, if we were just our brains, make such a change impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the neural level of explanation is appropriate. When scientists develop diagnostic tests or a medications for, say, Alzheimer's disease, they investigate the hallmarks of the condition: amyloid plaques that disrupt communication between neurons, and neurofibrillary tangles that degrade them.
> 
> Other times, a neural explanation can lead us astray. In my own field of addiction psychiatry, neurocentrism is ascendant -- and not for the better. Thanks to heavy promotion by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, addiction has been labeled a "brain disease."
> 
> The logic for this designation, as explained by former director Alan I. Leshner, is that "addiction is tied to changes in brain structure and function." True enough, repeated use of drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and alcohol alter the neural circuits that mediate the experience of pleasure as well as motivation, memory, inhibition, and planning -- modifications that we can often see on brain scans.
> 
> The critical question, though, is whether this neural disruption proves that the addict's behavior is involuntary and that he is incapable of self-control. It does not.
> 
> Take the case of actor Robert Downey, Jr., whose name was once synonymous with celebrity addiction. He said, "It's like I have a loaded gun in my mouth and my finger's on the trigger, and I like the taste of gunmetal." Downey went though episodes of rehabilitation and then relapse, but ultimately decided, while in the throes of "brain disease," to change his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distinguishing Brain From Mind - The Atlantic
> 
> As for a soul, since the Bible defines soul as anything that is alive, I am pretty sure your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many years ago, a heavy drinker, a polite description, I chose to change my life.  I simply stopped drinking, cold turkey, and after awhile, oh, after several months or so of not feeding that altered neural circuitry, the urge faded away.  I didn't do AA or anything of that kind.  I merely looked at my wife and my kids one day after an especially blurry-eyed morning and said enough!  That was the first time I knew that all the talk about "brain disease" and the like in the materialistic sense was hokum.  That was the beginning of my search for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may, how old are you, Justin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not very old actually. I'm 31.  I started my drinking career at 16 and got really good at in just a few months.  I married young too.  I quite drinking when I was 24, with a wife and two toddlers.  It seems like a long time ago because I changed my entire life and friends.  I had to.  I just made up my mind that I wasn't going to visit my dad on my family.  He wasn't a bad man, abusive or anything like that.  He just wasn't there, not mentally or emotionally.  I've run the family's plumbing business since I was 22.
Click to expand...


Good for you!  I too had a serious drinking problem almost three decades ago.  My experience was much the same.  I went cold turkey like you, though I relapsed a few times during the first year.  But then I determined that I would never let it happen again.  Life and family was plenty interesting enough after all. 

I didn't do AA either, not really, though I tried a few meetings--most depressing thing I ever did.  Folks were talking about trees and their dogs being their higher power.  I was still an atheist at the time, though never an asshole about it.  I could deal with talk about a substantive divinity, but dogs and trees?  I think it was my fourth or fifth meeting when this lady went off on some tangent about the spirit of the wind or some such being her higher power.  No thanks.  I left.     

Like you said, the draw for the juice just fades away after awhile if you don't feed the beast.  But I didn't have your insight about the soul until several years _after_ the fog cleared.  That's a very impressive insight given your age at the time.  After several years, I _could_ drink an occasional beer or glass of wine with dinner just like a normal person, and knew I could do it without going crazy.  You just know.  You can become a different person in a very profound way, and normal drinking is possible, though I haven't drunk anything for more than a decade but an occasional glass of wine, mostly  for health reasons.  It's just a glass of wine.  But I'm not suggesting you try that unless you know for sure and it's for the right reason.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> You're just retarded.
> 
> If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -
> 
> Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.
> 
> Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.
> 
> Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.



How do computers know anything? 

But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...



Perhaps you should expand your readings.

Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily

There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.


----------



## Foxfyre

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I was clear on my point of view.  But let me make it as clear as possible.  The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge.  However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter.  Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.
> 
> But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned.  So I shall leave you alone.
Click to expand...


The only point of view that you have offered is that knowledge that isn't demonstrable is irrelevant or unimportant or meaningless to anybody other than the one with the knowledge. You haven't offered any rationale for how that is so and you have ignored all my illustrations that argue against that point of view.  And you have not questioned my opinions but have simply said you disagree but will not offer an argument against the arguments I have made.

I actually thrive on those who question my opinions with an interest to know why I hold them or how I can defend them.  I figure if any opinion I hold cannot hold up against challenge or scrutiny, it probably isn't worth holding.

I do not enjoy the 'is too  - is not' form of debate that practically goes into contortions to avoid actually discussing the topic or articulating a rationale for a point of view.  And I usually find most ad hominem arguments offensive.

Do have a nice evening.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should expand your readings.
> 
> Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily
> 
> There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.
Click to expand...


Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how  is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?
Click to expand...


Well, I'll tell you what.  I'm not qualified to address this topic, because I don't know enough about the science.  I know more than the average Joe, but only as a consequence of my passing acquaintance with the science in my reading of the pertinent philosophical literature.  I know enough about the science to confidently assert what I did in the above, which is to say, I know enough to make me dangerous.  My perspective on the soul, my understanding, is theological, spiritual, biblical.  Now I can speak to that with authority.  As for the scientific side of it, I'd have to  defer to QW.  You'd do yourself a lot more good talking to him about it.  My comment went to your notion that there's little or no evidence for these things.  The evidence overwhelming points to God's existence.  I can be of some service there, but if you're interested I'd ask you to please read what I've written on that in this thread first.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my readings "science" hasn't even figured out what 'free will' is supposed to mean, so I'm curious what you mean by that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should expand your readings.
> 
> Do Fruit Flies Have Free Will -- ScienceDaily
> 
> There are a lot of things that human science cannot define that exist in this universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.
Click to expand...


That I'll grant you, about many scientists, that is, regarding their philosophical and especially their theological skills.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PratchettFan said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I was clear on my point of view.  But let me make it as clear as possible.  The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge.  However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter.  Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.
> 
> But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned.  So I shall leave you alone.
Click to expand...


Knowledge worth knowing _is_ belief, i.e., true belief knowledge, though one does have to keep the Gettier problem in mind, and, once again, demonstrable knowledge is _still _not what you think it is.  You really do need to open up your mind a bit . . . a lot, actually.  If we were to go at knowledge the way you would have it, we'd get a lot more things wrong and know significantly less than what can be confidently known or reasonably asserted, ironically, so that we might make the kind of errors that lead to the discovery of new things.  What puzzles me about you is that you don't have the insight to recognize that you're arguing with folks who _demonstrably_ known infinitely more than you about all this.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just retarded.
> 
> If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -
> 
> Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.
> 
> Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.
> 
> Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do computers know anything?
> 
> But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.
Click to expand...

You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just retarded.
> 
> If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -
> 
> Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.
> 
> Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.
> 
> Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do computers know anything?
> 
> But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.
Click to expand...



But honestly, this is a great example of the lengths of dishonesty you'd go to in a conversation, which reaffirms you're not worth having one with.

I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.

You tried to posit an example of where it's not true.

You said, a computer that is programmed to collect all knowledge, but doesnt have access to what it collects.

I said, part of ]"all knowledge" necessarily becomes that this computer HAS/COLLECTS "all knowledge," thus *that* is part of the knowledge it collects, thus it *knows it is all knowing. *

You come back with "how does a computer know anything?" and call me stupid?

Ummmmmm, jerkoff, if you're not calling the computer the knower in the first place, then it's not even an example that fits the scenario and who the fuck knows why you even presented it.

If you are calling the computer the knower, the example fails because a part of what it collects (all knowledge) is that it, itself, has all knowledge.

Try again, you dishonest schmuck.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
> 
> Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
> 
> If at all, it could be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
Click to expand...


I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing _can_ be imagined.  I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined.  It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.  

I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true.  It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.   

In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not _time_, as we understand it, has always existed is odd.  Just cut to the chase.  If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist.  I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no.  I grasp the concept.  I really do.  I just think you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . he boorishly quipped for the zillionth time, once again, without a shred *objective evidence*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without a shred of ANY evidence period..  He refuses to acknowledge the illustrations provided--illustrations a third grader could easily understand--and has yet to come up with a single appropriately focused rationale or objective illustration of his own to support his point of view.  He has given me a glimmer of hope that he finally got it a couple of times, and then when I acknowledged that, he says he wasn't agreeing with me and sees it entirely differently.  But he can't or won't explain or illustrate what that difference is.  LOL.  I can't recall ever having a student like that in one of my classes, but if I did, I think I would suggest he or she might be more interested in another subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought I was clear on my point of view.  But let me make it as clear as possible.  The idea that knowledge need not be demonstrable is simply an excuse to call belief knowledge.  However, since this insistence that belief is knowledge is unlikely to affect anyone but yourself, it really doesn't matter.  Ultimately, the concept is simply an exercise in self delusion.
> 
> But this subject is clearly wrung out and I can see you don't care to have your opinions questioned.  So I shall leave you alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowledge worth knowing _is_ belief, i.e., true belief knowledge, though one does have to keep the Gettier problem in mind, and, once again, demonstrable knowledge is _still _not what you think it is.  You really do need to open up your mind a bit . . . a lot, actually.  If we were to go at knowledge the way you would have it, we'd get a lot more things wrong and know significantly less than what can be confidently known or reasonably asserted, ironically, so that we might make the kind of errors that lead to the discovery of new things.  What puzzles me about you is that you don't have the insight to recognize that you're arguing with folks who _demonstrably_ known infinitely more than you about all this.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis of the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what the precise substance of which the operator is composed.
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your self-awareness with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for either God or the human soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the thing. All the evidence suggests it isn't substance at all - it's organized information.
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is exactly as much proof of gods as there is proof of human souls, aka 'minds'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet more ill-educated mush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ia ir? Can you prove "you" are anything more than a brain and meat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to. Science already has. The literature's readily available.  Even a growing number of materialist philosophers in the face of scientific advances in this area and careful thought about the problem of qualia concede that at the very least the whole is greater than the sum of the neurological system's parts. If you're asking me do I believe that there is a corresponding, physiological-neurological infrastructure that provides for a material basis for the obvious, universally shared apprehensions of human cognition. Yes. I believe that too.  The real question now is _not_ whether or not there be an "operator" above the physiological level of being, but what is the precise substance the operator is composed of
> 
> But what I actually had in mind when I made that comment was whether or not the universe and your very own self-awareness were merely a figment of your imagination with regard to the supposed lack of evidence for the existence of God or the human soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ayup! And just as our own existence, that thing we refer to when we say "I", isn't composed of physical matter, but is, rather, a by-product of a self-referential representational system, well, how  is the concept of a god any different? To the extent that believers share a consistent conception of a god, and act out its will on earth, how is it any different than the self-conception that lies that core of self awareness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'll tell you what.  I'm not qualified to address this topic, because I don't know enough about the science.  I know more than the average Joe, but only as a consequence of my passing acquaintance with the science in my reading of the pertinent philosophical literature.  I know enough about the science to confidently assert what I did in the above, which is to say, I know enough to make me dangerous.  My perspective on the soul, my understanding, is theological, spiritual, biblical.  Now I can speak to that with authority.  As for the scientific side of it, I'd have to  defer to QW.  You'd do yourself a lot more good talking to him about it.  My comment went to your notion that there's little or no evidence for these things.  The evidence overwhelming points to God's existence.  I can be of some service there, but if you're interested I'd ask you to please read what I've written on that in this thread first.
Click to expand...


I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.

The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
> 
> Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
> 
> If at all, it could be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing _can_ be imagined.  I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined.  It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.
> 
> I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true.  It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.
> 
> In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not _time_, as we understand it, has always existed is odd.  Just cut to the chase.  If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist.  I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.
Click to expand...


You imagined it, but won't describe it?

Odd, that. 

You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession. 

But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower. hurr dee durr durr durr

Also - let's do these premises one at a time. 

Which premise cannot be logically refuted? Also - make sure it's also PROVEN, ABSOLUTELY, before you're asking for refutation. Because then, it's not even necessary to refute because it's merely an assertion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.



This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.

*crickets chirping*


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just retarded.
> 
> If a computer collects "all knowledge, " as you had suggested -
> 
> Then it IS KNOWLEDGE that said computer collects all knowledge.
> 
> Therefore, by the glory of Allah, the computer also knows it is all knowing.....dipshit.
> 
> Your example was dumb as fuck. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do computers know anything?
> 
> But, please, keep trying to show how smart you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone believes modern computers 'know', but is it possible? Could a computer with a neural network as complex as the human brain "know" things? Could it be self-aware? Could it be conscious?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
Click to expand...

Nope. 

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point. 

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same evidence is concrete for any "origins" theory.
> 
> Because we're discussing its origin, it BEING HERE AT ALL is evidence of what or however it originated.
> 
> If at all, it could be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the fact that science has pretty conclusively established that the universe is not eternal you have a pretty good point, for an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science has established that the universe's energy was once balled up into a singularity.
> 
> It hasn't established how long the singularity existed, be it aged or eternal.
> 
> And by eternal, you undying ****, it means the energy within, not the singularity itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing _can_ be imagined.  I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined.  It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.
> 
> I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true.  It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.
> 
> In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not _time_, as we understand it, has always existed is odd.  Just cut to the chase.  If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist.  I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You imagined it, but won't describe it?
> 
> Odd, that.
> 
> You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession.
> 
> But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower. hurr dee durr durr durr
> 
> Also - let's do these premises one at a time.
> 
> Which premise cannot be logically refuted? Also - make sure it's also PROVEN, ABSOLUTELY, before you're asking for refutation. Because then, it's not even necessary to refute because it's merely an assertion.
Click to expand...


You misread my post.  I don't disagree with you . . . assuming you're talking about God, not an artificial intelligence or a  computer programed to "believe" that the knowledge it possesses  at any given moment = all knowledge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.
> 
> The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.



I agree with all of this.  I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has.  That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this.  I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has.  That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing *an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.*
Click to expand...


What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this.  I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has.  That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing *an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.  I wasn't clear.  I was referring to free will.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asserting something.
> 
> I'm asserting that whether or not an omniscient god exists, in THIS UNIVERSE, an all knower cannot not know it is all knowing.
> 
> And that is axiomatic knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.
> 
> If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.
Click to expand...


But in order for one to know _everything_, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything?  It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> (responding to MDR):
> 
> I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.
> 
> The problem with scientist attempting to find evidence of things like 'free will' is that they don't even know what they mean by the term, and they haven't done the work to clarify it to the point that any meaningful evidence could be collected. The article hints at the real problems involved, pointing that neither pure deterministic behavior, nor random chance, seems to satisfy our notion of 'free will', but without any justification they conclude that it must be a mix of the two(?). But I don't see how some randomness and some determinism is meaningful, or gets us any closer to free will. And of course the problem is, that our conception of free will is simply in coherent. And we have to sort that out first.



And here we have an example of knowledge that is not demonstrable.  You have knowledge of a concept called 'free will' but it is neither testable, falsifiable, or demonstrable.  For me--going back to the not-making-things-harder-than-they-have-to-be school of logic--it is all quite simple.  We don't have to understand it or even be able to define it to know that the mind/soul exists and at least partially know how it expresses itself.  We can identify and sometimes treat various mental impairment or disorders but no one can demonstrate whether the mind/soul ceases to exist in cases of extreme brain damage or whether it continues but is no longer able to utilize the damaged body/brain that it was using to express itself.

And then we get down to the various concepts.
1.  Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that?  The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming.  Which does beg the question:  is there then a programmer?

2.  Are we being manipulated by some kind of invisible marionette strings to go through some kind of weird cosmic puppet show for the amusement or purpose of some being out there?  We are helpless to resist whatever the puppeteer determines will happen according to some kind of script?    Some who believe in God believe that he does know every single thing that will happen for all eternity which would in fact put us into that puppet show--if everything is already known than it is already scripted and we are powerless to change it.  But for most of us, that thing we call mind/soul rejects that concept too because we either don't believe in a puppeteer or our experience with God informs us that we ourselves choose between good and evil.

3.  Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge.  And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.

And that, is the basic definition of free will.  That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.
Click to expand...


But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.  So in fact you are talking about that very thing.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.  So in fact you are talking about that very thing.
Click to expand...


No, I don't agree.

All it takes to *defeat* any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Actually, it isn't because I am questioning it. If axiomatic really worked the way you think you would have to accept Rawling's axioms with the same lack of thought you apply to yours. I see no reason to believe that it is impossible for someone, or something, to know everything, but be unaware that he actually knows it. A good example of this would be some type of computer program that is charged with gathering all possible knowledge, but is unable to access the data it collects.
> 
> If you can provide some actual argument in defense of your "axiomatic knowledge" feel free. If not, feel free to simply declare victory.



*Continued from Post #879: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-30#post-9883604*

*The Transcendental Argument 
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists. *​

It seems to me that there remains a serious misunderstanding about _what_ the transcendental argument, which is the most powerful argument for God's existence, demonstrates. Though the following is _not_ in fact the ultimate point: by definition, there is nothing that may be known (or nothing that may exist) that is not known by an all-knowing knower. An all-knowing knower necessarily knows all things, including the awareness that it knows everything that may be known.

*An omniscient Being = Someone Who knows everything about everything/everyone that exists.*​
I’m not sure I understand what some are asserting regarding the computer analogy in the above, but assuming such a thing _did_ have the ability to access data: it appears to me that all we'd be describing is some form of artificial intelligence programmed to "believe" that the knowledge it knows at any given moment = all knowledge. In reality, of course, it would never know all that may be known about everything that exists, but merely know all there is to know, which is problematical, about the knowledge it possesses at any given moment.

This seems this is right, though it's certainly possible that I might have expressed something either here or elsewhere imperfectly.


----------



## G.T.

*The Transcendental Argument 
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists. *

#1 is a problem, right from the start.


----------



## Brucethethinker

"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"

Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist.  I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.


----------



## G.T.

Brucethethinker said:


> "Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
> 
> Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist.  I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.



I'd just like to see what you've got, I dont care if it proves anything or doesn't - I'd just like to be entertained pls.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.  So in fact you are talking about that very thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree.
> 
> All it takes to *defeat* any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.
> 
> I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.
> 
> I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -
Click to expand...


Forget about God for the moment.  That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.   

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know _everything_ there is to know about _everything_ that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists?  That's what I'm getting from you.  Is that in fact what you're saying?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.  So in fact you are talking about that very thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree.
> 
> All it takes to *defeat* any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.
> 
> I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.
> 
> I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about God for the moment.  That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.
> 
> Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know _everything_ there is to know about _everything_ that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists?  That's what I'm getting from you.  Is that in fact what you're saying?
Click to expand...



For context, 

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW. 

And this works independent of an all knower even having to exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Brucethethinker said:


> "Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
> 
> Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist.  I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.



This should


G.T. said:


> *The Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists. *
> 
> #1 is a problem, right from the start.



No.  The problem is that you have yet to coherently answer the defeat of your contention in *post #794* and, especially, in *post #879*.  The major premise cannot be refuted by any argument that does not in fact logically prove the major premise is valid. Nevertheless, the current vehicle, your absolute, will serve the same purpose.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
> 
> Yes, I can prove mathematically that god does exist.  I'll be happy to do so if anyone here really wants me to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists. *
> 
> #1 is a problem, right from the start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  The problem is that you have yet to coherently answer the defeat of your contention in *post #794* and, especially, in *post #879*.  The major premise cannot be refuted by any argument that does not in fact logically prove the major premise is valid. Nevertheless, the current vehicle, your absolute, will serve the same purpose.
Click to expand...


Define God. 

We can start there. 


The #1 above is an assertion, at this point. We are starting over so-as to not talk past each other, or we can just quit, it's no matter to me. 

But spare me 8paragraph diatribes because I skip those over. 

Why? Because there's so many things WITHIN THEM I'd contend with, that doing EVERY SINGLE ONE would be an undertaking simply not worth it on a message board.


----------



## G.T.

If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.

You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.

Double standard, and absurd.


----------



## Brucethethinker

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define God.
> 
> We can start there.
Click to expand...

Great, that will save me some steps.  Because it is meaningless to talk about if god exists or not without first defining god.

Defining god is not trivial.

There is a word "god", we've been using the word.  So the word "god" does exist. 

So what does the word "god" mean?  Well, what does any word mean?

I claim a word means what most people think it means.  Words are symbols used to communicate.  If I have one meaning for a word, and I'm speaking with someone who has a different meaning for the word, then we're not communicating with each other.

We're not only communicating with each other here in 2014, but we're also communicating with those who'll read our words many years from now.  Furthermore, those who've written about god many years ago are communicating with us today.

So, what has "god" meant to people throughout space and time?

You just have to think about it, and you'll know..  "God" has always meant the unknown.  Why is there lightning?  Because god is making lightening.  As soon as we came to understand the physics of lightning, we've stopped using "god" to "explain" it.  The problem people have is they try to "know" things about "god", which is an oxymoron.  As soon as you learn something about the unknown, it is no longer unknown.  If you knew the unknown, it wouldn't be unknown.

I didn't try very hard to write this up because, well, who would read it anyway?  But, basically, that's my argument.  It's totally solid and unrefutable.  No one whom I've ever shown this to has been satisfied, but that's not my problem.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement of yours is the first coherently and logically valid thing I've read from you on this issue . . . assuming, of course, that your talking about an absolutely  transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in order for your absolute to logically stand against any objection but the purely academic objection it would necessarily have to be an absolutely transcendent, independently eternal and self-subsistent, uncaused cause of all other things that exist.  So in fact you are talking about that very thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree.
> 
> All it takes to *defeat* any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.
> 
> I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.
> 
> I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about God for the moment.  That's confusing you, and it's not immediately relevant to the definition toward solving the problem of mutual understanding between you and me regarding the nature of the knowledge known by the all knower.
> 
> Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know _everything_ there is to know about _everything_ that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists?  That's what I'm getting from you.  Is that in fact what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For context,
> 
> The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.
> 
> So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
> The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW.
> 
> *And this works independent of an all knower even having to exist*.
Click to expand...


The emboldened is nonsense.  That has already been utterly annihilated as you unwittingly (or dishonestly, given the fact that you continue to assert this in the face of the following) conflate the issue of knowledge with the issue of existence.

All I need show is the following:

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*​
And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.  *​
And the reason this of yours doesn't hold is underscored in *post #794* and *post #879*.

Moving on. . . .
________________________________________

Right now I'm talking about what you asserted in your exchange with QW.  It appeared that you argued in that exchange that an all knower would necessarily know all things, or put more perfectly:

Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know _everything_ there is to know about _everything_ that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists?  That's what I'm getting from you.  Is that in fact what you're saying?​
If so, I agree with you.  Are you backing away from that now?


----------



## G.T.

Brucethethinker said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define God.
> 
> We can start there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, that will save me some steps.  Because it is meaningless to talk about if god exists or not without first defining god.
> 
> Defining god is not trivial.
> 
> There is a word "god", we've been using the word.  So the word "god" does exist.
> 
> So what does the word "god" mean?  Well, what does any word mean?
> 
> I claim a word means what most people think it means.  Words are symbols used to communicate.  If I have one meaning for a word, and I'm speaking with someone who has a different meaning for the word, then we're not communicating with each other.
> 
> We're not only communicating with each other here in 2014, but we're also communicating with those who'll read our words many years from now.  Furthermore, those who've written about god many years ago are communicating with us today.
> 
> So, what has "god" meant to people throughout space and time?
> 
> You just have to think about it, and you'll know..  "God" has always meant the unknown.  Why is there lightning?  Because god is making lightening.  As soon as we came to understand the physics of lightning, we've stopped using "god" to "explain" it.  The problem people have is they try to "know" things about "god", which is an oxymoron.  As soon as you learn something about the unknown, it is no longer unknown.  If you knew the unknown, it wouldn't be unknown.
> 
> I didn't try very hard to write this up because, well, who would read it anyway?  But, basically, that's my argument.  It's totally solid and unrefutable.  No one whom I've ever shown this to has been satisfied, but that's not my problem.
Click to expand...


It's not satisfactory.

Here's why:

The unknown answers still pre-existed our knowing them. They didn't change in nature once we knew them, so for them to have gone from "god" to "answers" suggests a change where there was none. Nothing changed about the answer itself, only our knowledge of it.

Why not call the unknown "the unknown," but instead "god" when it's frivolous/redundant to do so, is probably why those you're telling it to are not satisfied.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that?  The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming.  Which does beg the question:  is there then a programmer?



I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it _does_ make a difference.



> Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge.  And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.
> 
> And that, is the basic definition of free will.  That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.



I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than _because_ you are a good person (_because_ your parents taught you to be or _because_ you learned it brings the most happiness or _because_ ... etc, etc..) ?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.
> 
> You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.
> 
> Double standard, and absurd.



LOL!

I'm not asserting whether or not such a thing ultimately exists, or whether or not *either you or I believe *such a thing ultimately exists.

Dude!

*I'm asking you what you had in mind when you talked about the all-knowing knower with QW.  Did you or did you not assert that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things, including the knowledge that it did IN FACT know all things?*

Dude!

Would you agree with the following statement in terms of logical coherency or consistency ONLY?

*   Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?*​


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.
> 
> You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.
> 
> Double standard, and absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> I'm not asserting whether or not such a thing ultimately exists, or whether or not *either you or I believe *such a thing ultimately exists.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> *I'm asking you what you had in mind when you talked about the all-knowing knower with QW.  Did you or did you not assert that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things, including the knowledge that it did IN FACT know all things?*
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Would you agree with the following statement in terms of logical coherency or consistency ONLY?
> 
> [indent*]Is it or is it not your contention (your absolute) that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including the awareness that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? That's what I'm getting from you. Is that in fact what you're saying?*[/indent]
Click to expand...



The transcendental argument suggests such a thing ultimately exists. 

It fails because it's based on a presupposition. 

Believing in logical axioms is one presupposition. 
Believing logical axioms exist AND god is their source is TWO. 

I answered your question already, ask it one more time without going back and grabbing my answer and we can be done here.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

I believe that Jesus Christ was the living Son of God born to his mother Mary who was a virgin.  He was crucified and rose three days later to sit at the right hand of the Father.

If you believe, great.  If you don't, great as well.  Nuff said...


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that?  The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming.  Which does beg the question:  is there then a programmer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it _does_ make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge.  And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.
> 
> And that, is the basic definition of free will.  That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than _because_ you are a good person (_because_ your parents taught you to be or _because_ you learned it brings the most happiness or _because_ ... etc, etc..) ?
Click to expand...


To focus on the example you provided for purposes of discussion--as long as we both understand it is not the ONLY example that could be used--I think choosing good over evil/bad/destructive/counterproductive/etc. is all of the above.  Some of it is influenced by observing others, some of it is determined by moral teachings, some of it is influenced by our experience with what produces the most pleasurable or beneficial outcome, and some of it is by pure accident/random choice.

And some of it is via pure logic and reason--ability to deduce right and wrong that comes from no apparent external source but purely is a product of our own ability to reason and make choices.  Where does that come from?   A spark of the Divine or that which we label God?  Perhaps it is a possible piece of evidence for that puzzle.  But nevertheless, it is my opinion/observance/experience that it happens.

Example from the histories  of George Washington Carver that made an impression on me years ago:

He had long advanced from his beginnings as a slave and had obtained a reputation as a gifted and prestigious scientist, teacher, lecturer.  Attending a scientific conference, he was invited to join some white colleagues for lunch, but it was still the segregated south.  He was not allowed to be seated with his colleagues but could sit at a table in the kitchen with the other black folks.   His embarrassed colleagues suggested they leave and find another place, but time was short and he assured them it was fine.  He rankled under the injustice of it, but he also reasoned that if he was good enough to be treated as any other human being, he also was not too good to sit with the people in the kitchen.

Nobody taught him that.  The concept came from his own ability to reason and make moral judgments.  I think probably most of us have experienced the same ability to reason something differently than all others around us.  We choose to be the one lemming that doesn't follow the others off the cliff and into the sea.


----------



## Brucethethinker

G.T. said:


> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "God" has always meant the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not satisfactory.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it would be (a satisfactory explanation).  It takes awhile for it to sink in.



G.T. said:


> The unknown answers still pre-existed our knowing them. They didn't change in nature once we knew them, so for them to have gone from "god" to "answers" suggests a change where there was none. Nothing changed about the answer itself, only our knowledge of it.


Copernicus suggested that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system.  Sir Issac Newton invented calculus to describe the laws of nature.  However, the laws of motion can be described with the earth as the center of the solar system.  The only difference is that the calculations are more difficult.  Neither system, sun centered or earth centered, is more "correct".  The sun as the center of the solar system makes it easier for we humans to understand.

Therefore, I challenge your contention that "answers pre-existed our knowing them".



G.T. said:


> Why not call the unknown "the unknown,"...


Why not indeed?  Because calling it "god" enables us to pretend we have knowledge when in fact we don't.

It may seem trivial, but it really is quite profound.  As man learns more about the universe, he learns about himself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The transcendental argument suggests such a thing ultimately exists.
> 
> It fails because it's based on a presupposition.
> 
> Believing in logical axioms is one presupposition.
> 
> Believing logical axioms exist AND god is their source is TWO.
> 
> I answered your question already, ask it one more time without going back and grabbing my answer and we can be done here.



No. *You have not answered my question. None of this has anything to do with my question.* And in any event, you still do not understand the matter. Your allegation that the presupposition of God's existence in the major premise is not independently or objectively supported is hogwash, but you will either not acknowledge that or do not understand why that’s so. Hence, move on.

Focus! I'm asking you about the following only!

You wrote these things:



> . . .who can possibly know everything and not KNOW that he/she/it knows everything.  Because by default, that one thing they do not know - means they do not know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . You let me know how an all knower could not KNOW that it is all knowing, in your imagination, or I'll take it as a concession.  But if it doesnt know its all knowing, thats a piece of knowledge it doesnt posess thus its no longer even an all knower.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . I said, "an all knower necessarily has to KNOW it is all knowing."




If I understand you correctly, I agree with you on this point!

The only thing I'm asking _right now_—what is this, for the fourth time?—is, given what you have written, would you agree with the following statement, which is written in such a way as to eliminate QW's objection or any other potential objection:

*An all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including knowing that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? *​
For the fourth time, a simple *yes* will do, unless you've changed your mind or would tweak the statement to improve it, for it appears to me that we agree.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.



Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.

Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> You're the one who invoked the computer as a knower, dunce.



Sigh.

I invoked it as a way to illustrate who your claim that you have to know you know everything in order to be all knowing is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> But honestly, this is a great example of the lengths of dishonesty you'd go to in a conversation, which reaffirms you're not worth having one with.
> 
> I said that it's absolute that an all knower necessarily knows that it's all knowing.



Yes, you invoked an axiom claiming that it is universally true, which is a concept that only exist in philosophy, which has nothing to do with the real world. There are no universal truths outside of philosophy and logic.

Feel free to keep pretending that me understanding this somehow proves you are smarter than I am.



G.T. said:


> You tried to posit an example of where it's not true.



You know that because you are the Universal Arbiter of Truth.

Sounds stupid when I say it, doesn't it? Trust me, it sounds just as stupid when you say it.



G.T. said:


> You said, a computer that is programmed to collect all knowledge, but doesnt have access to what it collects.
> 
> I said, part of ]"all knowledge" necessarily becomes that this computer HAS/COLLECTS "all knowledge," thus *that* is part of the knowledge it collects, thus it *knows it is all knowing.*




Yet you fail to prove it is not true, you just assert your dogmatic decree as the Universal Arbiter of Truth.



G.T. said:


> You come back with "how does a computer know anything?" and call me stupid?



A mocking question which you have failed to answer.



G.T. said:


> Ummmmmm, jerkoff, if you're not calling the computer the knower in the first place, then it's not even an example that fits the scenario and who the fuck knows why you even presented it.



To mock your dogma.



G.T. said:


> If you are calling the computer the knower, the example fails because a part of what it collects (all knowledge) is that it, itself, has all knowledge.



What, other than being the Universal Arbiter of Truth, do you have to support that claim?



G.T. said:


> Try again, you dishonest schmuck.



But I am having so much fun mocking you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing _can_ be imagined.  I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined.  It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.
> 
> I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true.  It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.
> 
> In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not _time_, as we understand it, has always existed is odd.  Just cut to the chase.  If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist.  I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.



I am asserting that the universe is not bound the human philosophy of logic.

Seriously, why is that so hard to understand, especially when theology postulates an omniscient being that chooses not to know everything in order to give humans free will?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But in order for one to know _everything_, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything?  It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.



There are actually things I know that I don't know I know because I don't remember them consciously. Given an omnipotent, omniscient, being, why should I put limits on what that being can do simply because logic, which is a human created tool, tells me that it makes sense?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Continued from Post #879: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-30#post-9883604*
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists. *​
> 
> It seems to me that there remains a serious misunderstanding about _what_ the transcendental argument, which is the most powerful argument for God's existence, demonstrates. Though the following is _not_ in fact the ultimate point: by definition, there is nothing that may be known (or nothing that may exist) that is not known by an all-knowing knower. An all-knowing knower necessarily knows all things, including the awareness that it knows everything that may be known.
> 
> *An omniscient Being = Someone Who knows everything about everything/everyone that exists.*​
> I’m not sure I understand what some are asserting regarding the computer analogy in the above, but assuming such a thing _did_ have the ability to access data: it appears to me that all we'd be describing is some form of artificial intelligence programmed to "believe" that the knowledge it knows at any given moment = all knowledge. In reality, of course, it would never know all that may be known about everything that exists, but merely know all there is to know, which is problematical, about the knowledge it possesses at any given moment.
> 
> This seems this is right, though it's certainly possible that I might have expressed something either here or elsewhere imperfectly.



My apologies, I should have been clearer in my challenge, but I was talking to someone who barely understands logic, and I let my language slip.

The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic. I do not see any evidence that the universe is constrained by our ideas of logic. In fact, since logic can prove things that are demonstrably false, I see exactly the opposite. In order for something to be universally true, not just logically axiomatic, it would have to apply, without exception, every where in the universe. 

Given the existence of black holes, which actually break down all the laws of physics, but are still part of the universe, no physical law we know is universal. 
Assuming the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, and is thus beyond our ability to define, I refuse o believe that that being is in any way limited by our insistence that logical truths apply to him. Given that science has proven that the ability to make choices actually exists in living beings, and that I am incapable of explaining how someone can know all my choices before I make them and that I have free will, there must be some mechanism  to not know my choices until after they are made. That means that I have to assume that being omniscient only applies to current and past knowledge, or that we don't actually understand the concept.

Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> If you posit that logical absolutes are unaccounted for without a god which is an uncaused cause (which, you cant account for uncaused causes) you are being absurd.
> 
> You are asserting that logic is accounted for by something that is unaccounted for.
> 
> Double standard, and absurd.



How about if I posit that logical absolutes only exist because man created them?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.*
> 
> Free will exist, the universe is not deterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.
Click to expand...


The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.

Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?

And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than _because_ you are a good person (_because_ your parents taught you to be or _because_ you learned it brings the most happiness or _because_ ... etc, etc..) ?



Basically, it depends on the scale to which we apply it. One concept of determinism is that, if we restarted the universe again, we would get the exact same results. This is predetermination, and seems all but impossible given our current understanding of science.

Then we have the more limited concept of cause and effect, which has never actually been proven by science because we cannot think of a way to test it. This is sometimes called Laplace's demon because he was the first to explain the idea that, if we could somehow measure the position and moment of every atom in the universe at a given moment we would be able to determine everything that happened in the past, and everything that will happen in the future, simply by applying the laws of classical mechanics. Given the current understanding of quantum mechanics, I think we can see why this presents some problems.

Then we have adequate determinism, which is close to what is favored by Hawkings. This is the idea that, on the average, quantum events cancel out in the macroscopic world. This allows us to apply the rules of classical mechanics to the universe, and pretty much ignore the times when it doesn't work out as statistical blips. Ultimately, Heisenberg still wins with uncertainty.

By the way, I can actually use various quantum effects to prove that God does not see everything.

Ultimately, determinism is a philosophical argument that doesn't belong in the same realm as science.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.
> 
> Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?
> 
> And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.



It is actually pretty simple to define free will, it is the ability to make choices outside of the constraints of fate or necessity. Scientifically, I would define it as the ability to make choices that are counter to the theory that we are hardwired by biology.

Philosophy, at its best, is defined as the study of the nature of knowledge and existence. Sorry, but that is pure arrogance, philosophy is bullshit.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is coming up with a coherent conception of what "free will" even means. We overload it in fundamentally contradictory ways.
> 
> Are you defining free will as "will that is not deterministic"? If so, how does "not deterministic" differ from random?
> 
> And as far as the bolded part above, it's the most ignorant statement I think I've read from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is actually pretty simple to define free will, it is the ability to make choices outside of the constraints of fate or necessity. Scientifically, I would define it as the ability to make choices that are counter to the theory that we are hardwired by biology.
Click to expand...


That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.



> Philosophy, at its best, is defined as the study of the nature of knowledge and existence. Sorry, but that is pure arrogance, philosophy is bullshit.



Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we somehow pre-programmed via our DNA so that our every thought, physical response, and action is already determined from the moment of conceptions and there is nothing we can do to alter that?  The thing we call mind/soul instinctively rejects that concept, but of course that could be part of the programming.  Which does beg the question:  is there then a programmer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our conception of determinism is fundamentally flawed. First of all, I don't think 'determined' and 'pre-determined' are necessarily the same thing. That turns into a pretty subtle argument, so I won't get into it unless you're interested, but it _does_ make a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, via empirical experience, logic, reason, and ability to discern, we accept that we have a mind/soul that is able to reason, to understand, to accept, to reject, to choose, to go against its own nature, and to grow and develop and improve and expand in knowledge.  And while some will succumb to indoctrination and coercion and brain washing and status quo, some have ability to think outside the box and reject the conventional wisdom and see that there are better and different ways to think, to understand, to explore, to be.
> 
> And that, is the basic definition of free will.  That which we are and choose to be apart from what any others or any God ordains that we should or must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. And I don't think that kind of free will really depends on the rejection of "determinism". Whether reality is tightly bound by physical laws, and thus strictly causal, or not, doesn't really having any bearing on the concept of free will you describe here. *What you describe here is our ability make decisions, and that exists whether reality is fully predictable or not. And, when you dig into it, saying it's not predictable, contending that our innermost decisions are not bound by cause-and-effect - makes them weirdly meaningless. Why is it preferable to imagine that you choose good by random chance, rather than because you are a good person (because your parents taught you to be or because you learned it brings the most happiness or because ... etc, etc..)* ?
Click to expand...


Re the bolded part, we may have to have a wee bit of a friendly argument about that.  

Yesterday or the day before, I was debating another member who contends that if knowledge is not demonstrable, then it is inconsequential and essentially meaningless.  I am 100% certain that my disagreement with him about that is on point and so far nobody has challenged my rationale for why I think I'm on point about that.

And now you say that our decisions that are not bound by cause and effect are weirdly meaningless?  Can you make a rationale for that?  My anonymous act of random kindness when the recipient is not even aware of what is done for him is meaningless?  Or are you saying that if there is no effect as a result of the decision that it is meaningless? How would we know?

I have always preached (given opportunity to do so) that there is no knowledge that is not worth having.  Some things I read and quickly set aside as it has absolutely no relevance or interest to me.  And then maybe years later, something comes up in which that morsel of knowledge is important and I am wiser than I would have been had I never read that 'uninteresting' bit of information all those years ago.  How do we know the short range or long range effects of what we say, how we behave, what we write?   Most people have no clue who they are a role model to or what will have an unexpected and unanticipated impact on another person or something.  I don't think we have to have a specific reason or an end result in mind when we choose good over evil.  We don't have to know what the cause or effect will be.

And I don't think it makes any difference WHY we choose good or evil.  The result will be the same whether by culture/conditioning/education or by reasoning apart from everything else.  My argument there is that I believe I have observed and experienced reason and logic that is apart from and even counter to a person's culture/conditioning/education and while all of us will be influenced by our culture/conditioning/education, I believe we also are given free will to think and act outside of those influences and/or expectations.

I have a dinner date now so won't be able to respond for awhile.  But I shall return.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in order for one to know _everything_, wouldn't one necessarily know that one knew everything?  It appears that you're leaving something out of everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are actually things I know that I don't know I know because I don't remember them consciously.* Given an omnipotent, omniscient, being, why should I put limits on what that being can do simply because logic, which is a human created tool, tells me that it makes sense?
Click to expand...


Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened.  We're all in the same boat there.  But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience.  In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things.  At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we *know* for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something.  The distinction between _remembering_ and _forgetting_ is an operation of the law of contradiction.  Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.  

The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools.  They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature.  As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind:  you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind.  Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Continued from Post #879: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-30#post-9883604*
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists. *​
> 
> It seems to me that there remains a serious misunderstanding about _what_ the transcendental argument, which is the most powerful argument for God's existence, demonstrates. Though the following is _not_ in fact the ultimate point: by definition, there is nothing that may be known (or nothing that may exist) that is not known by an all-knowing knower. An all-knowing knower necessarily knows all things, including the awareness that it knows everything that may be known.
> 
> *An omniscient Being = Someone Who knows everything about everything/everyone that exists.*​
> I’m not sure I understand what some are asserting regarding the computer analogy in the above, but assuming such a thing _did_ have the ability to access data: it appears to me that all we'd be describing is some form of artificial intelligence programmed to "believe" that the knowledge it knows at any given moment = all knowledge. In reality, of course, it would never know all that may be known about everything that exists, but merely know all there is to know, which is problematical, about the knowledge it possesses at any given moment.
> 
> This seems this is right, though it's certainly possible that I might have expressed something either here or elsewhere imperfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies, I should have been clearer in my challenge, but I was talking to someone who barely understands logic, and I let my language slip.
> 
> *The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic.* I do not see any evidence that the universe is constrained by our ideas of logic. In fact, since logic can prove things that are demonstrably false, I see exactly the opposite. In order for something to be universally true, not just logically axiomatic, it would have to apply, without exception, every where in the universe.
> 
> *Given the existence of black holes, which actually break down all the laws of physics, but are still part of the universe, no physical law we know is universal.*
> Assuming the existence of a supernatural being that created the universe, and is thus beyond our ability to define, *I refuse o believe that that being is in any way limited by our insistence that logical truths apply to him.* Given that science has proven that the ability to make choices actually exists in living beings, and that *I am incapable of explaining how someone can know all my choices before I make them and that I have free will, there must be some mechanism  to not know my choices until after they are made.* That means that I have to assume that being omniscient only applies to current and past knowledge, or that we don't actually understand the concept.
> 
> Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.
Click to expand...


Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question. 

It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:

1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.   

Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
2.  The origin of logic?

3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).


Number 3 is the most daunting.

I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> And I don't think it makes any difference WHY we choose good or evil.  The result will be the same whether by culture/conditioning/education or by reasoning apart from everything else.  My argument there is that I believe I have observed and experienced reason and logic that is apart from and even counter to a person's culture/conditioning/education and while all of us will be influenced by our culture/conditioning/education, I believe we also are given free will to think and act outside of those influences and/or expectations.



Absolutely, and I totally agree with that conception of free will. But that doesn't, necessarily, conflict with causality. The current state of your mind is influenced by all your experiences and previous states of mind. One can be free to reason contrary to external influences even under strict causality, but that doesn't mean your thoughts and values that inform your decisions were caused by something. The kind of free will usually under debate is offered as an alternative to determinism, and see as a direct contradiction of causality. But I wonder how often those suggesting it are _actually_ talking about the kind of free will you're describing.

I honestly think that Laplace created much of the incoherence around the concept of free will with his 'demon'. By equivocating "causal" with "predetermined", he painted a picture of a universe with no freedom. This view is further compounded with the role free will takes in assigning moral accountability, such that not only is Laplace's deterministic world devoid of freedom, but also of moral responsibility. People rightfully reject such a world as 'hell' no one would want to live in (I don't think the demon characterization was accidental). But I think both assumptions - both that strict causality denies freedom, and that freedom from causality is a requirement for moral responsibility - are flawed, even though we tend to take both for granted.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just noticed this when I took a peak at your exchange with QW about the notion of someone having all knowledge without having the knowledge that it has all knowledge, which is inherently contradictory, though obviously such a thing _can_ be imagined.  I just did that. I can also imagine that two diametrically opposed ideas can both be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference (you know, like I just did about an all-knowing someone who is simultaneously not all-knowing), but I can't "un-absurd" what I imagined.  It is axiomatic that such a thing is logically absurd and can be reasonably rejected as having any value whatsoever in terms of justifiable knowledge.
> 
> I'm also not clear on what QW is asserting about the all knower, but the major premise in the transcendental argument cannot be logically refuted, as it is impossible to refute it without presupposing it to be true.  It would only be due to a lack of thought that one would fail to understand that.
> 
> In any event, your expression about the understanding that science has not determined whether or not _time_, as we understand it, has always existed is odd.  Just cut to the chase.  If the singularity were eternal, I wouldn't be writing this post, because I wouldn't exist.  I don't see why you're faulting QW, who, presumably, in the posts above this had a problem with the original expression of the idea you're after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asserting that the universe is not bound the human philosophy of logic.
> 
> Seriously, why is that so hard to understand, especially when theology postulates an omniscient being that chooses not to know everything in order to give humans free will?
Click to expand...


But both of these assertions are ultimately predicated on the assumption that the laws of logic are man made, not contingent on or derived from God.  Therein lies the rub.   We don't hold to the same premise.   I'm not sure which theology you're subscribing to.  I can tell you that Christianity holds that God is without exception omniscient and that creatures simultaneously have free will.  The key to understanding what appears to many as being an irresolvable paradox is to understand the biblical resolution that God exists in the eternal now.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.
> 
> Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and _some_ philosophical systems of thought are full shit.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists aren't, necessarily, skilled philosophers - often to their detriment. That article is a good example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is because philosophy is full of shit, and scientists deal in reality.
> 
> Free will exists, the universe is not predeterministic. You can post every single philosophical argument you want to defend the idea that I am wrong, I will point to actual scientific evidence that contradicts you to prove the negative I just claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and _some_ philosophical systems of thought are full shit.
Click to expand...





> *M.D:* Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and _some_ philosophical systems of thought are full shit.


.
such as the development of the Atomic-Bomb during a world wide conflict.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.



I already said that the universe is not deterministic, so I do not see how I could better answer your question than ignoring the part of it that is irrelevant.



dblack said:


> Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.



Only if you think philosophy, which gave us the idea that there are only 4 elements, actually has something pertinent to say about the universe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened.  We're all in the same boat there.  But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience.  In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things.  At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we *know* for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something.  The distinction between _remembering_ and _forgetting_ is an operation of the law of contradiction.  Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.
> 
> The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools.  They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature.  As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind:  you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind.  Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.



If the universe were logical there would be no way a single photon could go through two slits at the same time, yet it does happen. If the universe were logical a single photon would either go through both slits all the time, or through one slit all the time, it would not suddenly decide to behave one way when it is watched, and another way when it isn't.

Since the universe is not logical, the laws of logic do not apply to it, and are thus nothing more than the constructs of philosophers who like to think they can define the universe, and human thought.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, certainly, there's no argument about the emboldened.  We're all in the same boat there.  But ultimately the mechanism by which we recognize that to be true is the principle of identity, namely, the law of contradiction, not merely by way of experience.  In other words, we're aware from experience of the fact that we "forget" things.  At times we've all tried to retrieve information that we *know* for a fact we had previously filed, but can't pull it from the file. What we do remember (or consciously know) is that we stored information about something, but can't recall precisely what we stored about that something.  The distinction between _remembering_ and _forgetting_ is an operation of the law of contradiction.  Experience provides for the medium that permits the distinction to be made, but it is the built-in principle of identity that tells us precisely what distinction we are making as opposed to making any number of other necessary distinctions.
> 
> The fundamental principles of logic are not human-created tools.  They're a universally intrinsic component of our nature.  As for putting limits on an omniscient-omnipotent mind:  you're presupposing that the laws of logic are universally intrinsic, not human-created, as you recognize the distinction between the powers of apprehension and volition of finite minds and those of an omniscient mind.  Ultimately, what you're suggesting is that the laws of logic are not contingent on God or derived from God because they cannot be an intrinsic component of His being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the universe were logical there would be no way a single photon could go through two slits at the same time, yet it does happen. If the universe were logical a single photon would either go through both slits all the time, or through one slit all the time, it would not suddenly decide to behave one way when it is watched, and another way when it isn't.
> 
> Since the universe is not logical, the laws of logic do not apply to it, and are thus nothing more than the constructs of philosophers who like to think they can define the universe, and human thought.
Click to expand...


Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.



Don't hold your breath.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​


​
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.  




M.D. Rawlings said:


> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.



I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!



I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Or perhaps science necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, and _some_ philosophical systems of thought are full shit.



I haven't found a single philosophy that doesn't, at some point, make unverifiable assumptions about the universe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.



You do know that you are talking about ecology here, not something that is truly mind blowing. Nor does it prove that the universe is logical.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Quantum Windbag said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe is perfectly logical. Google temporal coexistence. Will blow your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that you are talking about ecology here, not something that is truly mind blowing. Nor does it prove that the universe is logical.
Click to expand...


Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's neither simple nor clear, and still doesn't address my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already said that the universe is not deterministic, so I do not see how I could better answer your question than ignoring the part of it that is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Seriously, that's just sad to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you think philosophy, which gave us the idea that there are only 4 elements, actually has something pertinent to say about the universe.
Click to expand...


Science can't happen without philosophy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Delta4Embassy said:


> Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.



Sigh.

Logic is a framework for argument. By definition, quantum mechanics falls outside that framework because it is part of the real universe, and not subject to human devised rules of reasoning. Just because you do not understand that simple fact does not mean the rest of the universe is bound by your ignorance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Science can't happen without philosophy.



That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> LOL!


That's so weird, maybe you're autistic. I answered it several times, and for being a dickhead and pretending I* didn't, you can apologize or you're dismissed. 

post 1020 answered it the very FIRST time you asked it, and then you continued asking. 

*"Nope. 

I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point. 

Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge."*





post 1028 elaborates.

*"No, I don't agree.

All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.

I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.

I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -"*
*





*

Then 1034 really solidifies my answer for you.

*"For context, 

The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.

So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW." *














And so, we're done. Or, you can apologize for stating that I continued to not answer. Peace.


----------



## G.T.

The presuppositional apologetic, also known as the tag argument, is reduced to a circular argument based on a naked assertion. 

God *is* such and such, such and such exists, therefore God. 

Circular. 

Logic and moral absolutes are also circular in origin; however, their existence is currently testable within our realm of existence and works. It's not based on a naked assertion, because you can see that, and why, it works. You cannot see or test this with god, unless you beg the question -> define him however conveniently/dishonestly you'd like, etc. 

That's what it all boils down to. You can type 70 paragraphs whining about that it's not true, but the tag argument is and has been inept. Fucking google it. Or, just think about why it's a naked assertion. I don't know.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can't happen without philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.
Click to expand...


Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.






> I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people *who came here only to attack the beliefs of others.*



and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?




> The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.



the only paradox would be free/will in a pre deterministic Universe ...

no but then the christian bible does negate free/will by their central precept that "No one comes to the Father except through me".

.


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science can't happen without philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a strange position to hold considering that you argued that scientists don't understand philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.
Click to expand...


Rather than be oblique, I'll explain. I didn't say scientists don't understand philosophy - all of the best ones understand it implicitly. I said they aren't _necessarily_ skilled in philosophy, and pointed out that, when that is the case, it is to their detriment. Philosophy is what distinguishes science from engineering and craft. Real science is about finding new understanding and new truth, and to do that effectively requires mastery of the tools we use to derive truth - and that is ultimate domain of philosophy.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
Click to expand...


The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.


----------



## Taz

God made himself, so why couldn't he make us?


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Foxfyre

Dot Com said:


>



Do you ever look up this stuff before you swallow it whole and post it?  Other than Jesus and Dionysus none of these figures are reported to have a mortal mother.  All but Jesus had a father who begat them in the usual way, so the virgin story doesn't hold up except in the case of Jesus.  There are other reports of virgin births in ancient mythology but they don't include the non-Jesus figures on your list.  Whoever put together this ridiculous comparison absolutely didn't do their homework and shame on you for furthering this nonsense that you will find posted for the gullible on anti-Christian, anti-religion websites, but never in the credible accounts of ancient mythology.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
Click to expand...



*?*


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Besides, *I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge*.



This suggests that God would choose to not be aware of something?


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
Click to expand...


LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.

My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.

My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.

Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Click to expand...



Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.



I have spent the last 35 years thinking about it, and see no reason your confusion should prompt more thought on my part.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BreezeWood said:


> and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?



Do you have actual examples I should consider, or should I just laugh?




BreezeWood said:


> the only paradox would be free/will in a pre deterministic Universe ...



Only if you think you know what you are talking about, which is clearly negated by what you just said.



BreezeWood said:


> no but then the christian bible does negate free/will by their central precept that "No one comes to the Father except through me".
> 
> .



Another example of how stupid people who don't actually read can be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Rather than be oblique, I'll explain. I didn't say scientists don't understand philosophy - all of the best ones understand it implicitly. I said they aren't _necessarily_ skilled in philosophy, and pointed out that, when that is the case, it is to their detriment. Philosophy is what distinguishes science from engineering and craft. Real science is about finding new understanding and new truth, and to do that effectively requires mastery of the tools we use to derive truth - and that is ultimate domain of philosophy.



Philosophy does not lead us to truth, it leads us to think we can explain the universe on our terms. It is a tool for the arrogant and the weak minded, not for people that really want to learn about the universe.

Saying science is about understanding the universe is like saying that building high speed trains will save energy, it is a completely unrealistic understanding of what science is.

Science is about gathering data, and discerning the order behind that data, the philosophy of science is to explain and predict, not to understand. This is why many believers are opposed to science, because it is not in any way concerned with the why, all it is focused on is the how. Ultimately, unless we can expand beyond the physical limitations imposed on us by biology, we will never understand how because the ability to understand ourselves completely is beyond the scope of our abilities.

Scientists actually understand this, philosophers do not. This is why, ultimately, philosophy is bullshit, it doesn't recognize that the tools it is using are limited by the people who use them. Philosophers are arrogant assholes who think they can do things that re impossible for normal human beings because they are taught that the universe is subject to their understanding. In reality, the universe doesn't give a shit about humans and what they think.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> This suggests that God would choose to not be aware of something?



Not really. First you have to define omniscience in such a way that God would be aware of your choices before you make them. Frankly, given what the Bible says about predestination, that will be hard to do.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
Click to expand...


I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever look up this stuff before you swallow it whole and post it?  Other than Jesus and Dionysus none of these figures are reported to have a mortal mother.  All but Jesus had a father who begat them in the usual way, so the virgin story doesn't hold up except in the case of Jesus.  There are other reports of virgin births in ancient mythology but they don't include the non-Jesus figures on your list.  Whoever put together this ridiculous comparison absolutely didn't do their homework and shame on you for furthering this nonsense that you will find posted for the gullible on anti-Christian, anti-religion websites, but never in the credible accounts of ancient mythology.
Click to expand...


Oh that makes the whole Jesus myth more believable.  NOT!  

Oh excuse us!  Apparently Mary was the only mortal woman hot enough for god to fuck.


----------



## sealybobo

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history.  Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.  

My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago.  They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc.  Doesn't seem that much different than now.

Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity.  None of it jives with reality or history.  So clearly all made up.


----------



## sealybobo

turzovka said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.
> 
> Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.
> 
> All because of their gods "time and chance."
> 
> Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.
Click to expand...


Why would someone today, who has never seen a god themself, who has all the facts, still believe one exists just because his corrupt church and ignorant ancestors told him there is one?  

I assume you are very gullible if you believe an unbelievable story just because everyone else you know believes it.  No wonder they call you their flock you sheep.  

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence.  Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to).  You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.



Of course we want to you fucking idiot!

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.


----------



## turzovka

sealybobo said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.
> 
> Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.
> 
> All because of their gods "time and chance."
> 
> Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would someone today, who has never seen a god themself, who has all the facts, still believe one exists just because his corrupt church and ignorant ancestors told him there is one?
> 
> I assume you are very gullible if you believe an unbelievable story just because everyone else you know believes it.  No wonder they call you their flock you sheep.
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...

 
So given there is no God then we can assume your earlier ancestors were apes?   And if we trace your family tree back further your earlier grandparents were what?....   sloths?... mice?     So for your theory to hold any veracity we continue our tracing the family tree and before that your ancestors were what?...  trout?...  clams?...   and before that?....   houseflies?        So you agree then.    If we stare at a fly it will one day become a trapeze artist.    This is what you believe for all intents and purposes.     And of course, without any intelligent designer, without any intelligence at all, without God of course.

No, we have never seen God, but God has revealed Himself untold thousands of times to the human race through divine manifestations.      Go start with this list of weeping statues.      Question:   How many have to be authentic for no explanation but divine intervention to be the reasonable, logical and only answer?     Don't play a child's game by finding a hoax and then excitedly proclaiming  "this means they are all hoaxes!"

Visions of Jesus Christ.com - Weeping statues and Icons


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history.  Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.
> 
> My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago.  They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc.  Doesn't seem that much different than now.
> 
> Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity.  None of it jives with reality or history.  So clearly all made up.



They have actual historical records of Pharaoh's being descended from gods, yet you want to quibble about the Bible saying Noah lived 350 years, even thogh the Bible doesn't make that claim?

Wow.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Of course we want to you fucking idiot!
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.



Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic. 

If only they taught basic history in school.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
Click to expand...


This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.

The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?

There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.

The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.

The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.

I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.

I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we want to you fucking idiot!
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic.
> 
> If only they taught basic history in school.
Click to expand...


That's arguable, but I know what you mean.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.



There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.


----------



## Yarddog

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.




well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place?  No one knows and they can t  prove its orgin .  Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God,  because every culture through out history has had one.  No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..

humans have 5 senses ,   sight  which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
                                         hearing  which is again limited by our physicsl world
                                         touch,  even more limited
                                          smell  , dito
                                          Taste ?  

There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of.  As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else......  of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.
Click to expand...



Actually, I believe that to be so as well.  We are told in scripture outright that many are chosen just as you say.  The Bible clearly states, for example, that the Apostles were predestined in the Calvinist sense, also, Moses, the prophets, King David. . . .  That's part of the equation.  But putting it altogether still hurts my head . . . really bad.  The Foreknowledge view seems to get at, but not quite.


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have actual examples I should consider, or should I just laugh?
Click to expand...


.by your account, hysterically.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have missed the point of my comment. I was highlighting that, however you assess the evidence of the existence of gods, it's approximately the same kind of evidence as the evidence of our own existence. When I say "our own existence", I'm talking about he existence of consciousness, not our bodies or even our brains, but the thing we think of as 'self'. I'm actually making the case here that gods are every bit as real as human minds.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this. I'm not sure science can explain the matter, but theology can and has. That's my only point, and I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing *an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part? Which assertion? What, in your view, would suffice as that foundation?
Click to expand...


Dang it!  dblack, you must think I'm whack. I'm not. I just lost the train of thought, but either way I wasn't clear. I wasn't alluding to free will, actually.

When I wrote "I doubt you would be open to understanding or accepting that assertion because in your first paragraph you assert something to be true without providing an absolute foundation on which we may be certain that it is true outside of our minds", I meant that you apparently do not believe there exists a transcendentally immutable, eternally self-subsistent Agent of first cause. The fundamental laws of thought are an intrinsic component of His being. That's ultimately what the transcendental argument for God's existence demonstrates. The major premise of the transcendental argument is demonstrably true via the laws of logic.

QW writes: "The problem is that axioms are logical truths, that does not make them automatically universal truths outside the realm of logic."

Well, on the face of that statement alone, I would agree. But we _do_ have an incontrovertible theorem, namely, the transcendental argument, that constitutes justifiable knowledge of compelling evidence that these axioms _are_ grounded in an immutable, universal Truth, namely, the eternally self-subsistent Agent of first cause. Granted, we'll still in "the realm of logic," but given the fact that the truth claim in the major premise is independently and objectively demonstrable after all, why should we believe that the axioms of logic aren't universal truths?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Yarddog said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place?  No one knows and they can t  prove its orgin .  Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God,  because every culture through out history has had one.  No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..
> 
> humans have 5 senses ,   sight  which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
> hearing  which is again limited by our physicsl world
> touch,  even more limited
> smell  , dito
> Taste ?
> 
> There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of.  As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else......  of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.


----------



## Yarddog

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place?  No one knows and they can t  prove its orgin .  Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God,  because every culture through out history has had one.  No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..
> 
> humans have 5 senses ,   sight  which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
> hearing  which is again limited by our physicsl world
> touch,  even more limited
> smell  , dito
> Taste ?
> 
> There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of.  As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else......  of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.
Click to expand...


Thats great, and Im not competing with anyone.  that was just a thought,  thats all


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Yarddog said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place?  No one knows and they can t  prove its orgin .  Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God,  because every culture through out history has had one.  No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..
> 
> humans have 5 senses ,   sight  which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
> hearing  which is again limited by our physicsl world
> touch,  even more limited
> smell  , dito
> Taste ?
> 
> There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of.  As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else......  of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats great, and Im not competing with anyone.  that was just a thought,  thats all
Click to expand...


It's not an easy business though, so no one's slighting you.  Just saying.  If you're interested, given the importance of the issue, you could start with post #91 and read on to see what I'm talking about.


----------



## Yarddog

91 ?     must be a diferent number


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, what is energy and where does it come from in the first place?  No one knows and they can t  prove its orgin .  Maybe some people have a sense that there is a God,  because every culture through out history has had one.  No one cant prove it, because if there is a God he would be on an entirely different level than Humans..
> 
> humans have 5 senses ,   sight  which is limited by the spectrum of light eyes can see.
> hearing  which is again limited by our physicsl world
> touch,  even more limited
> smell  , dito
> Taste ?
> 
> There may very easily be things going on around us that we are not aware of.  As far as a colony of bacteria on a test slide is concerned, It rules its own world for a short time and there is nothing else......  of course the senses of bacteria must be very limited and they could not imagine the depth of their situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I've already proved that the evidence overwhelming supports the contention that God must be, and the evidence it not the stuff of mere hunches or culture traditions at all.
Click to expand...

It's typical for the hyper-religious representing their inventions of gods to demand their gods "must be". None of the claims are ever accompanied by anything more than "... because I say so". 

What you actually proved is that your fundamentalist beliefs are nothing more than reiterations of tales and fables that are no more true than any other pedestrian claims to magical gawds and supernatural entities.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me, the Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a third option you should consider, the view that God calls some people to His service despite their personal choice. This view allows both free will and predestination to exist without conflict. If you want a good source for understanding this view point I suggest you start with The Hound of Heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I believe that to be so as well.  We are told in scripture outright that many are chosen just as you say.  The Bible clearly states, for example, that the Apostles were predestined in the Calvinist sense, also, Moses, the prophets, King David. . . .  That's part of the equation.  But putting it altogether still hurts my head . . . really bad.  The Foreknowledge view seems to get at, but not quite.
Click to expand...

You're told many things in the bibles that are not true. "The bibles clearly state..." Is clearly not a literal rendering of what rational people defined as fact. You don’t quite get that same message from the _Illiad_, do you? It's intended as a fictional retelling, and few people debate its relative accuracy. But you extremists think the various bibles _do_ relate an accurate worldview, and those opinions are representative of fear and superstition


----------



## DriftingSand

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



Yes:

It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Click to expand...


The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.


----------



## OZman

Came across this when I was looking for information on the holy annointing oil mentioned in scripture. I have no idea if it is true or not , but it certainly gave me a new perspective on the origins of divine inspiration in the bible. It was certainly worth a read.

kanehbosm


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
Click to expand...


Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.

For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.

*Exodus 32:9-14:*
  (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.

I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.

So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> *"For context,
> 
> The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.
> 
> So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
> The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW." *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .





G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> That's so weird, maybe you're autistic. I answered it several times, and for being a dickhead and pretending I* didn't, you can apologize or you're dismissed.
> 
> post 1020 answered it the very FIRST time you asked it, and then you continued asking.
> 
> *"Nope.
> 
> I'm talking about you, and me, and the all knower is only theoretical at this point.
> 
> Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> post 1028 elaborates.
> 
> *"No, I don't agree.
> 
> All it takes to defeat any logical objections to my absolute, is to establish that a knower exists. All it takes is one.
> 
> I posit that I'm one, I cannot prove that you exist but I'd venture to guess you're one too.
> 
> I also don't agree that there is DEFINITELY an independently eternal and self subsistent uncaused cause of all other things -"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Then 1034 really solidifies my answer for you.
> 
> *"For context,
> 
> The all knower part is theoretical only. I do not posit an all knower exists or doesn't.
> 
> So, the theoretical portion aside, my absolute is:
> The knower who doesn't know all (myself, or other humans if they exist) necessarily knows that he/she/it is NOT an all knower, because if he/she/it was an all knower, they'd necessarily KNOW." *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so, we're done. Or, you can apologize for stating that I continued to not answer. Peace.
Click to expand...


It doesn't look like you understand the point.  Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false?  That doesn't follow.  If anything you're arguing for Deism.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like you understand the point.  Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false?  That doesn't follow.  If anything you're arguing for Deism.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.

They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.

You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
Click to expand...


Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.

Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.


----------



## G.T.

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
Click to expand...



Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Click to expand...


That I can agree with!  There seems to be something more wrong with Q.W.'s thinking about logic and philosophy as it relates to science but I can't quite put my finger on it.  I'll have to think it about it more.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like you understand the point.  Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false?  That doesn't follow.  If anything you're arguing for Deism.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.
> 
> *[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.*
> 
> *[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work*
Click to expand...




The TAG is not naked.  M.D.R. already proved that and you're proving it right now.  So the first statement is false and you did try to debunk it before without success. The second statment is something I know.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
Click to expand...


You just proved the rules of logic again.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like you understand the point.  Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false?  That doesn't follow.  If anything you're arguing for Deism.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.
> 
> *[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.*
> 
> *[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TAG is not naked.  M.D.R. already proved that and you're proving it right now.  So the first statement is false and you did try to debunk it before without success. The second statment is something I know.
Click to expand...


No, I don't agree with the silly canard used within the tag argument that appealing to logic means appealing to god. 

Again, that is not a supported conclusion - it is a naked assertion.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved the rules of logic again.
Click to expand...


Which is fine, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. Joke's on you.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved the rules of logic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is fine, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. Joke's on you.
Click to expand...


You made an argument that assumed God's existence and that the rules of logic are absolute.  You just don't get that.  I do.  Looks like you believe in a deistic god.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't look like you understand the point.  Didn't you say this is happening independently of God before and that somehow all this shows that the claim in the first premise of the TAG is false?  That doesn't follow.  If anything you're arguing for Deism.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.
> 
> *[1] They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.*
> 
> *[2] You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TAG is not naked.  M.D.R. already proved that and you're proving it right now.  So the first statement is false and you did try to debunk it before without success. The second statment is something I know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't agree with the silly canard used within the tag argument that appealing to logic means appealing to god.
> 
> Again, that is not a supported conclusion - it is a naked assertion.
Click to expand...


Whatever you say, Deist.  What amazes me is that even some of the theists still don't get what Kant proved and what M.D.R. is trying to tell you guys.  We can say that the first premise in the argument may not be true in the ultimate sense outside our minds but we can't say that it's not true in our minds by an axiom of logic that is absolute every time we assume that the rules of logic are true and naturally we know they are.  If what you claim were true then it wouldn't matter.  There would be no TAG argument.  Why is there still a TAG argument?  Because any argument that tries to disprove the axiom necessarily assumes that its true.  And from what I can tell only M.D.R. and I understand that on this discussion, even though it's self-evident if you just stop and think for a little bit.  It's one of the axioms of human thought that can't be logically denied.  That's its independent support just like we can't make two plus two equal 25.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved the rules of logic again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is fine, except it doesn't mean what you think it means. Joke's on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made an argument that assumed God's existence and that the rules of logic are absolute.  You just don't get that.  I do.  Looks like you believe in a deistic god.
Click to expand...

No, the god's existence part is what the TAGers take liberty in inserting, but it's not supported. 

Using logic or agreeing that there are logical absolutes =/= an implication that god is their source. 

That is the naked assertion. 

I've yet to see any rational support for the premises of the tag argument. 

You've certainly not done it. 

MD Rawlings doesnt understand that the laws of logic are not conceptual, they are descriptive tools of what is physical.


----------



## G.T.

The tag argument is so utterly stupid. 

If logic is contingent upon anything, (god's mind), then it is not absolute. Absolute is defined as the exact opposite of being contingent upon anything. The tag argument can also be used against god's existence. The beauty of it. Wish I had though of it, but I don't do tag. 

if god exists, logical absolutes are contingent on him
absolutes are non-contingent
god does not exist


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


>



Yeah.  And this guy trying to say the other guy is wrong doesn't get it either.    So Kant just presupposed something that human logic doesn't absolutely and universally support?  That's what you think too?    The more I get what M.D.R. showed, the funnier all these posts that don't get it are.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  And this guy trying to say the other guy is wrong doesn't get it either.    So Kant just presupposed something that human logic doesn't absolutely and universally support?  That's what you think too?    The more I get what M.D.R. showed, the funnier all these posts that don't get it are.
Click to expand...

You can say it until you're blue in the face. 

Logical absolutes don't need a god to exist, and using logical absolutes is not assuming god. That's another tag naked assertion.

Logical absolutes are descriptions of the physical world, the physical world exists and operates under natural law, therefore natural law is the basis for logical absolutes. 

A = A is not a law that needs to be grounded in _*a mind*_. (god's mind) - to make it absolute. 

Nature is what grounds it, because a is never not a - in nature.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
Click to expand...


Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.


----------



## dblack

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
Click to expand...


Whoa! Man, my mind is blown. Pass me that joint.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Maybe God is just the human race advanced to a level billions, even trillions of years beyond where we are.

Maybe our world is just a science project created by some superhuman kid who wanted to show how his ancestors lived trillions of years ago.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
Click to expand...


I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Yarddog said:


> 91 ?     must be a diferent number




Sorry.  Start with *post #99* and *post #106*.


----------



## Mertex

I don't need to prove that there is a God.  I believe it, I have all the proof I need, which I'm sure if I were to disclose it would seem like happenstance to those who choose not to believe.  I don't choose to push my faith/religion on anyone, because it is a personal thing.  If you don't want to believe, that is your choice.  Even God gives us a choice.  There will be no proof until the end of times, and at that time, those who don't believe may choose to do so at that time, but it will be too late.

Like C. S. Lewis said in his book "Mere Christianity" -



newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> *Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.*



What is so interesting is that atheists are consumed with the idea that Christians must prove there is a God.  They keep insisting that Christians/believers must show proof that there is a God, as if to finally feel good about not believing.  If you don't believe there is a God, that is fine, that is your choice, but apparently you are not content with just not believing, you are bothered by those who do, otherwise you wouldn't continue to ask for proof.

I don't need to prove to anyone that there is a God.  I believe it, I have all the proof I need to convince myself that there is, and it doesn't matter to me that I can't show you a Selfie of God or a letter that I got from Him or anything that you would consider without a doubt prove His existence, because all that matters to me is that I have enough proof to convince myself, and that is all that matters.   I do believe there is plenty of proof that there is a God, but those who choose not to believe will find some excuse to disregard it, so there is no point in trying to convince them.

As C. S. Lewis wrote in his book "Mere Christianity", "There are certain things in Christianity that can be understood from the outside, before you become a Christian, but there are a great many things that cannot be understood until after you have gone a certain distance along the Christian road".   There will come a time when there will be proof, but for those who choose not to believe, it will be too late.  When the author walks on the stage, the play is over.....there will be no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up....it will no longer be the time for choosing, but rather the time to discover which side we have chosen.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
Click to expand...


From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet.  My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime.  I believe it'll all make sense later.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because *we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
Click to expand...


Sure it can if one accepts that reason and logic can arrive at truth and that all truth is not necessarily demonstrable or quantifiable.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
Click to expand...


LOL.  My son used to come up with such concepts that really make you think.  He postulated a similar thought one time that who knows whether each atom contains a whole other universe and is, as you suggest, a component in a much larger one and so on.  He suggested it gives you a whole new perspective when you throw another log on the fire.....all those universes. . . . .


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa! Man, my mind is blown. Pass me that joint.
Click to expand...


Oh come on.  Surely you aren't so jaded and stuffy that you haven't contemplated the 'what if' scenarios that our mind is capable of conceiving?  I personally believe much scientific knowledge evolved from just such creative mind games.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Logic is a framework for argument. By definition, quantum mechanics falls outside that framework because it is part of the real universe, and not subject to human devised rules of reasoning. Just because you do not understand that simple fact does not mean the rest of the universe is bound by your ignorance.
Click to expand...


You and I are apparently talking about two different things.

In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are _not_ man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.

It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.

Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa! Man, my mind is blown. Pass me that joint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on.  Surely you aren't so jaded and stuffy that you haven't contemplated the 'what if' scenarios that our mind is capable of conceiving?  I personally believe much scientific knowledge evolved from just such creative mind games.
Click to expand...


Not at all! I was just being a little goofy. Infinite possibility out there. We should never quit considering it.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
Click to expand...


We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.


----------



## BreezeWood

Foxfyre said:


> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, *that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.*  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.





> that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.



*... limited by*

what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.

at any time ...

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> That's so weird, maybe you're autistic. I answered it several times, and for being a dickhead and pretending I* didn't, you can apologize or you're dismissed.
> 
> . . . *Because the converse, is that a NON all knower KNOWS that he or she is NOT all knowing, because if they WERE all knowing, they'd necessarily HAVE that knowledge."*



*This is the only thing that is relevant to my question. *The rest is noise, especially the Jakevellian, obtuse-as-a-pile-of-bricks banalities regarding what are nothing more than purely academic objections that make no difference to what matters.

*But this is still not a direct answer to my question.
*
The fact that you don't recognize *the reason I'm asking you to define the terms of the exact expression of the absolute you asserted about the all-knowing knower* further underscores the fact of just how little you understand about the necessities of logic and rational discourse.

Further, I don't need _you_ to explain to _me_ what you were trying to communicate with the statement in the above—which is the INVERSE! not the CONVERSE!—of your statement regarding the all-knowing knower as such.

I asked you—due to your inability to comprehend that your alleged refutation is a conflation of _knowledge_ and _existence _and your shape-shifting blather—to affirm your statement about *the all-knowing knower* for the purpose of defining terms, not about any other kind of expression of that idea or ultimate beliefs about that idea whatsoever!

*An all-knowing knower would necessarily know everything there is to know about everything that exists, including knowing that it does in fact know all things there is to know about everything/everyone that exists? *​
Is this essentially the same idea you had in mind regarding *the all-knowing knower* or not, Mr. Inverse-Not-Converse?

*Or is the real reason for your evasions the dawning of the Sun, i.e., the instinctual suspicion, as it's doubtful that it could be conscious, that your very own assertion regarding the logic of the all-knowing knower has implications that would wipe out your obtuse irrelevancies?*

Let's just cut to the chase. I'll take your inverse-not-converse expression as a _yes. _You agree with the expression in the above; that's what you were telling QW about the all-knowing knower. And, yes, the reason I zeroed in on that expression of your idea, not the inverse-not-converse expression of it, is because the implications _do_ wipe out your obtuse irrelevancies, which you might be able to see without the _doh!_ that you imagine to follow from your inverse-not-converse expression obstructing your view.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet.  My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime.  I believe it'll all make sense later.
Click to expand...


That's it.  My understanding of God is that I do have free will to love or reject, to choose well or to choose badly, and the choices I make do make a difference either in the here and now or in the grand scheme of things or both.  But I figure anybody who thinks they have God all figured out must believe in a very small God.  But even though it is all fascinating to me and I have devoted a good deal of my life seeking answers to those things we now can have answers for, I don't pretend to even speculate on how it all works.  But I do have a long list of unanswerable questions and all I ask to take with me when I leave this mortal body is that list.  Because I'm really curious about the answers.


----------



## Foxfyre

BreezeWood said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, *that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.*  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... limited by*
> 
> what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.
> 
> at any time ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So you think God required Columbus to sail west from the Port at Palos in Spain that fateful August day?  Or what are you saying?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The presuppositional apologetic, also known as the tag argument, is reduced to a circular argument based on a naked assertion.
> 
> God *is* such and such, such and such exists, therefore God.
> 
> Circular.
> 
> Logic and moral absolutes are also circular in origin; however, their existence is currently testable within our realm of existence and works. It's not based on a naked assertion, because you can see that, and why, it works. You cannot see or test this with god, unless you beg the question -> define him however conveniently/dishonestly you'd like, etc.
> 
> That's what it all boils down to. You can type 70 paragraphs whining about that it's not true, but the tag argument is and has been inept. Fucking google it. Or, just think about why it's a naked assertion. I don't know.




What do _I_ need to Google? Why did _you_ need to Google anything?

*The objections you're yammering on about for the umpteenth time are on this very thread, thoroughly addressed by ME!
*
Looky here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/is-there-one-sound-valid-syllogistic-argument-for-the-existence-of-god.376399/page-27#post-9877513
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9892385/


*I'm well aware of the potentially legitimate objection in terms of ultimacy, which in and of itself is not justifiable knowledge due to the fact that the claim in the major premise of the argument is independently and objectively verified by the conventions of logic!

And the allegation of circular reasoning/begging the question is an even more pathetically irrelevant objection.
*
Once again, I've already addressed these objections on this thread, and you have yet to demonstrate any awareness of that fact, let alone attempted to refute the annihilations of these objections, which means that like Jake you don't read or think about anything that challenges your preconceived and unexamined biases.

In the meantime, you unwittingly presuppose the universality of the principle of identity in terms of ultimacy, which necessarily means that you presuppose the major premise of the teleological argument to be true, JUST LIKE THE KNOW-NOTHING MORONS ON THE INTERNET WHO DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CENTURIES-OLD ANNIHILATIONS OF THESE OBJECTIONS, WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN THE POSTS WRITTEN BY YOURS TRULY (SEE LINKS IN THE ABOVE) AND DON'T KNOW THE FOLLOWING EITHER:

Though, in fact, the claim has been asserted by various authors of the Bible over the centuries, Kant was the first to _formally_ assert the transcendental argument. *It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia.* But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification just because it's expression is logically coherent or just because the essence of its ultimate Object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe. *If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.*

*Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. *Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that *the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition*.

. . . *the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid. *​
In the face of that independently and objectively established fact of human cognition regarding the major premise, the blather about circular reasoning is moot. The historical illiteracy and mindless, sheep think of post-modern materialism polluting the Internet does not overthrow the centuries-old, incontrovertible, logical proof.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
Click to expand...


Are you reading my posts?  I don't subscribe to the Calvinist view either, but I don't hold to the notion that absolute omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive either.  I don't think that follows at all.  The Foreknowledge view is something else. That's my view.  Predestination is asserted by the Bible at the very least in terms of a grand master plan and also in terms of certain historical figures, it also asserts free will.  I don't know of any serious, orthodox scholar who disputes any of these things.  This doesn't mean that Calvinist's view of predestination necessary follows, and I don't believe it does.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you reading my posts?  I don't subscribe to the Calvinist view either, but I don't hold to the notion that absolute omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive either.  I don't think that follows at all.  The Foreknowledge view is something else. That's my view.  Predestination is asserted by the Bible at the very least in terms of a grand master plan and also in terms of certain historical figures, it also asserts free will.  I don't know of any serious, orthodox scholar who disputes any of these things.  This doesn't mean that Calvinist's view of predestination necessary follows, and I don't believe it does.
Click to expand...


I am reading your posts--well, maybe not every single word of the really long technical ones--but I'm getting the gist of them I think.  I didn't mean to imply that we disagree on everything in this context.  But we may have some degree of disagreement on the free will/omniscience part.  I'm not sure that you and I see that in the same way.  And it makes not one whit of difference if we do disagree.


----------



## Justin Davis

[


M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Logic is a framework for argument. By definition, quantum mechanics falls outside that framework because it is part of the real universe, and not subject to human devised rules of reasoning. Just because you do not understand that simple fact does not mean the rest of the universe is bound by your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I are apparently talking about two different things.
> 
> In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are _not_ man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.
> 
> It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.
> 
> Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.
Click to expand...


That's it in a nutshell.  The rules of thought are organic.  This is common knowledge.  Since when have philosophers, theologians or scientist done anything at all without the organic logic of our minds?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.



What makes you think I am confused?


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't hold to the notion that absolute omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive either.  I don't think that follows at all. * The Foreknowledge view is something else. That's my view.  Predestination is asserted by the Bible at the very least in terms of a grand master plan and also in terms of certain historical figures, it also asserts free will.  I don't know of any serious, orthodox scholar who disputes any of these things.  This doesn't mean that Calvinist's view of predestination necessary follows, and I don't believe it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading your posts--well, maybe not every single word of the really long technical ones--but I'm getting the gist of them I think.  I didn't mean to imply that we disagree on everything in this context.  But we may have some degree of disagreement on the free will/omniscience part.  I'm not sure that you and I see that in the same way.  And it makes not one whit of difference if we do disagree.
Click to expand...


This reminds me of Wolfram's concept of *Computational Irreducability. *Which is based on the observation that science is largely a process of identifying 'shortcuts' - formulae and laws that let us predict the outcomes of physical processes in idealized situations. But the vast bulk of real-life processes are anything but idealized, and chaos theory has shown that most processes aren't accurately predictable with these shortcuts.

Wolfram concludes, that even with perfect knowledge, any system purported to be able to perfectly predict the future, would be at least as complicated as reality itself - with representations of the mass and momentum of every single subatomic particle - and that it couldn't possibly perform its calculations any more efficiently than the unaided unfolding of time. In other words, the fastest, most accurate way to see what will happen in the future is to let it happen.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> [
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citing the behaviour of photons in a double-slit experiment as being illogical is faulty. Quantum mechanics is perfectly logical, as is how a single atom can exist simutaneously in different positions (the aforementioned temporal coexistence.) Your lack of understanding doesn't bear out the statement the universe is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Logic is a framework for argument. By definition, quantum mechanics falls outside that framework because it is part of the real universe, and not subject to human devised rules of reasoning. Just because you do not understand that simple fact does not mean the rest of the universe is bound by your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I are apparently talking about two different things.
> 
> In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are _not_ man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.
> 
> It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.
> 
> Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's it in a nutshell.  The rules of thought are organic.  This is common knowledge.  Since when have philosophers, theologians or scientist done anything at all without the organic logic of our minds?
Click to expand...


When has anyone ever done anything without the fundamental mechanism of human apprehension?  Like I said, I don't know if QW rightly understands what I'm talking about.  There's absolutely nothing controversial about this fact of human life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> TAG's premises are naked assertions based on presupposition.
> 
> They don't need to be debunked, they've yet to be supported.
> 
> You don't go from we have knowledge, to we'd like for some knowledge to be absolute, to therefore god in any sound/rational way shape or form. It doesn't work



Your basic problem is you are assuming that you know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, for you, the premises of TAG as presented in this thread are actually based on logical arguments that are valid, which invalidates your claim that the premise is based on presupposition. The foundational premise of TAG actually a lot more basic than you think.

I am conscious of the identity of myself as the subject of different self-attributions of mental states.​
Ultimately, that premise is based on the single premise that almost everyone knows, I think. There is a whole chain of reasoning behind TAG that has not even been discussed in this thread, and you are assuming that TAG, as presented here, is  wrong simply because you are ignorant of everything behind Kant's argument.

Not that facts will actually make a difference to you, but they might sway someone who, unlike you, doesn't think he knows everything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."



How many times do I have to explain that logic does not apply to the universe?

That said, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the rules of logic that something has to be quantifiable to be true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> That I can agree with!  There seems to be something more wrong with Q.W.'s thinking about logic and philosophy as it relates to science but I can't quite put my finger on it.  I'll have to think it about it more.



Perhaps the problem is your misunderstanding of the difference between logic, which is a structure of formal argument, and is often used in math to define proofs, which makes it useful in a limited way for science, and philosophy, which is based on the idea that the universe is not only explainable, but that humans can actually understand the why behind everything if they think about it the right way. Why do you think Aristotle insisted that God had to be perfect, and then was stumped when challenged to explain the imperfections of the world he lived in? Or why scientist/philosophers urged the church to suppress Galileo's writings because they challenged Aristotle's teachings about the perfection of a geocentric solar system?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You and I are apparently talking about two different things.



Wouldn't be the first time that happened.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are _not_ man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.
> 
> It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.
> 
> Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.



I won't quibble that there are elements of logic that exist outside of man's creation. That, however, does not change the fact that logic, in and of itself, is a tool made by men to define the realm of argument, and that it does not, in any way, limit the universe or god.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BreezeWood said:


> *... limited by*
> 
> what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.
> 
> at any time ...
> 
> .


Really?

I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> I am reading your posts--well, maybe not every single word of the really long technical ones--but I'm getting the gist of them I think.  I didn't mean to imply that we disagree on everything in this context.  But we may have some degree of disagreement on the free will/omniscience part.  I'm not sure that you and I see that in the same way.  And it makes not one whit of difference if we do disagree.



I was just pointing out that I'm not a Calvinist.

If God exists in the eternal now, all existents and occurrences are before His "eyes" _right_ _now_! From God's eternal perspective, David is slaying Goliath right now! He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. There is no past or future for Him. He is. I AM.

With that in mind I don't see why absolute omniscience necessarily precludes free will at all.  I don't pretend to know if that's a perfect solution, but it's as close as we'll ever get to wrapping our heads around the whole of it, i.e., reconciling the various things the Bible claims to be happening simultaneously.

We simply can't comprehend the whole of what it means to live in the eternal now. We're not God. I put no constraints on the matter whatsoever. The Bible says God's absolutely omniscient, nothing is unknown to Him (and the intrinsic principle of identity asserts this), and yet free will persists, as does predestination.

You seem to think that absolute omniscience precludes free will. I don't.

I don't subscribe to Calvinism, and I know you don't either. But Calvinists (Presbyterians) don't hold that creaturely free will doesn't exist in terms of everyday life, but, rather, doesn't exist in terms of salvation. God predetermined from the beginning those who would be saved and those who would be damned without any regard to foreknowledge.

Martin Luther, by the way, flatly denied free will existed in any sense at all. He argued that the free will of the Bible merely alludes to the figment of our perceptual experience of things. But I believe the Bible teaches that it's a fact of creaturely reality, not merely an illusion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are apparently talking about two different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't be the first time that happened.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any event, the fundamental laws of thought/apprehension (collectively, the logical principle of identity) in and of themselves are _not_ man made, QW! That’s patently false! The logical principle of identity is the indispensable mechanism by which we deductively or inductively decipher and assimilate data. It's absolute, a universally intrinsic component of our nature.
> 
> It's the organic foundation for propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), first-order/predicate logic and the laws of inference, and a syllogism, for example, is just a framework for channeling logic.
> 
> Earlier you observed that it's possible to derive invalid conclusions from a logical framework or from some course of seemingly consistent logic. Sure. The reason that's true, of course, is that one or more of the premises is false, or they are all true, albeit, incongruently mated; and the mechanism by which we detect these kinds of problems or any number of logical fallacies is the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't quibble that there are elements of logic that exist outside of man's creation. That, however, does not change the fact that logic, in and of itself, is a tool made by men to define the realm of argument, and that it does not, in any way, limit the universe or god.
Click to expand...


For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.

This is _the_ logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the _tzelem elohim_ (in English, _the image of God_, in Latin, the _Imago Dei_) and the Greeks called it the _theiotes logos_ (the divine word).  It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle  of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet.  My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime.  I believe it'll all make sense later.
Click to expand...


Just so.  The Foreknowledge view coupled with the construct of the eternal Now is the closest we'll ever get to understanding that matter.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to explain that logic does not apply to the universe?
> 
> That said, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the rules of logic that something has to be quantifiable to be true.
Click to expand...

The part where her assertion involves an amount of something genius


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem.  It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple _yes_ or _no_.  The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian.  Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't hold your breath.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
> 
> 1.  The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic:  the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic.  By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
> 
> Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic:  the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional  logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  The origin of logic?
> 
> 3.  The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
> 
> 
> Number 3 is the most daunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The only logical absolute* that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
Click to expand...



Though from your exchange with Justin it appears that you don't actually think what QW's saying about logic is right, but this is important.  And we need to be clear.

On the face of it, relative to what QW's asserting, the emboldened is all wrong, Fox. Horrifically wrong. And this goes to the next level of realization regarding what the transcendental argument demonstrates, which I might as well get to now.

QW proves this idea is false in his very assertions. He necessarily presupposes that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument, for example, is true: the concomitant axiom that the laws of thought are absolutely and universally binding. That is to say, he necessarily presupposes that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally binding in order to make the very distinctions he's making about phenomena outside of our minds (see post *#1164*).

My question? Why does _this_ have to be explained?

If the properties and processes of the cosmological order are not synchronized with the mechanism by which we are able to coherently communicate with one another, understand one another, how in the world could we know that the cosmological order were actually up to something other than what it appears to be communicating to us as filtered through this very same mechanism?

We can't see things any other way. We can't make diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. * We can't escape the cognitively binding apprehensions of the logical principle of identity.*

What could possibly be the evidence for something that is contrary to what our minds could possibly perceive?

There is no such evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelming supports the axiom that the principle of identity is universally applicable.

QW's contention is just wrong.

This mechanism is not man made.  It's an inherent part of our nature.  We're an inherent part of nature.  The principle is an inherent part of all nature.  There's no grounds whatsoever to assert as he does that we are hopelessly incapable of ascertaining the truth about the phenomenal realities of the cosmological order.  We have been doing it for centuries with greater and greater accuracy as our store of knowledge has increased, and we will go on doing it with greater and greater accuracy for the same reason.

The transcendental argument cannot be falsified. _Any_ argument launched against it will necessarily presuppose the principle of identity, which strongly recommends that God must be; that is, an indivisible, immutable ground of universal Truth must exist. What platform within the divisible, mutable cosmological order could possibly account for this?

G.T.'s delusions of grandeur notwithstanding (posts *#1148* and *#1151*), the major premise of the transcendental argument is not merely some curiosity that's eerily unassailable or a mere academic exercise in logic.  *Justin* is right to laugh at him.  And by the way, being that it's logical proof is objectively and universally apparent, it _is_ demonstrable knowledge.

And allow me to further illustrate why it (like all other axiomatic truths) is demonstrable knowledge.

How do we know that Newtonian physics "break down"? How do we know that the theories of general and special relativity "break down"? How do we known that we have barely scratched the surface of quantum physics?  How do we know, for specifically, that while the recycling cosmos theory eloquently accounts for the conservation of energy, but still doesn't resolve the matter of how time itself began in the first place, as someone on this thread got into his head somehow?

By the categorical distinctions of the universally applicable principle of identity, that's how!  It obviously prevails at both the proscriptive and the descriptive levels of human apprehension.

Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood:  Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics _are_ logical. *Delta4Emabasy* in *posts #1068* and *#1072* has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, *dblack* has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science.  Philosophy proceeds science.  Science is contingent.  And the nature of  QW's assertions is philosophical, _not_ scientific.

What’s QW's error?

He's conflating our lack of knowledge with an imaginary breakdown of the absolute axiom of human cognition! This is the human in the gap fallacy.

What are we in search for? A unifying theory for everything, that's what. What are we lacking? The right thinking tool? No! We're lacking the knowledge that would resolve the apparent contradictions we recognize via a fully functional and universally applicable thinking tool.  This thinking tool puts absolutely no limits are our ability to decipher the cosmos.

Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of reveled religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the apparent substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. —Rawlings​


----------



## G.T.

You can type eight different languages and 600 paragraphs, the tag argument is still a canard, and its equally a canard that any argument against it proves it. 

The tag argument is giggle worthy, so you mock me I mock you la Dee fuckin DA.


----------



## BreezeWood

Foxfyre said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, *that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.*  And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... limited by*
> 
> what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.
> 
> at any time ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think God required Columbus to sail west from the Port at Palos in Spain that fateful August day?  Or what are you saying?
Click to expand...




> The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had,* that our logic and understanding will always be limited* by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time.



*
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*


the initiative is from within the individual to accomplish the timeless goal granted their Spirit by their physical presence.

perhapse you might better have asked by your account the sailor's stupidity for not waiting for a powered vessel than the one he chose ?


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... limited by*
> 
> what a defeatist, crossing the void and finding the land on the other side as Christopher Columbus is not by chance but the necessity required by the Almighty's Commandant of Remission to the Everlasting, available for any creature so desiring the voyage.
> 
> at any time ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.
Click to expand...




> I hate to point out the obvious, but there is actually a limit to what a human brain can process. Acknowledging that fact does not mean that people will never go to new places, it is simply reality.


.
how would you know without crossing the void first as Columbus to set foot on what was then to be discovered ?

speaking of Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing the solution is beyond us and like you say we don't have all the facts yet.  My reading of the good Book is that we are to trust God with these things in the meantime.  I believe it'll all make sense later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just so.  The Foreknowledge view coupled with the construct of the eternal Now is the closest we'll ever get to understanding that matter.
Click to expand...


I've never thought about the issue in terms of a foreknowledge view.  I didn't know about any formal names for it, but one of my first Bible lessons was a study of the names of God and their meanings.  Jehovah (or Yahweh) means, alternately, "He who causes to be" or "I am, that I am" depending on the context.  The study delved into the understanding of the God of the eternal now, so that's not new to me.  And yes it eventually got into what this means to the issue of omniscience and free will, so I do follow you.  I agree that when we keep the timelessness of the God of the Bible in mind it gives us a feel for how the two things can coexist after all, though it also has the feel that we are in need of more info in order to fully appreciate why.  Like you I've got no problem with believing they coexist in the absolute sense, but I think one has  to spend some time contemplating on the eternal now concept of existing or being to get there.  I absolutely believe that God helps us to see the matter by letting us know that He exists in the eternal now.  I now realize that you are obviously a Christian not a Deist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.
> 
> This is _the_ logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the _tzelem elohim_ (in English, _the image of God_, in Latin, the _Imago Dei_) and the Greeks called it the _theiotes logos_ (the divine word).  It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle  of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.



Classical logic is based on the three classical laws of thought.

The law of identity. For any proposition A: A=A

The law of non-contradiction.  For all Not A=(Not -A)

The law of the excluded middle. For all A: A or -A
The problem is that the universe really doesn't care about what we think, even if we consider it to be universally true. As an example, there is a particle in physics called a majorana fermion. These particles have a rather unusual property, they are both matter and anti matter at the same time. In other words, each of these particles is both A and -A at the same time, which clearly violates the law of the excluded middle.

I refuse to accept anything as universally true simply because it makes sense to me, I need evidence to support it.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> You can type eight different languages and 600 paragraphs, the tag argument is still a canard, and its equally a canard that any argument against it proves it.
> 
> The tag argument is giggle worthy, so you mock me I mock you la Dee fuckin DA.



He didn't mock you.  He proved you wrong and you just proved that you can't think in any other terms but the absolute rules of organic logic again.   You mock yourself.  Kant was just fooling around?.  That makes sense.  Not.    A canard is  a false or groundless belief.  So why can't you prove it wrong?  You can't because it's logically valid.  You're fooling yourself.  If I can get it, anybody can.


----------



## G.T.

Its proven a naked assertion, not proven 'wrong.'

Its not ultimately justified that logic or knowledge requires an eternal mind. 

You can support it, but not prove it, which is why as a premise it fails for building a case.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood:  Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics _are_ logical. *Delta4Emabasy* in *posts #1068* and *#1072* has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, *dblack* has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science.  Philosophy proceeds science.  Science is contingent.  And the nature of  QW's assertions is philosophical, _not_ scientific.



As a matter of clarification, while I will admit to a naturalistic bias, I don't have a "deterministic view" - ie I don't think the world is strictly deterministic. My point is simply that it has nothing to do with the issue of free will. An indeterministic reality might be "free" of causal dependencies, but offers us nothing like "will".


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood:  Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics _are_ logical. *Delta4Emabasy* in *posts #1068* and *#1072* has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism, *dblack* has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science.  Philosophy proceeds science.  Science is contingent.  And the nature of  QW's assertions is philosophical, _not_ scientific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of clarification, while I will admit to a naturalistic bias, I don't have a "deterministic view" - ie I don't think the world is strictly deterministic. My point is simply that it has nothing to do with the issue of free will. An indeterministic reality might be "free" of causal dependencies, but offers us nothing like "will".
Click to expand...


I apologize.  I misread you.  Wouldn't be the first time.  LOL!  We can talk about this more so that I might rightly understand you on that score.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history.  Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.
> 
> My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago.  They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc.  Doesn't seem that much different than now.
> 
> Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity.  None of it jives with reality or history.  So clearly all made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have actual historical records of Pharaoh's being descended from gods, yet you want to quibble about the Bible saying Noah lived 350 years, even thogh the Bible doesn't make that claim?
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.  

I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we want to you fucking idiot!
> 
> Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
> 
> If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that post must have drove the average IQ of the universe down a full point the moment you typed it.
> 
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but philosophy has spent thousands of years developing logical proofs that show god exists, and have even used logic to show what he must be like. Despite your massive ignorance, the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and perfect god you spend so much time railing against is not a product of Christianity, he is a product of logic.
> 
> If only they taught basic history in school.
Click to expand...


Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god?  Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow.  If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.

And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.



There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens? 

If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.


----------



## sealybobo

DriftingSand said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?
> 
> If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.
Click to expand...



Think about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god?  Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow.  If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.
> 
> And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.



The Jesus story? I must be confused, I thought that there were multiple stories about Jesus, including one that he visited India to learn from the Buddhist monks, and another that he traveled to the Americas to preach. Which one is it that you you think is the Jesus story?

By the way, oh he who thinks his brain controls reality, did you know that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any of the Pharaohs? In fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, yet you seem to have a pretty firm belief in him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Think about it.



I already told you that videos are for idiots, yet you keep posting them in response to my posts.

Think about it yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Its proven a naked assertion, not proven 'wrong.'
> 
> Its not ultimately justified that logic or knowledge requires an eternal mind.
> 
> You can support it, but not prove it, which is why as a premise it fails for building a case.



Oh, I'm sorry.  You must have missed this _again_:

Though, in fact, the claim has been asserted by various authors of the Bible over the centuries, Kant was the first to _formally_ assert the transcendental argument. *It has never been falsified! It can't be falsified, a well-established analytical fact in academia.* But more to the point, it's not impervious to falsification just because it's expression is logically coherent or just because the essence of its ultimate Object is not immediately accessible, as so many of you mistakenly believe. *If that were all there were to it, nobody would care. The reason it's important is because, eerily, any argument launched against it will actually prove the major premise is logically valid.*

*Hence, the only potentially legitimate objection to the claim made in the major premise is the bald, logically unsupported assertion that it might not be true, ultimately, outside of our minds. *Fine. But let us be clear: There is no independently verifiable ground whatsoever to believe this is true outside of our minds under the conventional standards of justifiable knowledge or the conventional standards of logic, which allow that *the premises of presuppositional arguments are justifiable knowledge if proven to be logically valid due to the inescapable exigencies of human cognition*.

. . . *the claim in the major premise is not merely an axiom, but a demonstrably incontrovertible theorem, as, once again, any attempt to refute it is a "counterargument" that is in reality the major premise for a complex, formal argument consisting of multiple axioms/postulates that invariably lead to a "discovered" proof that the truth claim in the major premise is logically valid. *—M.D. Rawlings​


----------



## G.T.

Nope, sorry. Using logic doesn't prove that god is that logic's basis. That is hubris.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a Christian or do you just believe in generic god?  Because if you are a christian, just realize that if the Jesus story were provable, the rest of us would convert tomorrow.  If it was provable, there would be no jews or muslims because your religion would be obvious to all.
> 
> And if you are not a Christian then you realize that religions are made up and so too could god be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus story? I must be confused, I thought that there were multiple stories about Jesus, including one that he visited India to learn from the Buddhist monks, and another that he traveled to the Americas to preach. Which one is it that you you think is the Jesus story?
> 
> By the way, oh he who thinks his brain controls reality, did you know that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for any of the Pharaohs? In fact, there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, yet you seem to have a pretty firm belief in him.
Click to expand...


Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.
> 
> This is _the_ logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the _tzelem elohim_ (in English, _the image of God_, in Latin, the _Imago Dei_) and the Greeks called it the _theiotes logos_ (the divine word).  It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle  of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical logic is based on the three classical laws of thought.
> 
> The law of identity. For any proposition A: A=A
> 
> The law of non-contradiction.  For all Not A=(Not -A)
> 
> The law of the excluded middle. For all A: A or -A
> The problem is that the universe really doesn't care about what we think, even if we consider it to be universally true. As an example, there is a particle in physics called a majorana fermion. These particles have a rather unusual property, they are both matter and anti matter at the same time. In other words, each of these particles is both A and -A at the same time, which clearly violates the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> I refuse to accept anything as universally true simply because it makes sense to me, I need evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


This does _not_ violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion _did_ violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.

The _fact_ of the intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.

_What_ is _it_?

*The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.

The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.*​

Rather:

*Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.*

*Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and  X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.*​
That's the _whole_ of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else.  That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.

The logical principle of identity begins with identifying _what_ the thing _is_. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, *for all A: A OR ~A *is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not.  It's _your_ *A and ~A *that's off:

*For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),


or


For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).*​
This is not the first time I've answered this objection.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?
> 
> If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.
Click to expand...


Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?
> 
> If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.
Click to expand...


You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?
> 
> If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?
Click to expand...


Actually, I wouldn't put it that way. The smartest people I know are Christians.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes:
> 
> It makes more sense to believe that a Designer designed our design than to believe that it all happened by mistake.  So, it's more logical (for anyone who embraces logic) to believe in God than to reject Him.  We literally see design wherever we look.  When we observe a Corvette engine we instinctively know that the engine was designed and then created by an intelligent source.  The same thing is true with we look at the intricate design of a living cell or an eyeball or a solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence they did.  Or aliens.  We were monkeys and they came here and bred with us and made us into Humaniods.  They taught us to mine for gold and one day they're going to come back and empty fort knox and every other place where we store all the gold, IF they haven't already.
> 
> I'd believe this before the Jesus myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is strong evidence the Pharaoh's were descended from gods or aliens?
> 
> If your definition of crazy is laughing at Erich von Däniken, then call me crazy. There is a sum total of zero evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet. I can make a better case for a sheep that produces gold instead of wool than you can for anything you just said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealy, if this is your idea of 'strong evidence', then you should really be a Christian. There's far more evidence for the stories of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean if I'm dumb enough to believe that I'm a perfect candidate for Christianity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't put it that way. The smartest people I know are Christians.
Click to expand...


The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Nope, sorry. Using logic doesn't prove that god is that logic's basis. That is hubris.



Well, that's a change in tune, isn't it? Initially you had the hubris to think that the validity of the major premise couldn't be objectively and independently verified logically. Oops. Now you're hiding behind a discrete, potentially legitimate objection which is _not_ justifiable knowledge, and the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever about the legitimacy of your rationally conceivable, though logically unsupported, objection. The point is that (1) any attempt to refute the claim in the major premise necessarily presupposes it to be true.

But more to the point: you're closing your mind to the implications of the fact that (2) the principle of identity is an intrinsically organic and universally absolute imperative of human cognition and to the implications of the apparent fact, given the overwhelming evidence of experience, that (3) it’s reliably and universally synchronized with the properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order:  (4) it would seem that this must be bottomed on some transcendentally indivisible and immutable ground.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9877513/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9892385/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9909969/
*.*


----------



## G.T.

No, it doesn't presuppose it to be true. That's where you fail.

Also your #4 might be the weakest bit of bullshit this entire thread.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.



And then there are those who compartmentalize their worldviews in such a way as to pretend that their utterly irrational and evidentially unsupported meanderings refute the overwhelming logic and evidence for God's existence:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 60 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Well, that's a change in tune, isn't it? Initially you had the hubris to think that the validity of the major premise couldn't be objectively and independently verified logically. Oops. Now you're hiding behind a discrete, potentially legitimate objection which is _not_ justifiable knowledge, and the transcendental argument makes no claims whatsoever about the legitimacy of your rationally conceivable, though logically unsupported, objection. The point is that (1) any attempt to refute the claim in the major premise necessarily presupposes it to be true.

But more to the point: you're closing your mind to the implications of the fact that (2) the principle of identity is an intrinsically organic and universally absolute imperative of human cognition and to the implications of the apparent fact, given the overwhelming evidence of experience, that (3) it’s reliably and universally synchronized with the properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order: (4) it would seem that this must be bottomed on some transcendentally indivisible and immutable ground.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 40 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 44 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 52 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 60 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Theology deals with _the what_, _the how_ and _the why_ at the metaphysical level and, to some extent, at the empirical level, though not scientifically.

Philosophy, ideally, deals with _the what_ (_what is it?_) at the rational level of apprehension and to a much lesser extent with_ the why.  _It tends to get into trouble real fast when it gets overly ambitious about the _why_ or recklessly plunges into the _how_.

Science deals with _the what_ in terms of physical properties and with _the how_ in terms of physical processes/mechanisms, but many a scientist has forgotten that while trying to jam science into the philosophical and theological concerns of reality.

Ultimately, we need all three.
______________________________________

Aside from the few isolated instances in which I have touched on revelatory or theological issues, I've concentrated on presenting_ the what_ regarding the rational and physical evidence for God's existence that is objectively demonstrable precisely because it _is_ universally apprehensible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.




Even if?  Dayam, you are dumber that the chair you are sitting on.

I never made any claims about anything Jesus said or did, I just asked you which Jesus story you consider to be _The Jesus Story_. I then pointed out a simple fact, that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than Julius Caesar, or the Pharaoh's. I don't understand why anyone that is would deny a fact that every competent historian on the planet acknowledges. I am not a religious zealot, so I guess my ability to get in the head of some assholes is limited.

So, again Which Jesus story is The Jesus Story? The one from the Book of Mormon or the one from القرآن الكريم?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This does _not_ violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion _did_ violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.
> 
> The _fact_ of the intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.
> 
> _What_ is _it_?
> 
> *The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.
> 
> The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.*​
> 
> Rather:
> 
> *Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.*
> 
> *Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and  X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.*​
> That's the _whole_ of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else.  That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.
> 
> The logical principle of identity begins with identifying _what_ the thing _is_. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, *for all A: A OR ~A *is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not.  It's _your_ *A and ~A *that's off:
> 
> *For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).*​
> This is not the first time I've answered this objection.



This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit. I used the existence of particles that are their own objects to show that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself. You responded by claiming that, if something violates the laws of thought we wouldn't be able to see it.

FYI, the human brain is incapable of perceiving all sorts of things that exist in nature. We can, however, think of ways to prove that they exist by tracking them with things that we can imagine and build. The laws of thought may, or may not, apply to all beings that think, but they do not apply outside of our brains.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.



I already explained that cognitive dissonance is an emotional response to conflicting ideas, why do you continue to insist it is something else?


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or quantify it, which means it pretty much cannot be a "logical absolute."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I have to explain that logic does not apply to the universe?
> 
> That said, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the rules of logic that something has to be quantifiable to be true.
Click to expand...


But what logic are you talking about?  The evidence tells me that our organic logic absolutely applies to our _understanding_ of the universe.  It can't be otherwise even if it's conceivable that the universe is doing things that are not consistent with our organic logic.  We couldn't know that because we can't see things any other way even if it is true.  This is why it's dumbfounding to me when you say there's no evidence for this.  We have nothing but evidence for this and no one can see anything else but evidence for this.  My problem earlier with the thing Foxfyre said was the way she said it because it implied that there was no absolute organic logic that is lined up with how things work in the world outside our minds. She doesn't really not see that once we got into what she reall means and sees.  Logic and knowledge aren't the same things. Used right our organic logic does what it's supposed to do.  That doesn't mean we always use it right or we don't make errors in our thinking.  We do, usually because of pent of biases or because of bad info. But we also get to learn from these kinds of errors too, and it's good logic that shows us the errors later.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I can agree with!  There seems to be something more wrong with Q.W.'s thinking about logic and philosophy as it relates to science but I can't quite put my finger on it.  I'll have to think it about it more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the problem is your misunderstanding of the difference between logic, which is a structure of formal argument, and is often used in math to define proofs, which makes it useful in a limited way for science, and philosophy, which is based on the idea that the universe is not only explainable, but that humans can actually understand the why behind everything if they think about it the right way. Why do you think Aristotle insisted that God had to be perfect, and then was stumped when challenged to explain the imperfections of the world he lived in? Or why scientist/philosophers urged the church to suppress Galileo's writings because they challenged Aristotle's teachings about the perfection of a geocentric solar system?
Click to expand...


But organic logic is not the formal structures of logical argument. See my last post. To me philosophy should just define things. I suppose to some extent if you can define something you can see get some idea about why it is or how it works at a rational level. I don't see anything wrong with that but we have to use science to test things. There's some overlap because science is based on the philosophy of science. My reading of Aristotle is different than yours. What I get from him about God is that God is perfect because he's not "divisible magnitude" while the "magnitude" (the physical substance of existence) is. But I guess he might have had some idea that the magnitude should be perfect too in some other way. I'll take your word for it because I apparently missed something there about what he expected. The only thing I can think about in that way is that we know that our perfect ideas about geometric forms cannot be perfectly replicated by us in the physical world. As for the establishment. They're always be with us but perfection has nothing to do with a non-geocentric solar system.  It just is.  The old idea was just based on his *unaided senses and limited technology*.

That's redundant.  Edit:  "unaided senses and limited scientific methods" is what I meant to say.


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This does _not_ violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion _did_ violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.
> 
> The _fact_ of the intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.
> 
> _What_ is _it_?
> 
> *The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.
> 
> The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.*​
> 
> Rather:
> 
> *Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.*
> 
> *Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and  X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.*​
> That's the _whole_ of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else.  That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.
> 
> The logical principle of identity begins with identifying _what_ the thing _is_. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, *for all A: A OR ~A *is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not.  It's _your_ *A and ~A *that's off:
> 
> *For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).*​
> This is not the first time I've answered this objection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit.
Click to expand...


I suppose that's easier.


----------



## Mertex

Foxfyre said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  My son used to come up with such concepts that really make you think.  He postulated a similar thought one time that who knows whether each atom contains a whole other universe and is, as you suggest, a component in a much larger one and so on.  He suggested it gives you a whole new perspective when you throw another log on the fire.....all those universes. . . . .
Click to expand...


In my Astronomy class in college, some one asked the question of the class - "Do you think the Universe goes on forever or do you think somewhere there is a big, big wall that stops it?"  If you think about it, either answer seems absurd.....that's how little we can comprehend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> But what logic are you talking about?  The evidence tells me that our organic logic absolutely applies to our _understanding_ of the universe.  It can't be otherwise even if it's conceivable that the universe is doing things that are not consistent with our organic logic.  We couldn't know that because we can't see things any other way even if it is true.  This is why it's dumbfounding to me when you say there's no evidence for this.  We have nothing but evidence for this and no one can see anything else but evidence for this.  My problem earlier with the thing Foxfyre said was the way she said it because it implied that there was no absolute organic logic that is lined up with how things work in the world outside our minds. She doesn't really not see that once we got into what she reall means and sees.  Logic and knowledge aren't the same things. Used right our organic logic does what it's supposed to do.  That doesn't mean we always use it right or we don't make errors in our thinking.  We do, usually because of pent of biases or because of bad info. But we also get to learn from these kinds of errors too, and it's good logic that shows us the errors later.



Logic used to be the only tool we had to understand the universe. It works, sort of, but the fact is that there are things in the universe that contradict our organic logic. According to our logic, there is no way something can be two things at once, yet we all understand that electromagnetic radiation is both a particle and a wave.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> But organic logic is not the formal structures of logical argument. See my last post. To me philosophy should just define things. I suppose to some extent if you can define something you can see get some idea about why it is or how it works at a rational level. I don't see anything wrong with that but we have to use science to test things. There's some overlap because science is based on the philosophy of science. My reading of Aristotle is different than yours. What I get from him about God is that God is perfect because he's not "divisible magnitude" while the "magnitude" (the physical substance of existence) is. But I guess he might have had some idea that the magnitude should be perfect too in some other way. I'll take your word for it because I apparently missed something there about what he expected. The only thing I can think about in that way is that we know that our perfect ideas about geometric forms cannot be perfectly replicated by us in the physical world. As for the establishment. They're always be with us but perfection has nothing to do with a non-geocentric solar system.  It just is.  The old idea was just based on his *unaided senses and limited technology*.
> 
> That's redundant.  Edit:  "unaided senses and limited scientific methods" is what I meant to say.



Strangely enough, Copernicus had the exact same tools as Aristotle, yet he managed to conclude that the solar system was heliocentric.

It isn't our senses that limit us, it is our belief that we can explain things based on what we think we see.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> I suppose that's easier.



I suppose it is, for you, especially since you ignored my explanation of why the post I was responding to was bullshit.


----------



## MaryL

If god is real, I pray that we all get candy coated orgasms NOW! ...NOW!...I will wait a minute....NOW! Anyone? No? Me either. God is like that.God, you disappoint me.


----------



## Justin Davis

Mertex said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings.  To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical.  To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
> 
> My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
> 
> My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible.  And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
> 
> Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years?  I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I had with your first post was the statement that "The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time."  That's an understanding, not a logical absolute, derived from the logical absolutes of human thought. From where I'm standing that's part of Q.W.'s confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I probably didn't state it clearly.  But my intention was to state the logical absolute that we know a tiny fraction of all that there is to know.  In my opinion, that is far more than just an understanding.  That's a fact.
> 
> Is it demonstrable?  Of course not because we cannot demonstrate what we do not yet know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  For all we know our solar system is just an atom in another unimaginably huge universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.  My son used to come up with such concepts that really make you think.  He postulated a similar thought one time that who knows whether each atom contains a whole other universe and is, as you suggest, a component in a much larger one and so on.  He suggested it gives you a whole new perspective when you throw another log on the fire.....all those universes. . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my Astronomy class in college, some one asked the question of the class - "Do you think the Universe goes on forever or do you think somewhere there is a big, big wall that stops it?"  If you think about it, either answer seems absurd.....that's how little we can comprehend.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what logic are you talking about?  The evidence tells me that our organic logic absolutely applies to our _understanding_ of the universe.  It can't be otherwise even if it's conceivable that the universe is doing things that are not consistent with our organic logic.  We couldn't know that because we can't see things any other way even if it is true.  This is why it's dumbfounding to me when you say there's no evidence for this.  We have nothing but evidence for this and no one can see anything else but evidence for this.  My problem earlier with the thing Foxfyre said was the way she said it because it implied that there was no absolute organic logic that is lined up with how things work in the world outside our minds. She doesn't really not see that once we got into what she reall means and sees.  Logic and knowledge aren't the same things. Used right our organic logic does what it's supposed to do.  That doesn't mean we always use it right or we don't make errors in our thinking.  We do, usually because of pent of biases or because of bad info. But we also get to learn from these kinds of errors too, and it's good logic that shows us the errors later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic used to be the only tool we had to understand the universe. It works, sort of, but the fact is that there are things in the universe that contradict our organic logic. According to our logic, there is no way something can be two things at once, yet we all understand that electromagnetic radiation is both a particle and a wave.
Click to expand...


I don't know this stuff as well as others on this forum but I understand the nature of the rules of organic logic very well.  You can't understand anything in philosophy, theology or science without them.  The rules of inference and the scientific method are based on them.  I don't remember what post it was now but you were saying things that seemed to be sort of right but also sort of wrong at the same time and what I couldn't put my finger on was how to explain what's causing you to mix up the two.  But I do know exactly why your idea about the majorana fermion is wrong.  I just didn't get into the mix over that because you wrote your post to M.D.R..  He just proved that this kind of argumentation is the logical fallacy of false predication.  Even I know that and why that's logically true.  There's no contradiction between this well known fact of electromagnetic radiation and the laws of logic, any more than there's a contradiction between the majorana fermion and the laws of logic.  The second and third law of organic logic are just detailed annunciations of the universal rule of identity which holds that the predicate of any whole cannot be divided.  This is understood in the logic of sets.  one whole set can theoretically be an infinite number of things simultaneously just like any whole can be theoretically divided an infinite number of times.  There's nothing in human nature's basic rules of logic that says these kinds of things are contradictory or can't exist.  I don't know where you're getting this from.


----------



## Picaro

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



Logic can neither prove or refute anything; all logic is just circular reasoning, hence your claims of something 'failing' is in itself nonsense. Read Bertrand Russell's *The Problems of Philosophy* on the limits of both formal and informal logic.

For fun, here is an example of the neo-platonist influence on Christian scholarship.

Aquinas Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

*

'

St. Thomas Aquinas: 
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways. Argument Analysis of the Five Ways  © 2004 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion


Our senses prove that some things are in motion.


Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.


Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.


Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).


Therefore nothing can move itself.


Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.


The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.


Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes


We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.


Nothing exists prior to itself.


Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.


If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.


Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.


The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.


Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)


We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.


Assume that every being is a contingent being.


For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.


Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.


Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.


Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.


Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.


We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.


Therefore not every being is a contingent being.


Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being


There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.


Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).


The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.


Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design


We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.


Most natural things lack knowledge.


But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.


Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

[TBODY]*


Circular reasoning that only be answered by circular reasoning.
[/TBODY]


----------



## Picaro

Mertex said:


> In my Astronomy class in college, some one asked the question of the class - "Do you think the Universe goes on forever or do you think somewhere there is a big, big wall that stops it?"  If you think about it, either answer seems absurd.....that's how little we can comprehend.



Indeed. Evolution is another example. Is the fantastically improbable numbers of literally millions upon millions of 'happy accidents' required to justify it really less intellectually absurd than the Adam and Eve allegory and creationism? The Big Bang and evolution compared with the Adam and Eve allegory and creationism are intellectually the same at root.


----------



## indiajo

Mertex said:


> [
> 
> 
> In my Astronomy class in college, some one asked the question of the class - "Do you think the Universe goes on forever or do you think somewhere there is a big, big wall that stops it?"  If you think about it, either answer seems absurd.....that's how little we can comprehend.



This is an astronomy class? In COLLEGE????
My grandmother once told me there are no stupid questions. She was wrong.
In an astronomy class you don't ask what somone thinks, you ask what is profound knowledge so far.
This profound knowledge includes the fact that we cannot rely on our imagination and intuition if we want to gain knowledge about the universe. It is all about mathematics and physics. 
It does not matter at all if you are able to imagine space, or no space at all behind the today known borders of the universe. What matters is the match between observation and theory.


----------



## indiajo

Picaro said:


> [
> 
> Indeed. Evolution is another example. Is the fantastically improbable numbers of literally millions upon millions of 'happy accidents' required to justify it really less intellectually absurd than the Adam and Eve allegory and creationism? The Big Bang and evolution compared with the Adam and Eve allegory and creationism are intellectually the same at root.



There were not millions of "happy accidents". Actually it was a number so huge, we don's have a name for it..
And they were not "happy".  They had to occur, as well as the polymer from which the keys on your computer keybord are made have to occur if the parameters are just right. 
The first experiment to proof the random synthese of organic molecules was done in the 1950's. the Miller-Urey experiment 1953 to be more precise. and in such an experiment it is absolutely normal that you get amino acids. The basic molecules of life. The 4 building blocks of DNA are not very complicated either. Indeed it is fare more difficult to synthesize aspirin.

And people like you obviously have absolutely no clue how much time 4 billion years are.

You simply don't get the difference between scientific theories, backed up by observation, experiment, mathematical calculation and physical proof, and the absurd fairytales of some iron age goatherders.


----------



## Justin Davis

Picaro said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic can neither prove or refute anything; all logic is just circular reasoning, hence your claims of something 'failing' is in itself nonsense. Read Bertrand Russell's *The Problems of Philosophy* on the limits of both formal and informal logic.
> 
> For fun, here is an example of the neo-platonist influence on Christian scholarship.
> 
> Aquinas Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments
> 
> *
> 
> '
> 
> St. Thomas Aquinas:
> The Existence of God can be proved in five ways. Argument Analysis of the Five Ways  © 2004 Theodore GracykThe First Way: Argument from Motion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
> 
> Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
> 
> Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
> 
> Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
> 
> Therefore nothing can move itself.
> 
> Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
> 
> The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
> 
> Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
> 
> Nothing exists prior to itself.
> 
> Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
> 
> If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
> 
> Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
> 
> The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
> 
> Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
> 
> Assume that every being is a contingent being.
> 
> For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
> 
> Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
> 
> Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
> 
> Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
> 
> Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
> 
> We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
> 
> Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
> 
> Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
> 
> Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
> 
> The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
> 
> Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
> 
> 
> 
> The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
> 
> Most natural things lack knowledge.
> 
> But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
> 
> Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]*
> Circular reasoning that only be answered by circular reasoning.
> [TBODY]
> [/TBODY]
Click to expand...


This is wrong. Russell didn't say that logic can't prove anything or that all logic is circular in the sense that you mean. You misunderstand him. His thesis is that commonsense knowledge about things is not real knowledge unless it's "logically coherent" and "materially coherent", but we do necessarily begin with the commonsense assumption that existence is real, not just an illusion. We have no choice because we are compelled by experience and logic to make decisions about them whether they exist or not. It's the same practical cogito of Descartes.  If this commonsense assumption is wrong then everything's wrong.  But what difference would that make to us.  Each person knows he exists and it's inconceivable how we could be aware of our existence without their being other objects too.  If all logic is circular because of that assumption so what?  That's just the way it is.  From there logic can be used to prove things and disproves things.


----------



## indiajo

Quantum Windbag said:


> [
> 
> Strangely enough, Copernicus had the exact same tools as Aristotle, yet he managed to conclude that the solar system was heliocentric.



Not exactly. Aristotle was a philosopher. Copernicus a mathematician. Coprnicus tried to calculate the movement of planets and simply found out that this works with the heliocentric model, but not otherwise.



Quantum Windbag said:


> It isn't our senses that limit us, it is our belief that we can explain things based on what we think we see.


Of course our senses limit us. We cannot detect x-rays. We cannot see quarks.
Which makes the second part of the sentence true.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

indiajo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Strangely enough, Copernicus had the exact same tools as Aristotle, yet he managed to conclude that the solar system was heliocentric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. Aristotle was a philosopher. Copernicus a mathematician. Coprnicus tried to calculate the movement of planets and simply found out that this works with the heliocentric model, but not otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't our senses that limit us, it is our belief that we can explain things based on what we think we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course our senses limit us. We cannot detect x-rays. We cannot see quarks.
> Which makes the second part of the sentence true.
Click to expand...



Correct on both counts.  The fact of the matter is that Aristotle's organic logic was rock solid insofar as its unaided analysis of the raw sensory data went.  This was not a breakdown in logic.  This was merely mathematically unamplified logic, essentially, insufficient data.  All the while the organic principle of identity was doing precisely what it's supposed to do, including eventually alerting us to the actual nuts and bolts of the problem.  Ultimately, the real problem was simply a lack of knowledge, not a problem of logic at all. 

But QW knows these things . . . except when his ill-considered expressions confuse the matter, as in his FYI that there are things that exist that our brains can't detect, which, ultimately, is the same thing as saying that our senses limit us.  Yet we know these things exist!  How?  Because as he tells us we can imagine the existence of things (via the organic principle of identity) and build technology that magnifies our senses that we might perceive/measure the effects of their presence, which was initially conceived to be in our minds because of other effects that we were able to perceive/measure due to other forms of technology.  But then who in their right minds believes that we can reliably explain things based on what our senses convey alone in the first place?

No one who understands the principle of identity believes that for moment.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But then who in their right minds believes that we can reliably explain things based on what our senses convey alone in the first place?
> 
> No one who understands the principle of identity believes that for moment.


*

No one who understands the principle of identity believes that for moment.*


and that is the reason for Christianities reliance on a bible for Spiritual Admission rather than the means granted at their inception to accomplish imortality ?

oh, and knowing the means is immaterial to the answers they acquire "after" they get there, of course.

.


----------



## sealybobo

MaryL said:


> If god is real, I pray that we all get candy coated orgasms NOW! ...NOW!...I will wait a minute....NOW! Anyone? No? Me either. God is like that.God, you disappoint me.



I compare him to a deadbeat dad who never visits, doesn't pay child support but if you make it to the NBA he'll show up and want to be your dad but if you don't amount to anything he never looks for you.  But isn't that his fault?  He should have visited more.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me.  It seemed you agreed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
Click to expand...


But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.

Clearly none has been provided.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
Click to expand...


Ok so maybe there is an all powerful all knowing god out there that created all this.  What evidence do you have?  

And I need to know right away if you believe the stories in the bible.  I don't  mind debating with people who argue for a generic god because they can't believe all this happened by accident.

What I can't argue with are people who believe in talking snakes, 350 year old men, virgin births and god coming to earth on a suicide mission.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
Click to expand...


The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap. 

Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.   

As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature. 

But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.

In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.



Clearly you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
Click to expand...


Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe.  It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up.  We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.  

It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took his post to mean that the Bible doesn't support that everything is already determined and planned out and we are just characters in a script that is already sealed and unchangeable.  If that is what he was saying, then I do agree with him.  But my point wasn't focused on whether everything is already programmed and decided, but looks ahead to all the surprises that await us out there and ahead of us.  Not only do I think we're all going to have a good laugh when we get to heaven and find out how much we got wrong theologically, but the scientists a hundred years from now are likely to look at this period in our history as a scientific dark age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
Click to expand...


I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
Click to expand...


I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
Click to expand...


What has he revealed to you personally?


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?
Click to expand...


I tried googling infinite simultaneousness and I find nothing.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Justin Davis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...


Yes I have.

All arguments to prove the existence of God rely on premises being accepted that are themselves arguments that one is under no rational obligation to accept as fact.

An argument that is not based on fact is not a sound argument.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe.  It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up.  We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.
> 
> It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist
Click to expand...


And yet none of you have really refuted the ironclad arguments about the objectively apparent evidence for God's existence made by Foxfyre and especially the killer arugments made by M.D.R..   And none of you have ever defined what kind of evidence you're talking about.


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have.
> 
> All arguments to prove the existence of God rely on premises being accepted that are themselves arguments that one is under no rational obligation to accept as fact.
> 
> An argument that is not based on fact is not a sound argument.
Click to expand...


Then you don't understand the transcendental argument or are closing your mind to it.  It's unasailable.  In fact, you're claim right now proves its major premise is logically valid, and you just don't get why that's true.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Justin Davis said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have.
> 
> All arguments to prove the existence of God rely on premises being accepted that are themselves arguments that one is under no rational obligation to accept as fact.
> 
> An argument that is not based on fact is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand the transcendental argument or are closing your mind to it.  It's unasailable.  In fact, you're claim right now proves its major premise is logically valid, and you just don't get why that's true.
Click to expand...


The transcendental argument, to be valid, forces one to accept a premise that has never been demonstrated to be factual.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried googling infinite simultaneousness and I find nothing.
Click to expand...


It's not a technical term.  I just know what he means.  He's talking about the obvious facts of the rules of thought that Q.W. is missing but admittedly the only ideas I grasp in that way are is the well-known observation of the simultaneousness of existence and knowledge that every known things shares at the same time and the idea of infinity, though that gets pretty complex.  I understand in general.


----------



## Justin Davis

MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?


----------



## sealybobo

NYcarbineer said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have.
> 
> All arguments to prove the existence of God rely on premises being accepted that are themselves arguments that one is under no rational obligation to accept as fact.
> 
> An argument that is not based on fact is not a sound argument.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Even the Bible should in no way be considered factual evidence.  One would have to assume on faith it wasn't all made up.  

So what we have are lies from organized religions.

So if we toss out all the organized religions, god is pretty much non existent.  There may be a god but from as far as our telescopes and microscopes can tell so far there is zero evidence a god exists.

In fact we even know when man first invented god(s), what part of the brain came up with the concept and why.  We also know how rulers used the concept to control people and force fed it to us.  If you denied you died.  Luckily today we don't get burned at the stake for speaking to truth.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried googling infinite simultaneousness and I find nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a technical term.  I just know what he means.  He's talking about the obvious facts of the rules of thought that Q.W. is missing but admittedly the only ideas I grasp in that way are is the well-known observation of the simultaneousness of existence and knowledge that every known things shares at the same time and the idea of infinity, though that gets pretty complex.  I understand in general.
Click to expand...


Does any of what you say prove a god exists or is this just the ramblings of a mad man?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> I don't know this stuff as well as others on this forum but I understand the nature of the rules of organic logic very well.  You can't understand anything in philosophy, theology or science without them.  The rules of inference and the scientific method are based on them.  I don't remember what post it was now but you were saying things that seemed to be sort of right but also sort of wrong at the same time and what I couldn't put my finger on was how to explain what's causing you to mix up the two.  But I do know exactly why your idea about the majorana fermion is wrong.  I just didn't get into the mix over that because you wrote your post to M.D.R..  He just proved that this kind of argumentation is the logical fallacy of false predication.  Even I know that and why that's logically true.  There's no contradiction between this well known fact of electromagnetic radiation and the laws of logic, any more than there's a contradiction between the majorana fermion and the laws of logic.  The second and third law of organic logic are just detailed annunciations of the universal rule of identity which holds that the predicate of any whole cannot be divided.  This is understood in the logic of sets.  one whole set can theoretically be an infinite number of things simultaneously just like any whole can be theoretically divided an infinite number of times.  There's nothing in human nature's basic rules of logic that says these kinds of things are contradictory or can't exist.  I don't know where you're getting this from.



That is certainly what philosophers want you to believe. The problem is, that as I explained, some things in the universe just are not explainable using logic, which leaves us with a few choices. The top three as I see them are that we can ignore the part of the universe that logic insists does not exist, we can ignore logic when it conflicts with the universe, or we can admit that our understanding of our mental abilities is limited by the fact that we are, at least in part, limited by our brains ability to understand itself.

Personally, I opt for the latter, especially when we consider that the same people that developed natural logic insisted the the Earth was the center of the universe.

By the way, there is more than one form of logic. One I find particularly useful, probably because I was forced to learn it as part of programming IFTT functions, is fuzzy logic. Perhaps you should look into the various fields of logic before you decide to use one of them exclusively.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

indiajo said:


> Not exactly. Aristotle was a philosopher. Copernicus a mathematician. Coprnicus tried to calculate the movement of planets and simply found out that this works with the heliocentric model, but not otherwise.



Sorry, but Aristotle knew about math, he just didn't use it.



indiajo said:


> Of course our senses limit us. We cannot detect x-rays. We cannot see quarks.
> Which makes the second part of the sentence true.



Funny, I know how to detect X-rays, I have even used them to take pictures. We know that X-rays exist, and have proved that quarks are real, which actually proves that our sense do not limit us, at least not the way you want it to mean that they do.


----------



## Foxfyre

NYcarbineer said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asks for a sound argument, in the form of a syllogism, for the existence of God.
> 
> Clearly none has been provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you haven't been paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have.
> 
> All arguments to prove the existence of God rely on premises being accepted that are themselves arguments that one is under no rational obligation to accept as fact.
> 
> An argument that is not based on fact is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand the transcendental argument or are closing your mind to it.  It's unasailable.  In fact, you're claim right now proves its major premise is logically valid, and you just don't get why that's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The transcendental argument, to be valid, forces one to accept a premise that has never been demonstrated to be factual.
Click to expand...


But again we come to the argument that knowledge does not have to be demonstrable to be factual.  For instance, you saw a pink flamingo on your neighbor's lawn yesterday but it flew away.  So far as you know there are no wild flamingos in your state, but you know for a fact that is what you saw.  But you have absolutely no way to demonstrate it to another soul and your testimony is all that you have to offer re a fact that you know to be fact.

And yesterday you saw a hooded stranger driving slowly through the neighborhood, obviously looking for something.  Once it was out of sight you did not see it again.  You know for a fact that you saw it but you have no way to demonstrate the fact that it drove through.  All you have is your recollection and testimony that it happened at all.

Or awhile ago you were trying to remember the tune and lyrics to a childhood song you had not heard in decades.  Moments later, you heard that very song in an advertisement on the radio.  The unlikely coincidence you know to be a fact.  But can you demonstrate the coincidence to another soul?  No you cannot.  If another is to believe it happened, they must rely on your testimony of what you just experienced.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Correct on both counts.  The fact of the matter is that Aristotle's organic logic was rock solid insofar as its unaided analysis of the raw sensory data went.  This was not a breakdown in logic.  This was merely mathematically unamplified logic, essentially, insufficient data.  All the while the organic principle of identity was doing precisely what it's supposed to do, including eventually alerting us to the actual nuts and bolts of the problem.  Ultimately, the real problem was simply a lack of knowledge, not a problem of logic at all.
> 
> But QW knows these things . . . except when his ill-considered expressions confuse the matter, as in his FYI that there are things that exist that our brains can't detect, which, ultimately, is the same thing as saying that our senses limit us.  Yet we know these things exist!  How?  Because as he tells us we can imagine the existence of things (via the organic principle of identity) and build technology that magnifies our senses that we might perceive/measure the effects of their presence, which was initially conceived to be in our minds because of other effects that we were able to perceive/measure due to other forms of technology.  But then who in their right minds believes that we can reliably explain things based on what our senses convey alone in the first place?
> 
> No one who understands the principle of identity believes that for moment.



Yet Copernicus, with that same rock solid analysis of sensory data, reached a different conclusion, and used math to prove it.

What did Aristotle use again? 

That's right, he didn't use anything. Why? Because philosophers think their brain is better than science.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and QW is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The key to what you're saying is understanding God's sense of time in _the eternal now_ and as you appear to believe, _I think_, by definitively grasping the implications of God's infinite power to conceive of and create an infinite number of possible existents or states of existence that we ourselves might very well be in right now that make the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will a snap.
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.  And what we're getting from QW is that _he flatly refuses to believe _that the simultaneous coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is possible as he fails to grasp that *the laws of thought actually assert the existence of things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously and anticipate the existence of other things that are coherently two or more things simultaneously*.
> 
> As for Fox, she thinks a careful examination of this means being "overly technical," that objectively thoughtful and precise definitions of the _apparent_ attributes of what a transcendent origin would be like limits God.  But that's false.  On the contrary, objectively speaking, if God exists, the fundamental things that everybody can know about God because they are objectively apparent from careful thought would necessarily be coming directly from God as impressed on our minds.  And the fact of the matter is that the precise definitions/apprehensions of these things divulge that it is QW and Fox who, unawares, are putting artificial  limits on God and artificial limits on what we may objectively know about Him from nature.
> 
> But I can tell from her responses, bless her heart, that (1) we don't need to carefully define certain things with regard to the cosmological argument, especially, by the way, and (2) that absolute omniscience necessarily = Calvinism, which it doesn't, or necessarily = the movie's in the can, which it doesn't, and she could know this is she were to open her mind up a bit.  Certain things do need to be known before getting into the arguments for God's existence.
> 
> In other words, she could have a V-8 moment of "Oh, my God, it is I who am putting chains on God, not Michael."  *Sigh*
Click to expand...


Well you are entitled to your opinion MDR.  I know you think I am inadequate in my views about this.  But I think categorically stating that God is this or that is putting artificial limits on God far more than refusing to say that God is this or that.  And if I decide the more technical concepts of theological studies to be rather tedious and mostly not useful when discussing the concepts with those who haven't had that intense theological grounding, well I'll just have to be simplistic I guess.  Believe me I had years and years of those scholarly theological studies, and, while interesting so many theologians, I just don't see that they are necessary to discuss a syllogistic definition of God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?



Yes. I can. In fact, I'm working on that because QW still doesn't understand it even after I showed him he's got it all wrong. So apparently a more comprehension explanation is required, though in fact it's easy for anyone to see once it's explained.

It's obvious. Objectively self-evident.

It's one of the things that everybody knows if only they would stop and think about it long enough to note the fact that they exist and the awareness of that constitutes an simultaneously inherent existent just as you say. From there you go onto the demonstration of what we're actually appending in the construct of infinity, which is easy to see too.

So it's not really complex at all, unless you want to dig really deep into the mathematical expressions of the various attributes of infinity by way of the more advanced functions of calculus, which, frankly, are over my head, but I can do the basic-to-intermediate functions demonstrating why the principle of identity holds up in the face of simultaneously compound phenomena and the attributes of God all day long.

I'll share just one, the most important which touches on the idea of the cosmological order's mutability-divisibility vs. the immutability-indivisibility of the construct of God, which is merely the function of division by infinity. We can all get that.

As for the functions that go really deep into the attributes of the concept of infinity, functions within functions with multiple variables, which invariably give rise to additional, intuited functions with multiple variables, proofs that can go on for pages, forget about it. I might as well be trying to read Chinese, let alone contrive one from the conceivably more complex analytic premises.

Give me another fifteen minutes or so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.



I fully understand the implications of the eternal now.

I also understand that the concept cannot be supported using the Bible, which is why I sneer at people who think it provides an answer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.



Excuse me? I don't understand time, and have no real concept of it, which means my concepts cannot limit God. The only person I know of who comes close to actually understanding it is hawking, and he is still not there.

As for me limiting God, all I am doing is pointing out that the Bible doesn't support the popular, entirely philosophical, definition of God. That doesn't put any limits on Him, it just points out how stupid people can be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe.  It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up.  We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.
> 
> It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist



Nice to see you resorting to sites that support your personal beliefs over the facts that clearly make you look like an idiot. That, by defintion, makes you a zealot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?



I am not arguing against the organic rules of logic. Even though I do, occasionally, enjoy it, I rarely wast my time arguing against something that doesn't exist. What I am doing is pointing out that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe, nor do they limit our understanding of the universe to what we can perceive.

Perhaps your problem is thinking that the laws of thought are something more than they are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NYcarbineer said:


> The transcendental argument, to be valid, forces one to accept a premise that has never been demonstrated to be factual.



That sounds a lot like dark matter, dark energy, loop quantum gravity, and string theory.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?




* f(x) =  lim           (1/x) = 0.*
_*         x --> ∞*_
* 
*
This means that the function *f* systematically increases the value of *x* toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of *x*, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching *0*. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for *x* tending toward *∞* and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching *0*. In other words, *= 0 *actually means *"near 0"* as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.

Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as *"(1/x) = n approaching 0."


Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward x --> ∞ of function f.

Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.

Thus, for example:


  lim
x --> ∞ ∈ D                              
___________
      1                                                                   
     10                                                                  
     100                                                              
     1000 . . .       



(1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
___________________________________
      1.0
      0.1
      0.01
      0.001 . . .


Also:   

D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }

*
Now many won't care about this, but if you copy and paste this, and take some quality time to contemplate the various aspects of the concept and the results in the light of the perfect attributes of God, including things like love and justice, you may see dimensionally new things about Him that will blow your mind and demolish any number of preconceived notions that routinely get in our way as finite minds trapped in a perceptually three-dimensional construct within the dimensional construct of time from seeing just how incredibly and awesomely unlimited He is. You can't grasp all of it, of course, not even close, but you can get a feel for it as never before this way.


----------



## dblack

/me ponders time cube.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, when we were younger and more gullible, we believed like you believe.  It wasn't until we got older and wiser than we wised up.  We are able to put aside what we want to believe and only go with what is believable.
> 
> It all seems made up to me Did Jesus exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you resorting to sites that support your personal beliefs over the facts that clearly make you look like an idiot. That, by defintion, makes you a zealot.
Click to expand...


I couldn't find anything to back up my position on this site

Conservapedia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to explain what you call the "infinite simultaneousness" thing to Q.W..  I've never even heard of anyone arguing against the organic rules of logic with things like electromagnetic radiation.  Either I'm right or I'm crazy but the organic rules of logic don't prohibit things like that as far as I know.  I couldn't find anything on the Internet where anyone else has argued something like that, though somebody put a video on this thread where the atheist hints at something like that but doesn't say what it is.  But it's just wrong either way as far as I can see.  If this is the way we see things, how could we be able to see these things if the rules didn't allow it?  What 'am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely wast my time arguing against something that doesn't exist. .
Click to expand...


But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This does _not_ violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion _did_ violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.
> 
> The _fact_ of the intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.
> 
> _What_ is _it_?
> 
> *The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.
> 
> The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.*​
> 
> Rather:
> 
> *Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.*
> 
> *Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and  X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.*​
> That's the _whole_ of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else.  That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.
> 
> The logical principle of identity begins with identifying _what_ the thing _is_. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, *for all A: A OR ~A *is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not.  It's _your_ *A and ~A *that's off:
> 
> *For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).*​
> This is not the first time I've answered this objection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I say all philosophy is bullshit. I used the existence of particles that are their own objects to show that the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself. You responded by claiming that, if something violates the laws of thought we wouldn't be able to see it.
> 
> FYI, the human brain is incapable of perceiving all sorts of things that exist in nature. We can, however, think of ways to prove that they exist by tracking them with things that we can imagine and build. The laws of thought may, or may not, apply to all beings that think, but they do not apply outside of our brains.
Click to expand...


But, QW, you _still _don't _consciously_ understand the matter rightly.

Look. The intrinsically organic laws of thought/apprehension have been formally defined in philosophical treatises by various philosophers, but they are _not_ philosophy, _a_ philosophy or even a philosophical construct in and of themselves.

Generically: _What is the thing that exists_?

The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension—collectively, the principle of identity—are *the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition.

There's nothing controversial about this. Human beings have always known this. Human beings have always asserted this and have never asserted anything else but this, except in terms of how it might all be an illusion.  There is nothing in the theological, philosophical or scientific literate of history that disputes this, for everybody knows that human consciousness necessarily presupposes existence and that the principle of identity is the very first epistemological-ontological fact of conscious reality for humans.

There is only the confusion in the minds of those who are not thinking clearly.
*

For the second time on this thread: why does this have to be explained?

_You_ know this! _Everybody_ knows this!

As for the centuries-old debates of whether or not (1) the logical principle of identity universally applies to all of existence or (2) entails actual free will or merely apparent free will (the problem of the body-mind or brain-soul dichotomy) are entirely different issues. Objectively speaking, whatever the ultimate truth may be about these things: *everybody knows that everybody necessarily presupposes the actualities of the principle of identity every time they debate the subsequent complexities of anything else that is arguably debatable under the Sun. 


But there is no debate regarding the fact of the principle of identity, i.e., that it is an intrinsically and universally organic fact of human nature, an intrinsically and universally organic fact of human consciousness.

And that is why everybody knows, in spite of the banalities of post-modern culture*—*mere slogans, erroneous, unexamined claims obscuring the actualities of self-awareness*—*that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument, for example, cannot be logically falsified, at the very least with regard to the organic laws of thought, as any attempt to falsify them is necessarily the major premise of an argument that will logically prove the validity of the major premise regarding them it every friggin' time! That fact of human cognition is the independently objective demonstration of the premise's validity in addition to the axiomatic nature of self-awareness.
*
The principle of identity entails the first principles of epistemological (knowledge) and ontological (being) reality of human consciousness. And what is the first item of knowledge _and_ being at the very top of the list?

Answer: Self-awareness! The _awareness_ (knowledge) that I _exist_ (being)!

*Every discrete instance of knowledge is also, simultaneously, an instance of being. *The first principle of identity, therefore, presupposes, anticipates, predicts that any given _A, _including material existents, might potentially be at least two or more things simultaneously all the way up to infinity: A = A (alpha . . . omega simultaneously). ∞ = A (all possible existents simultaneously), or ∞ = A (all numbers simultaneously), all of which are of a single predicate.

It is understood that any given material whole can be divided an indefinite number of times. The operation of division by infinity may be coherently expressed as a mathematical function, the quotient of which is an infinite set of values approaching *0* of a single predicate.

Descartes is not the first person to wake up one morning and say to himself, "Well, looky here, I think, or I'm _self-aware_; therefore, I _exist_.

"I am a finite self-awareness that is _not_ the origin of its own self-awareness. As a finite self-awareness, I'm necessarily cognizant of the perfectly coherent potentiality of an infinite self-awareness that would necessarily be an _A_ of unlimited power and, as such, the ground of an infinite number of possibilities simultaneously of a single predicate, save one thing. This potential ground of an infinite number of possibilities could not also be the ground of a limited number of possibilities: A = B, or God = NOT-God. That would be absurd."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I couldn't find anything to back up my position on this site
> 
> Conservapedia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



I suppose you think that proves how smart you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.



Only in your imagination. If you check back through the thread you will see I never once argued for anything, which is why you are always confused when you try to argue with me, you don't know what I believe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But, QW, you _still _don't _consciously_ understand the matter rightly.



Sigh.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Look. The intrinsically organic laws of thought/apprehension have been formally defined in philosophical treatises by various philosophers, but they are _not_ philosophy, _a_ philosophy or even a philosophical construct in and of themselves.



That is exactly what they are.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Generically: _What is the thing that exists_?
> 
> The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension—collectively, the principle of identity—are *the universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition.
> 
> There's nothing controversial about this. Human beings have always known this. Human beings have always asserted this and have never asserted anything else but this, except in terms of how it might all be an illusion.  There is nothing in the theological, philosophical or scientific literate of history that disputes this, for everybody knows that human consciousness necessarily presupposes existence and that the principle of identity is the very first epistemological-ontological fact of conscious reality for humans.
> 
> There is only the confusion in the minds of those who are not thinking clearly.
> *
> 
> For the second time on this thread: why does this have to be explained?
> 
> _You_ know this! _Everybody_ knows this!



I know no such thing, even philosophy questions these axioms. Constructive logic, AKA intuitionistic logic, does not assume something is always true.



> Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.
> 
> Several semantics for intuitionistic logic have been studied. One semantic mirrors classical Boolean-valued semantics but usesHeyting algebras in place of Boolean algebras. Another semantic uses Kripke models.
> 
> Intuitionistic logic is practically useful because its restrictions produce proofs that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally, this means that if you have a constructive proof that an object exists, you can turn that constructive proof into an algorithm for generating an example of it.



Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I prefer not to limit my thinking by assuming that only one type of logic is valid.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Continued from *post #1249*.

The issue is not whether or not there be any actual substance behind the inherent apprehension of identity that any given _A_, including material existents, might be two or more things simultaneously, or whether or not there be any actual substance behind the notion of the infinite nature of the Deity that exists in our minds. The point is that the principle of identity alerted us to at least one instance of such a thing from the beginning, namely, the instance of self-awareness and the existence of any given object of one's self-awareness. 

The existence of such things do not contradict the principle of identity.

Also, the principle of identity readily apprehends the construct of infinity in terms of comprehensively simultaneous attributes of a single predicate. Thinkers from centuries ago who fully understood the implications of the principle of identity, would not have been surprised at all by the discovery of things like electromagnetic radiation or the Majorana particle. In fact, they expected it.

More tomorrow on this. . . .


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? I don't understand time, and have no real concept of it, which means my concepts cannot limit God. The only person I know of who comes close to actually understanding it is hawking, and he is still not there.
> 
> As for me limiting God, all I am doing is pointing out that the Bible doesn't support the popular, entirely philosophical, definition of God. That doesn't put any limits on Him, it just points out how stupid people can be.
Click to expand...


Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then.  I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know.  But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible.  The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are.  Philosophers have seen these things too.  I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals.  Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you do waste a lot of time arguing for something that doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your imagination. If you check back through the thread you will see I never once argued for anything, which is why you are always confused when you try to argue with me, you don't know what I believe.
Click to expand...


And really what does it matter what you believe or the Catholic Church says?  It's what you can prove and that's nothing.  I noticed I posted a bunch of very interesting stuff yesterday and asked questions and no one replied back.  I suspect because they can't refute the information.  For example I explained how every word written in the bible was written on hearsay and I asked, "if Jesus was so well known near and far at the time, how come none of the Jewish historians wrote about him?  There were lots in that area at the time and no one wrote about it.  Nor is it in the history books where Herod killed every first born son.  

So without organized religions lies, what else do you really have other than wishful thinking and blissful ignorance?


----------



## sealybobo

If Adam & Eve & Moses & Noah & Jonah & Jesus are all allegories, the whole things made up.  Wake up people.  Time to evolve.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right *and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.*




... *and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.*


*Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *


have you established the bible is a *Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God* ?

which specific "claim" in the bible is the definitive proof that answers the question where as a non biblical proof would not suffice ?

.


----------



## sealybobo

No being that is perfect would need to be worshipped!  I love that!!!


----------



## G.T.

cosmological argument.........

f-u-c-k-i-n-g d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> cosmological argument.........
> 
> f-u-c-k-i-n-g d-e-s-t-r-o-y-e-d



Not at all.  I listened to the whole debate as a debate judge and the argument for the cosmological theory won hands down.  The opposition reverted to the vague and less arguable position that no God has to exist in order for the universe to exist.  The pro cosmological side did not argue that God has to exist but put the concept on the basis of probability--something the opposition neither addressed nor was able to dispute.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then.  I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know.  But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible.  The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are.  Philosophers have seen these things too.  I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals.  Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.



Never fall into the trap of thinking you know what other people believe unless they express that belief. 

I have no idea how we experience time. Many people believe we see it is linear, yet people often have an experience we call a flashback were they experience a past event in the present. Do they experience time differently than other people? How can anyone be sure of the answer to that question?

By the way, if you want to learn about the omniscience of God I suggest you clollect all the verses in the Bible that contradict our concept of God as all knowing and figure out how to reconcile them with your  view that God knows everything. Like I said before, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and ever present God most people understand is entirely a product of philosophy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> And really what does it matter what you believe or the Catholic Church says?  It's what you can prove and that's nothing.  I noticed I posted a bunch of very interesting stuff yesterday and asked questions and no one replied back.  I suspect because they can't refute the information.  For example I explained how every word written in the bible was written on hearsay and I asked, "if Jesus was so well known near and far at the time, how come none of the Jewish historians wrote about him?  There were lots in that area at the time and no one wrote about it.  Nor is it in the history books where Herod killed every first born son.
> 
> So without organized religions lies, what else do you really have other than wishful thinking and blissful ignorance?



Funny thing, using logic I can prove anything I want, but have not spent even a moment doing so. That is, quite simply, because I don't waste my time offering proofs to idiots that think they already know everything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> No being that is perfect would need to be worshipped!  I love that!!!



Maybe that is why God doesn't come down, prove His existence to you, and demand that you worship him.

See why you you are an idiot yet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


>



Do you really expect anyone to believe that you, being the complete idiot you are, actually spent 3 hours 58 minutes and 27 seconds watching those videos? Tell the truth, you only posted them because the titles support your personal bias.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really expect anyone to believe that you, being the complete idiot you are, actually spent 3 hours 58 minutes and 27 seconds watching those videos? Tell the truth, you only posted them because the titles support your personal bias.
Click to expand...


I'm smarter than you are, so your insults are GREAT!

Keep them coming, ass hole. 

You're the intellectual coward that spends her time browsing threads where people kick around ontological theories without EVER having the balls to post you own. 

Get the fuck over yourself. You're the most classic case of projecting ever invented. You point out minutia out of people's posts to harp at and then call them know it alls. You're the know it all, dickhead. 

fyi sealy was obviously referring to what the bible says, your post #1264 was just another random example of you just being a dick to be a dick, not here to advance anything. 

And last - I've watched tons of god debates, it's not that hard when you work from a desk.


----------



## G.T.

Einstein could write the theory of relativity on here for the first time it's ever been presented if the time tables were rearranged in life's history, and quantum douchebag would be in here arguing that he spelled a word or two wrong. 

Inconsequential nit pickey douchebaggery, is 99% of your posts. Go argue minutia someplace else, you're too big for your britches.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'm smarter than you are, so your insults are GREAT!
> 
> Keep them coming, ass hole.
> 
> You're the intellectual coward that spends her time browsing threads where people kick around ontological theories without EVER having the balls to post you own.
> 
> Get the fuck over yourself. You're the most classic case of projecting ever invented. You point out minutia out of people's posts to harp at and then call them know it alls. You're the know it all, dickhead.
> 
> fyi sealy was obviously referring to what the bible says, your post #1264 was just another random example of you just being a dick to be a dick, not here to advance anything.
> 
> And last - I've watched tons of god debates, it's not that hard when you work from a desk.



You want to know why I don't post my theories? Because you wouldn't understand the math behind them, oh he who is smarter than the village idiot yet is always losing arguments to him.

As for your claim that sealy was onviosuly referring to what the Bible says I am sure you can supply the actual reference to the scripture he used to support his claim. If, on the other hand, you are as stupid as he is, you will come up just as short as he did.

I will await your revelation of where the Bible says that God is perfect and has no need of worship, as soon as I stop laughing.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm smarter than you are, so your insults are GREAT!
> 
> Keep them coming, ass hole.
> 
> You're the intellectual coward that spends her time browsing threads where people kick around ontological theories without EVER having the balls to post you own.
> 
> Get the fuck over yourself. You're the most classic case of projecting ever invented. You point out minutia out of people's posts to harp at and then call them know it alls. You're the know it all, dickhead.
> 
> fyi sealy was obviously referring to what the bible says, your post #1264 was just another random example of you just being a dick to be a dick, not here to advance anything.
> 
> And last - I've watched tons of god debates, it's not that hard when you work from a desk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to know why I don't post my theories? Because you wouldn't understand the math behind them, oh he who is smarter than the village idiot yet is always losing arguments to him.
> 
> As for your claim that sealy was onviosuly referring to what the Bible says I am sure you can supply the actual reference to the scripture he used to support his claim. If, on the other hand, you are as stupid as he is, you will come up just as short as he did.
> 
> I will await your revelation of where the Bible says that God is perfect and has no need of worship, as soon as I stop laughing.
Click to expand...



You have no theories, you're a contrarian with a stick up his ass, and not as smart as you think you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Einstein could write the theory of relativity on here for the first time it's ever been presented if the time tables were rearranged in life's history, and quantum douchebag would be in here arguing that he spelled a word or two wrong.
> 
> Inconsequential nit pickey douchebaggery, is 99% of your posts. Go argue minutia someplace else, you're too big for your britches.



Newsflash, I don't read German, so if he presented it here for the first time I would have no idea whether or not he spelled a word wrong. If I were to quibble over the spelling I would have to take it up with M. N. Sana and S. H, Bowe, the tow people who original translated his work, not Einstein.

By the way, the reason I know this is because I actually read the theory, which was initially described by Galileo.

If only you were half as smart as you think you are so that you could these avoid stupid mistakes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> You have no theories, you're a contrarian with a stick up his ass, and not as smart as you think you are.



I am the village idiot, remember? That means I think I am really stupid, yet , somehow, I keep trashing you in arguments.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein could write the theory of relativity on here for the first time it's ever been presented if the time tables were rearranged in life's history, and quantum douchebag would be in here arguing that he spelled a word or two wrong.
> 
> _*Inconsequential nit pickey douchebaggery*_, is 99% of your posts. Go argue minutia someplace else, you're too big for your britches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Newsflash, I don't read German,*_ s.
Click to expand...


damn, you really hammered home my point for me.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no theories, you're a contrarian with a stick up his ass, and not as smart as you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am the village idiot, remember? That means I think I am really stupid, yet , somehow, I keep trashing you in arguments.
Click to expand...


In your own mind, you can do ANYthing!

You should rewrite the theme song of a reading rainbow and theme it after yourself.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No being that is perfect would need to be worshipped!  I love that!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that is why God doesn't come down, prove His existence to you, and demand that you worship him.
> 
> See why you you are an idiot yet?
Click to expand...


Not yet.  

See, if there was a generic "GOD" or "creator, we'd be able to see him.  He would have no reason to hide and in fact he wouldn't be able to hide from us.  If he existed he would be obvious.

When I say a god I mean something that created us.  

When THEISTS refer to God they refer to one that sat around and intelligently designed us with a purpose and a god that cares and created a heaven and a  hell for us and listens to your prayers.  He tempted Adam & Eve, drowned everyone but Noah and fucked Mary.  This god is completely man made.


----------



## dblack

It really doesn't seem hard to believe in gods. They're as real as any of us. But if one of them is boasting that it created the universe, my bullshit sensor goes into overload.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> It really doesn't seem hard to believe in gods. They're as real as any of us. But if one of them is boasting that it created the universe, my bullshit sensor goes into overload.


Well then all we have is a matter of how each person defines who/what God, or A God, is then and the entire discussion is kind of moot before those definitions are all established, ya know?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
or the underlying bias to the argument that the bible is relevant to whether or not God exists as a proxy in establishing a means for the Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't seem hard to believe in gods. They're as real as any of us. But if one of them is boasting that it created the universe, my bullshit sensor goes into overload.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then all we have is a matter of how each person defines who/what God, or A God, is then and the entire discussion is kind of moot before those definitions are all established, ya know?
Click to expand...


Indeed. Methinks some gods suffer from delusions of grandeur.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then.  I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know.  But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible.  The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are.  Philosophers have seen these things too.  I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals.  Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never fall into the trap of thinking you know what other people believe unless they express that belief.
> 
> I have no idea how we experience time. Many people believe we see it is linear, yet people often have an experience we call a flashback were they experience a past event in the present. Do they experience time differently than other people? How can anyone be sure of the answer to that question?
> 
> By the way, if you want to learn about the omniscience of God I suggest you clollect all the verses in the Bible that contradict our concept of God as all knowing and figure out how to reconcile them with your  view that God knows everything. Like I said before, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and ever present God most people understand is entirely a product of philosophy.
Click to expand...


If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> .
> or the underlying bias to the argument that the bible is relevant to whether or not God exists as a proxy in establishing a means for the Admission to the Everlasting.
> 
> .



I think it is funny/odd that when we point to your pedophile priests or horrible members you say don't judge the religion by the people that represent it.

Now you seem to be saying that it is irrelevant if all the organized religions are made up.  

I'm saying if your priests are liars and your religions are all made up, what argument do you have for their being a god?

I don't mind people who believe in generic god.  I'm just saying it is very important that all the 1000 religions that have come and gone have been all made up.  Means maybe we made up the entire concept of god to begin with.  Seems that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Not yet.
> 
> See, if there was a generic "GOD" or "creator, we'd be able to see him.  He would have no reason to hide and in fact he wouldn't be able to hide from us.  If he existed he would be obvious.
> 
> When I say a god I mean something that created us.
> 
> When THEISTS refer to God they refer to one that sat around and intelligently designed us with a purpose and a god that cares and created a heaven and a  hell for us and listens to your prayers.  He tempted Adam & Eve, drowned everyone but Noah and fucked Mary.  This god is completely man made.



There you go telling other people what they believe again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.



Agnostic atheists do not exist, how is anyone supposed to ask them anything?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike QW, it appears to me that you understand the implications of infinite simultaneousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully understand the implications of the eternal now.
> 
> I also understand that the concept cannot be supported using the Bible, which is why I sneer at people who think it provides an answer.
Click to expand...


Whaaaa?

That's the central meaning of His name! YHVH (_I AM THAT I AM_, or _I WILL BE_, or _I AM BEING_).

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty."

He is timeless, for all of existence is contingently grounded in His being at all "times" simultaneously right now.

He is infinitely omnipresent right now. If it were not so, for example, what is for us the past would dissolve into nothingness, and we'd have no recollection of it at all. In fact, as some theologians have put it, and rightly so, the God of the Bible is the divinity Who never leaves His post. Berkeley, the Christian empiricist put it this way: “God never looks away", for if He did all other existents would cease to be. Hence, the most perfect understanding of His name is that it denotes the infinite entirety of Who and What He is in every conceivable dimensional sense simultaneously right now . . . of a singe predicate. He is _the_ Principle of Identity in Whom all other existents subsist—from our perspective, past, present and future—right now.

The God of the eternal now, like the doctrines of Christ's divinity and the Trinity, is a bedrock doctrine of scripture and of Christian theology. Not only is this idea embedded in His name, it's one of the preeminent themes of scripture from Genesis to Revelation, and the ultimate essence of His name is the God of an infinite number of dimensional existents or potential existents (manifestations or creations) that exist in Him right now simultaneously.

"God, who quickeneth the dead, calleth those things that are not into existence as though they were."

And that's why I alerted Foxfyre to the problem of thinking about the fundamental laws of thought, collectively, the principle of identity, merely in terms of "human logic," as that leads to error.

It is of course the intrinsically organic law of human thought/apprehension but only as its grounded in God. The law is perfect, reliable, without blemish. The fundamental principle of "human logic" was not corrupted by the Fall, as that is the means by which we are still able to perceive the construct of God and know what He's like in terms of His fundamental attributes. This is not the same thing as understanding Him comprehensibly, of course, for we're not God. It's not the same thing as knowing Him personally. Rather, the merciful God did not allow the core of His image imprinted on our minds to be corrupted/destroyed as a result of our sin, for if He had, we'd be utterly lost with no means to recognize the way back home.  And that, by the way, is the foundation of free will.

Logical fallacies, both formal and informal, fallacies in inference or in predication . . . are not the result of any failure or limitation of "human logic". They are due to the abuse or disuse of the principle of identity.

Hence, the construct of the eternal now is also readily self-evident from the universal construct of God itself by which all men may know, as delineated by the principle of identity, from the first principles of existence and origin, "So that they . . . who hold the truth in unrighteousness . . . are without excuse."


----------



## dblack

I yam what I yam


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know this stuff as well as others on this forum but I understand the nature of the rules of organic logic very well.  You can't understand anything in philosophy, theology or science without them.  The rules of inference and the scientific method are based on them.  I don't remember what post it was now but you were saying things that seemed to be sort of right but also sort of wrong at the same time and what I couldn't put my finger on was how to explain what's causing you to mix up the two.  But I do know exactly why your idea about the majorana fermion is wrong.  I just didn't get into the mix over that because you wrote your post to M.D.R..  He just proved that this kind of argumentation is the logical fallacy of false predication.  Even I know that and why that's logically true.  There's no contradiction between this well known fact of electromagnetic radiation and the laws of logic, any more than there's a contradiction between the majorana fermion and the laws of logic.  The second and third law of organic logic are just detailed annunciations of the universal rule of identity which holds that the predicate of any whole cannot be divided.  This is understood in the logic of sets.  one whole set can theoretically be an infinite number of things simultaneously just like any whole can be theoretically divided an infinite number of times.  There's nothing in human nature's basic rules of logic that says these kinds of things are contradictory or can't exist.  I don't know where you're getting this from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly what philosophers want you to believe. *The problem is, that as I explained, some things in the universe just are not explainable using logic, which leaves us with a few choices. The top three as I see them are that we can ignore the part of the universe that logic insists does not exist, we can ignore logic when it conflicts with the universe, or we can admit that our understanding of our mental abilities is limited by the fact that we are, at least in part, limited by our brains ability to understand itself.*
> 
> Personally, I opt for the latter, especially when we consider that the same people that developed natural logic insisted the the Earth was the center of the universe.
> 
> By the way, there is more than one form of logic. One I find particularly useful, probably because I was forced to learn it as part of programming IFTT functions, is fuzzy logic. Perhaps you should look into the various fields of logic before you decide to use one of them exclusively.
Click to expand...


You did not successfully explain the emboldened at all; rather, you were roundly refuted with more to come. 

What philosophers are you talking about? You can't be talking about me, as I don't do the sort of "philosophical bullshit" that comes from disregarding the alerts of the principle of identity. QW, I have shown that you are wrong about the notion that the principle of identity is contradicted by existents that are two or more things simultaneously, and the notion that the organic laws of logic are not up to the task of dealing with the complexities of the cosmological order is as wrong as it can be. What are talking about?  God is the ultimate Principle of Identity, and we obviously able to understand the things and make the pertinent distinctions your alluding via the principle of identity!  Dude! 

The laws of thought were asserted in the Bible, centuries before the classical thinkers of natural philosophy formally defined them.  Once again, they are, collectively, the principle of identity, the Image of God imprinted on our minds.  They have been recognized and have bound human reason since Adam, and they are the means by which we came to recognize that geocentricism is wrong and the means by which we know _why_ Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and others got it wrong.

Other forms of logic are fine as long as they are faithfully bottomed on the principle of identity, which, by the way, you just asserted in your distinction.  You cannot escape it.  It can't be refuted.  You _can't_ opt out.  You never have and never will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Whaaaa?
> 
> That's the central meaning of His name! YHVH (_I AM THAT I AM_, or _I WILL BE_, or _I AM BEING_).
> 
> "Before Abraham was, I AM."
> 
> "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty."
> 
> He is timeless, for all of existence is contingently grounded in His being at all "times" simultaneously right now.
> 
> He is infinitely omnipresent right now. If it were not so, for example, what is for us the past would dissolve into nothingness, and we'd have no recollection of it at all. In fact, as some theologians have put it, and rightly so, the God of the Bible is the divinity Who never leaves His post. Berkeley, the Christian empiricist put it this way: “God never looks away", for if He did all other existents would cease to be. Hence, the most perfect understanding of His name is that it denotes the infinite entirety of Who and What He is in every conceivable dimensional sense simultaneously right now . . . of a singe predicate. He is _the_ Principle of Identity in Whom all other existents subsist—from our perspective, past, present and future—right now.
> 
> The God of the eternal now, like the doctrines of Christ's divinity and the Trinity, is a bedrock doctrine of scripture and of Christian theology. Not only is this idea embedded in His name, it's one of the preeminent themes of scripture from Genesis to Revelation, and the ultimate essence of His name is the God of an infinite number of dimensional existents or potential existents (manifestations or creations) that exist in Him right now simultaneously.
> 
> "God, who quickeneth the dead, calleth those things that are not into existence as though they were."
> 
> And that's why I alerted Foxfyre to the problem of thinking about the fundamental laws of thought, collectively, the principle of identity, merely in terms of "human logic," as that leads to error.
> 
> It is of course the intrinsically organic law of human thought/apprehension but only as its grounded in God. The law is perfect, reliable, without blemish. The fundamental principle of "human logic" was not corrupted by the Fall, as that is the means by which we are still able to perceive the construct of God and know what He's like in terms of His fundamental attributes. This is not the same thing as understanding Him comprehensibly, of course, for we're not God. It's not the same thing as knowing Him personally. Rather, the merciful God did not allow the core of His image imprinted on our minds to be corrupted/destroyed as a result of our sin, for if He had, we'd be utterly lost with no means to recognize the way back home.  And that, by the way, is the foundation of free will.
> 
> Logical fallacies, both formal and informal, fallacies in inference or in predication . . . are not the result of any failure or limitation of "human logic". They are due to the abuse or disuse of the principle of identity.
> 
> Hence, the construct of the eternal now is also readily self-evident from the universal construct of God itself by which all men may know, as delineated by the principle of identity, from the first principles of existence and origin, "So that they . . . who hold the truth in unrighteousness . . . are without excuse."



I is central to your interpretation of his name, which is questionable.

YHWH The amazing name YHWH meaning and etymology


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You did not successfully explain the emboldened at all; rather, you were roundly refuted with more to come.



If you are referring to your childish attempt to use the laws of thought to explain sub atomic particles, I refer you to the definition of thought.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> What philosophers are you talking about? You can't be talking about me, as I don't do the sort of "philosophical bullshit" that comes from disregarding the alerts of the principle of identity. QW, I have shown that you are wrong about the notion that the principle of identity is contradicted by existents that are two or more things simultaneously, and the notion that the organic laws of logic are not up to the task of dealing with the complexities of the cosmological order is as wrong as it can be. What are talking about?  God is the ultimate Principle of Identity, and we obviously able to understand the things and make the pertinent distinctions your alluding via the principle of identity!  Dude!



Dude, the principle of identity is about how we think, not how the universe works.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> The laws of thought were asserted in the Bible, centuries before the classical thinkers of natural philosophy formally defined them.  Once again, they are, collectively, the principle of identity, the Image of God imprinted on our minds.  They have been recognized and have bound human reason since Adam, and they are the means by which we came to recognize that geocentricism is wrong and the means by which we know _why_ Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy and others got it wrong.



Yep, they are right there in the Book of Bullshit, AKA The Sayings of People Who Cannot Find the Things They Insist are in the Bible.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Other forms of logic are fine as long as they are faithfully bottomed on the principle of identity, which, by the way, you just asserted in your distinction.  You cannot escape it.  It can't be refuted.  You _can't_ opt out.  You never have and never will.



Because only your opinion matters in what type of logic is valid, right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entails the intimate things of God that are not objectively or universally apparent.  These are the additional things that God has revealed via inspiration.  These things can of course be objectively weighed, but they're not intrinsically apparent to all.
> 
> The God of the Bible is omniscient without exception.  The Bible unmistakably asserts a doctrine of predestination, yet it simultaneously holds that creatures have free will.  What do we do with this?
> 
> There are two views that I'm aware of:  the "Foreknowledge" and the Calvinist view.
> 
> The Foreknowledge view holds that God simply foreknew that a portion of the angels would reject Him, that humanity would fall.  Knowing this He predestined that He would provide a means of redemption . . . for mankind.  But the terms _predestined_ and  _foreknowledge_ go to _our_ perspective of time, not His.  There is no past or future for God. Everything is now for Him.  From our perspective of time, everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening right _now _for Him.  The contention is that His knowledge of what we will do, from our perspective, is what we are doing right now, from His perspective.  He is viewing those things we will do, according to our sense of time, in the same sense that I'm viewing this screen right now, knowing precisely what I intend to say.  I'm free to write what I will, but He's here, with me, right now . . . right now . . . one hour from now, right now, if you follow, viewing my thoughts and  intentions.  He _is_ here with me at this very moment ten years ago, for example, from my perspective.
> 
> The Calvinist view holds that God predestined, without regard to His foreknowledge, who he would create to choose Him.
> 
> I opt for the Foreknowledge view as it seems to reconcile the whole of scripture, but I don't pretend to know if it works based on my limited understanding.
> 
> I know this won't be satisfactory for many. It remains mysterious to me.  The Foreknowledge view is the closest I can get to making sense out of it all. But I do believe from other evidence that there is "a unifying principle" that is rationally coherent in the light of all the pertinent facts that are simply beyond my ken from this side of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
Click to expand...



To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.

_I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.

I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.

That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *

For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.   

The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.

Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> For purposes of definition, this is unclear, unsatisfactory. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension, a.k.a., the three classical laws of logic (identity, contradiction and the excluded middle, collectively, the principle of identity) are intrinsic, universal, absolute, inescapable, hardwired. They are not man made.
> 
> This is _the_ logic, in and of itself, at the base of all other logical formulations or frameworks for argumentation. Indeed, it is the first principle of knowledge, the essential mechanism of rational and moral thought. The Hebrews called it the essence of the _tzelem elohim_ (in English, _the image of God_, in Latin, the _Imago Dei_) and the Greeks called it the _theiotes logos_ (the divine word).  It places no restraints on God whatsoever; rather, the principle  of identity is an aspect of the very essence of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classical logic is based on the three classical laws of thought.
> 
> The law of identity. For any proposition A: A=A
> 
> The law of non-contradiction.  For all Not A=(Not -A)
> 
> The law of the excluded middle. For all A: A or -A
> The problem is that the universe really doesn't care about what we think, even if we consider it to be universally true. As an example, there is a particle in physics called a majorana fermion. These particles have a rather unusual property, they are both matter and anti matter at the same time. In other words, each of these particles is both A and -A at the same time, which clearly violates the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> I refuse to accept anything as universally true simply because it makes sense to me, I need evidence to support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This does _not_ violate the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third). You're just not thinking clearly. If the Majorana fermion _did_ violate any aspect of the principle of identity, we wouldn't be able to detect its existence. In other words, your argument fails because its premise falsely identifies the entity perceived.
> 
> The _fact_ of the intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it's the intrinsically organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both the proscriptive and descriptive levels of apprehension. You're still thinking about the fundamental law of thought/apprehension as if it were some contrived entity existing apart from our being.
> 
> _What_ is _it_?
> 
> *The Majorana particle ≠ matter-not-matter, because it's always matter.
> 
> The Majorana particle ≠ antimatter-not-antimatter, because it's always anitmatter.*​
> 
> Rather:
> 
> *Let Y = matter; X = antimatter.*
> 
> *Hence, the Majorana particle = Y and X simultaneously, or A = A (Y and  X simultaneously), or, simply, the Majorana particle is its own antiparticle.*​
> That's the _whole_ of what it is, as opposed to what it's not and as distinguished from everything else.  That's the discrete, positive form or proposition of the single predicate.
> 
> The logical principle of identity begins with identifying _what_ the thing _is_. This fundamental law of human cognition and its analytical elaborations do not assert that something which is simultaneously positive and negative is inexplicable; rather, *for all A: A OR ~A *is inexplicable. And they obviously don't impede our ability to perceive that such a thing does in fact exist. Your error is to divide the whole of something into something it's not.  It's _your_ *A and ~A *that's off:
> 
> *For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) ≠ ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter),
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> For all A: A (Y and X simultaneously) or ~A (matter-not-matter or antimatter-not-antimatter).*​
> This is not the first time I've answered this objection.
Click to expand...



*Existents that are two or more things simultaneously do not violate the organic laws of thought!

*
You argued that the Majorana particle violates the law of the excluded middle (or excluded third) or that the law of the excluded middle holds that such a thing could not exist. That’s false. I showed you in *post # 1186* that your allegation is false and why it's false: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9909969/

And I showed you why it's false again here: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet your still claiming this falsehood to be true.

Once again. . . .

You simply misconstrued the principle of identity, as you simultaneously misconstrued the definition of the Majorana particle itself.

The Majorana particle, a material existent, occupying the same space and having the same mass simultaneously expressed in the positive and in the negative, is conceptually and mathematically coherent. There's no inherent contradiction. There's no _third_ to exclude. *The whole is a consistently rational proposition of a single predicate (A = A)*. You split the predicate. *The Majorana particle is not A and ~A; rather, it's A (Y and X simultaneously)*. You insinuated a false premise in an implied syllogism rendering an invalid conclusion.

Not only did you _not_ show that “the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself", that claim is undermined by the falsification of your contention that the Majorana particle contradicts the law of the excluded middle, for it obviously does _not_ contradict it at all.

What appears to be the crux of your confusion about all of this is the mistaken notion that the logical proof for the self-evidentiary fact that the principle of identity is an intrinsically organic component of human nature = the notion that the cosmological order is necessarily contingent on our apprehensions about it.

False.  Neither the transcendental argument nor the laws of organic logic assert any such thing.   On the contrary, they assert the opposite.

More to come. . . .
_______________________________

By the way, your contention about the eternal now has been falsified here:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 65 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And that also serves to falsify your claim that things like the Majorana particle violate the principle of identity as well your contention that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist according to the organic laws of thought.  False on both counts.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again setting aside the heavy theology that is mostly an alien language to probably most on this thread, I go back to the KISS principle.
> 
> For every passage asserting the omniscience of God, you can find another stating that God relented, God had compassion, God changed his mind.  For example, the scripture would suggest Abraham was able to bargain with YHWH to have the life of Lot and his family spared when God destroyed Sodom.  And later God wanted the people to depend on Him for what they needed, but they clamored for a king until God finally gave in and gave them one.
> 
> *Exodus 32:9-14:*
> (Following the people making the golden calf when Moses was on the mountain). . . .
> 9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
> 11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.​
> I personally cannot square a concept of free will against a concept of a life and universe in which it is already scoped and planned and determined from beginning to end.  I can't see how that would make us more than puppets forced to go through it all without purpose since the outcome is already determined.  If everything is already decided, there is no real purpose in repenting, in changing, in doing things better or being more wise, or in prayer that we are commanded to do without ceasing.  Despite the joy and blessings given us, there is also great suffering and cruelty of the most horrible kind.  I can't square the loving God I know up close and personal with one who would have planned all that out.
> 
> I have to believe that free will includes the ability to change things and make a difference; otherwise I can reason no purpose for going through all this at all.
> 
> So for want of a better explanation, I see God's omniscience as being able to see what will happen if we continue on the course we are on, but who loves us enough to allow us to love so we do have the ability to change our circumstances and our destiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
Click to expand...


I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.


----------



## Mertex

sealybobo said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history.  Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.
> 
> My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago.  They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc.  Doesn't seem that much different than now.*
> 
> Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity.  None of it jives with reality or history.  So clearly all made up.
Click to expand...


Really....did they have computers, Ipods and smart phones?  Did they fly across the ocean in jets?  Me thinks you're delusional.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheists do not exist, how is anyone supposed to ask them anything?
Click to expand...


Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.

Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.

I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.



No, I am calling you an idiot for saying agnostic atheist. The fact that you immediately deflected into something that had nothing to do with what I said actually reinforces my point.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
Click to expand...


From where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of claims being made that can't be objectively backed by rational experience of by the Bible.  I'm a young Christian, new to the faith but I'm not new to the Bible.  I was raised in a Baptist church that my mother attended with us kids.  I just went along but I do know the Bible as I had to do all those Bible studies for years.  Of course reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit is a whole other level of understanding from just the intellectual level.  The idea that the basic attributes of God are known from the act of thinking about the possible ultimate source of existence being intelligent and spiritual rather than being material, that humans can  perceive what that would mean in the highest sense is biblical.  David,  Moses, the prophets and the apostles talk about that and why God did that to our minds constantly.  Some of the best affirmations of this are found in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Job, the epistles and the gospels.  The very things that can be known about God by thinking about the issue of origin are specifically named by the inspired writers also.  I have no problemfollowing what M.D.R. is saying.  What he calls the "imperatives of the problem of origin" that come to our minds when we think about the idea of God without the Bible are in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that these things can be seen without the Bible and what they are.   I don't get what arguments you think he's rejecting out of hand.  I still don't really know what you're saying about free will.  All I can get out of what you said is that you believe free will happens.  M.D.R. believes free will happens.  I believe free will happens.  I believe the same way he does that total omniscience and free will can be at the same time.  You seem to be saying that these two things can't happen at the same time but you don't really say why that can't be, except that for some reason you think that means everything is mapped out.


----------



## RandallFlagg

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.




Ever seen a child smile? Ever seen a rose bloom? Ever seen the sun rise over the mountains?  Ever wonder how complete synergy could come from complete chaos and cause the universe to work in perfect order - in direct violation of man's law of thermodynamics?

You don't believe in God? Your choice. As for me and mine? We will honor the Lord. Sorry if it upsets you.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am calling you an idiot for saying agnostic atheist. The fact that you immediately deflected into something that had nothing to do with what I said actually reinforces my point.
Click to expand...



Indeed. "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Boss

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God. 

The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it. 

Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then.  I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know.  But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible.  The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are.  Philosophers have seen these things too.  I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals.  Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never fall into the trap of thinking you know what other people believe unless they express that belief.
> 
> I have no idea how we experience time. Many people believe we see it is linear, yet people often have an experience we call a flashback were they experience a past event in the present. Do they experience time differently than other people? How can anyone be sure of the answer to that question?
> 
> By the way, if you want to learn about the omniscience of God I suggest you clollect all the verses in the Bible that contradict our concept of God as all knowing and figure out how to reconcile them with your  view that God knows everything. Like I said before, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and ever present God most people understand is entirely a product of philosophy.
Click to expand...


I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.


----------



## sealybobo

RandallFlagg said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am calling you an idiot for saying agnostic atheist. The fact that you immediately deflected into something that had nothing to do with what I said actually reinforces my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. "agnostic atheist" is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...


Agnostic means not sure.  No one can know for sure unless you are a god yourself right?  So that's the agnostic part of us.  Atheist because your Jesus and Mohammad stories are completely bullshit!  

Get it now?

It's like being a bi sexual man who likes women a lot more than you do men.  You may lean more towards hetero but you're a fag too.  See how you can be a blend of both?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God.
> 
> The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it.
> 
> Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.
Click to expand...


Nothing you say validates the existence of a god.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God.
> 
> The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it.
> 
> Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  Atheism is not justifiable in the formal sense at all because the assumption of it is contradictory to the fact that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism is purely faith-based without a justifiable argument to back it at all.  We have existence.  That's it.  How is it that we have existence?  Something must have always existed because how do you get something from nothing?  So either some material thing has always existed or some immaterial thing has always existed, and the immaterial thing can be intelligent.  To say that anyone of these things is impossible is to say that you know something that you can't possibly known is true.  Atheism is not logical whether it's true or not. You can say that God is or must be though without such a contradiction.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * f(x) =  lim           (1/x) = 0.*
> _*         x --> ∞*_
> *
> *
> This means that the function *f* systematically increases the value of *x* toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of *x*, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching *0*. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for *x* tending toward *∞* and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching *0*. In other words, *= 0 *actually means *"near 0"* as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.
> 
> Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as *"(1/x) = n approaching 0."
> 
> 
> Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward x --> ∞ of function f.
> 
> Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.
> 
> Thus, for example:
> 
> 
> lim
> x --> ∞ ∈ D
> ___________
> 1
> 10
> 100
> 1000 . . .
> 
> 
> 
> (1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
> ___________________________________
> 1.0
> 0.1
> 0.01
> 0.001 . . .
> 
> 
> Also:
> 
> D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }
> 
> *
> Now many won't care about this, but if you copy and paste this, and take some quality time to contemplate the various aspects of the concept and the results in the light of the perfect attributes of God, including things like love and justice, you may see dimensionally new things about Him that will blow your mind and demolish any number of preconceived notions that routinely get in our way as finite minds trapped in a perceptually three-dimensional construct within the dimensional construct of time from seeing just how incredibly and awesomely unlimited He is. You can't grasp all of it, of course, not even close, but you can get a feel for it as never before this way.
Click to expand...



I will try this.  Actually, a pastor I know told me about this same contemplation exercise though without this I wouldn't have know where to start.  Three things jump out at me right away.  Both ends of the process in some sense "meet in the middle" of infinity.  The contemplation of infinity as it relates to the rules of logic is essentially set logic in terms of concepts that are simultaneously an infinite number things.   You don't actually divide by infinity, but you see the infinite possibilities of existence if you look at it in terms of God's infinite ability to create anything anyway He pleases.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheists do not exist, how is anyone supposed to ask them anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.
Click to expand...


No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God.
> 
> The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it.
> 
> Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Atheism is not justifiable in the formal sense at all because the assumption of it is contradictory to the fact that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism is purely faith-based without a justifiable argument to back it at all.  We have existence.  That's it.  How is it that we have existence?  Something must have always existed because how do you get something from nothing?  So either some material thing has always existed or some immaterial thing has always existed, and the immaterial thing can be intelligent.  To say that anyone of these things is impossible is to say that you know something that you can't possibly known is true.  Atheism is not logical whether it's true or not. You can say that God is or must be though without such a contradiction.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying and I agree, Atheism is not valid for the reasons you mentioned. Still, it doesn't have to be valid to be justifiable. If an Atheist is unable to realize spiritual existence and all they are aware of is physical existence, then to not believe in God's existence is simply to not believe in God's physical existence. I believe that is justified because God is metaphysical and doesn't physically exist.

Atheists are spiritually illiterate. They have no concept or understanding of spiritual nature at all. Any talk of "existence" can only mean in a physical state of existing, they have no knowledge of any other kind of existence. Therefore, their sentiments are justified, given their illiteracy of spiritual nature.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of claims being made that can't be objectively backed by rational experience of by the Bible.  I'm a young Christian, new to the faith but I'm not new to the Bible.  I was raised in a Baptist church that my mother attended with us kids.  I just went along but I do know the Bible as I had to do all those Bible studies for years.  Of course reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit is a whole other level of understanding from just the intellectual level.  The idea that the basic attributes of God are known from the act of thinking about the possible ultimate source of existence being intelligent and spiritual rather than being material, that humans can  perceive what that would mean in the highest sense is biblical.  David,  Moses, the prophets and the apostles talk about that and why God did that to our minds constantly.  Some of the best affirmations of this are found in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Job, the epistles and the gospels.  The very things that can be known about God by thinking about the issue of origin are specifically named by the inspired writers also.  I have no problemfollowing what M.D.R. is saying.  What he calls the "imperatives of the problem of origin" that come to our minds when we think about the idea of God without the Bible are in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that these things can be seen without the Bible and what they are.   I don't get what arguments you think he's rejecting out of hand.  I still don't really know what you're saying about free will.  All I can get out of what you said is that you believe free will happens.  M.D.R. believes free will happens.  I believe free will happens.  I believe the same way he does that total omniscience and free will can be at the same time.  You seem to be saying that these two things can't happen at the same time but you don't really say why that can't be, except that for some reason you think that means everything is mapped out.
Click to expand...


If you were given limited omniscience that allowed you to see every second/minute/hour of what you would be doing, thinking, speaking, believing, hoping during the next 24 hours, is not that 24 hours already determined?  There is nothing you can do to change it.  It is fixed already in time in that the past/present/future already exists.  How then do you have free will within that concept?  For what purpose is this existence if your present has no ability to alter or change your future?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.



You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot. 

I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.

I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Agnostic means not sure.  No one can know for sure unless you are a god yourself right?  So that's the agnostic part of us.  Atheist because your Jesus and Mohammad stories are completely bullshit!
> 
> Get it now?
> 
> It's like being a bi sexual man who likes women a lot more than you do men.  You may lean more towards hetero but you're a fag too.  See how you can be a blend of both?



I get it, you think you can redifine words to fit your beliefs, and the rest of us just have to go along because everyone knows you are right. If we continue to insist that reality proves you wrong you will behead us and crow that it is proof that truth is on your side, just like all the other religious fanatics.

Come and get me, asshole.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I thought you believed in free will but that God wouldn't be completely omniscient in some sense because we couldn't have free will if He was. That suggested to me that you would be going on the way we commonly experience time, past, present, future, nothing heavy duty. But I admit that I apparently still don't really understand why you see it that way then.  I'm not talking about God in the philosophical sense as the idea that He exists in the eternal now and is the God of infinite possibilities is biblical, though I suppose some philosophers have inferred that from thought. I don't know.  But the only persons I know who have rejected this biblical understanding of God are philosophes for the reason I thought you were expressing.  I think there's a misunderstanding here.  There are things that can be known about God from the general revelation or from the creation itself through thought without the Bible.  The Bible tells us this and even tells us what those things are.  Philosophers have seen these things too.  I've got no use for the things some have "seen" past these universals.  Every philosopher I've looked at gets some if not most of these universals right and then go off and start making all kinds of claims that in my opinion don't follow and definitely aren't biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never fall into the trap of thinking you know what other people believe unless they express that belief.
> 
> I have no idea how we experience time. Many people believe we see it is linear, yet people often have an experience we call a flashback were they experience a past event in the present. Do they experience time differently than other people? How can anyone be sure of the answer to that question?
> 
> By the way, if you want to learn about the omniscience of God I suggest you clollect all the verses in the Bible that contradict our concept of God as all knowing and figure out how to reconcile them with your  view that God knows everything. Like I said before, the omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, and ever present God most people understand is entirely a product of philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
Click to expand...


What are god's attributes?  See the problem with your thinking


Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God.
> 
> The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it.
> 
> Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Atheism is not justifiable in the formal sense at all because the assumption of it is contradictory to the fact that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism is purely faith-based without a justifiable argument to back it at all.  We have existence.  That's it.  How is it that we have existence?  Something must have always existed because how do you get something from nothing?  So either some material thing has always existed or some immaterial thing has always existed, and the immaterial thing can be intelligent.  To say that anyone of these things is impossible is to say that you know something that you can't possibly known is true.  Atheism is not logical whether it's true or not. You can say that God is or must be though without such a contradiction.
Click to expand...


If something MUST HAVE or HAD TO create us what created our creator?  Why MUST something have created us but not your imaginary friend?


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.
> 
> I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.
> 
> I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...


I think that's why I get rather bored once more going through the intense theological studies these days. I did the work for years and years, learned all the terminology, concepts, and arguments, went through the theological perspectives of all the church fathers from New Testament times into the Renaissance and Reformation and the spread of the church and its doctrines into the New World.  And I was blessed with a broad spectrum of 'teachers' ranging from Roman Catholic to Anglican/Episcopal to the more protestant mainline churches from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal so I wasn't restricted to one perspective.

And while none of that was without value and I learned a great deal and significantly expanded my own perspectives, ultimately it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and our relationship with God as to what we believe in our hearts.  If we latch onto the theological arguments/doctrines as the way it is and refuse to see it any other way, we are limiting it all to one person or one group of people's belief and teaching.  And I am convinced that no one person or group of people have God all figured out any more than I do.

So these days I prefer to discuss it all in more universally common language with other believers and those who are curious or seekers.  And like you I know I have barely scratched the surface.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> If something MUST HAVE or HAD TO create us what created our creator?  Why MUST something have created us but not your imaginary friend?



This has been explained to you before. We are dealing with your illiteracy of spiritual nature. When we use words like "create" and "exist" it generally means in a physical sense. This is because all things physical must have been created if they exist and have entropy. There is no other logical explanation. The question is, what created these physical things with entropy? 

Now spiritual things do not have entropy. That is an attribute of physical nature. Spiritual things do not have physical existence or they would be physical things. So, since they don't have physical existence and don't possess entropy, there is no logical reason they would require creating. The spiritual simply exists as spiritual, not physical. God is eternal, there is no beginning or end, the Alpha and Omega. 

When we talk about what God created, we mean created in a physical universe with physical attributes in a physical state of existence. Since God has none of these physical constraints, there is no "create" when it comes to God, there is no purpose for it. Your problem is your illiteracy of spiritual nature and failure to understand the difference between a physical and spiritual existence. Because of your mental disability, you can't rationalize what "spiritual existence" means and so you try to apply what you know about physical existence, but this doesn't apply to spiritual nature.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD.R., can you explain the spontaneous thing in better detail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * f(x) =  lim           (1/x) = 0.*
> _*         x --> ∞*_
> *
> *
> This means that the function *f* systematically increases the value of *x* toward the limit of infinity, so that 1 is divided by the systematically increased value of *x*, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching *0*. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for *x* tending toward *∞* and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching *0*. In other words, *= 0 *actually means *"near 0"* as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.
> 
> Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as *"(1/x) = n approaching 0."
> 
> 
> Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward infinity of function f.
> 
> Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.
> 
> Thus, for example:
> 
> 
> lim
> x --> ∞ ∈ D
> ___________
> 1
> 10
> 100
> 1000 . . .
> 
> 
> 
> (1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
> ___________________________________
> 1.0
> 0.1
> 0.01
> 0.001 . . .
> 
> 
> Also:
> 
> D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }
> 
> *
> Now many won't care about this, but if you copy and paste this, and take some quality time to contemplate the various aspects of the concept and the results in the light of the perfect attributes of God, including things like love and justice, you may see dimensionally new things about Him that will blow your mind and demolish any number of preconceived notions that routinely get in our way as finite minds trapped in a perceptually three-dimensional construct within the dimensional construct of time from seeing just how incredibly and awesomely unlimited He is. You can't grasp all of it, of course, not even close, but you can get a feel for it as never before this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I will try this.  Actually, a pastor I know told me about this same contemplation exercise though without this I wouldn't have know where to start.  Three things jump out at me right away.  Both ends of the process in some sense "meet in the middle" of infinity.  The contemplation of infinity as it relates to the rules of logic is essentially set logic in terms of concepts that are simultaneously an infinite number things.   *You don't actually divide by infinity, but you see the infinite possibilities of existence if you look at it in terms of God's infinite ability to create anything anyway He pleases*.
Click to expand...


(By the way, this should read:  *Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward infinity of function f.*  I see that I wrote it out and then pasted the symbolic expression redundantly, but you probably figured that out.  But just in case it caused confusion.)


That's great.  But when you do it, think about the biblical ideas about God's attributes, beginning with the universally apparent attributes, which some are claiming are not in the Bible too just so, as if Saint Paul, for example, were just pulling on our legs when he wrote:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men *who suppress the truth in unrighteousness*, because *that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them*. For since the creation of the world *His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made*, so that they are without excuse. *For even though they knew God*, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but *they became futile in their speculations*, and their foolish heart was darkened. *Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man*. . . .​
Some folks have mistakenly taken this passage to be a cosmological argument when in fact it's essentially the same transcendental argument asserted in the Book of Job by Moses, whom tradition holds to be the author. Paul clearly has that argument from Job in mind because he begins it and ends on the very notes as Moses did in Job.

We can readily perceive contradiction via the organic principle of identity. We "hold the truth in unrighteous". The essence of sin is embracing contradiction and acting on it.

We can't know the more intimate truths about God from reason alone. We need direct revelation to know those kinds of things. But we can know from contemplating the problem of origin that He must be. We are compelled to account for our existence, and the idea of God jumps up!

Also, the attributes of God at the conceivably highest degree of being are objectively and universally apprehensible. It's not necessary to go into a tediously detailed definition of divine perfection as philosophical theists tend to do. What is the very highest order of origin? Sentience. What is the very highest degree of perfection in any one of the categories of attribution? Eternal, infinite, indivisible and immutable. Why must this be? It's very simple really. Because God by definition is the unsurpassedly supreme being. It's not rocket science. And what is the other pertinent factor that we may safely assert? The organic principle of identity by which we ascertain these things must universally apply to all of existence as grounded in God.

Now does this mean that God couldn't by His own volition "compartmentally" reduce the capacity of any given aspect of His being in order to accomplish some purpose or another? I don't see why not, but then I don't see why He would have to do that either. In any event, how in the world would I know anything about that without further revelation?  The objectively apparent imperatives regarding the issue of origin only tell us so much, and no more.  And I've had to strike some things I imagined I saw listed among the generally revealed knowledge in our minds that I unwittingly inserted from deeper revelation in the past.  Oops.

God designed it that way.  Eventually one must take the leap of faith to get past the barrier between reason and the arms of God.  At least that seems right to me, though some philosophers and theologians have claimed that the proofs are absolute in the ultimate sense.  Hmm.  I don't see how that's right.  The only argument that gets close to something like that in my opinion is the transcendental argument.  It just seems to me that God does two things.  He gives us all the evidence we need and then some, both rational and empirical, but it is by faith that we please Him.  I know that both of these ideas are biblically supported.  As for the idea that reason absolutely bridges the gap, I don't see where that's biblically supported and I don't think that's what Paul is saying. He's after something more intimate where the gap is concerned.

The problem with purely philosophical theists is that they invariably take these divine attributes of absolute perfection and think to imposed them in some sense on the essences of material things, which are of a lower order of being, or think to denigrate them without justification to make them work anthropomorphically in some sense relative to humanity's dimensional sense of reality, albeit, in violation of the very same principle of identity from which they delineated the various attributes and established the necessary degree of supremacy. Neither of these things necessarily follow. So you end up with subjective mush, mere speculation.

From there consider things like divine love, justice, mercy, grace . . . as defined by the Bible!  That may seem weird, but it's okay.  Just don't go alone.  Take God's hand and go along with Him in pray.  In other words, If He permits, go with the Holy Sprit and take the Word with you.
_________________________________
P.S.  Yes.  You never actually divide by infinity as such, because, while _infinity_ is defined in this case as "every existent or potential existent simultaneously" or as "every number that exists simultaneously," any number divided by infinity is undefined.  We mathematically intuit what happens as we approach infinity or zero respectively.  I'll give one thing that God gave me.  The infinity end gives you God and all other existents.  The zero end gives you the Triune God who stands and stays "before" and apart from all other existents.


Oh, by the way, in the above, I didn't mean to imply that the Son did not empty Himself of full divinity in His humanity.  He did of course, but He was never disconnected from the Father.  Remember Christ still knew all things immediately pertinent  via that connection . . . well, except in that horrible moment when He took our sins upon Himself.  Imagine His anguish. You know I don't think it was the prospect of the physical torture He knew He would have to endure for our sake, though no doubt that was part of his anguish in the Garden.  Rather it was the knowledge that He would be separated from His Father in that instance on the cross in order to complete His mission.  Whoa!


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheists do not exist, how is anyone supposed to ask them anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?
Click to expand...


Why did god ever talk to you?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If something MUST HAVE or HAD TO create us what created our creator?  Why MUST something have created us but not your imaginary friend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been explained to you before. We are dealing with your illiteracy of spiritual nature. When we use words like "create" and "exist" it generally means in a physical sense. This is because all things physical must have been created if they exist and have entropy. There is no other logical explanation. The question is, what created these physical things with entropy?
> 
> Now spiritual things do not have entropy. That is an attribute of physical nature. Spiritual things do not have physical existence or they would be physical things. So, since they don't have physical existence and don't possess entropy, there is no logical reason they would require creating. The spiritual simply exists as spiritual, not physical. God is eternal, there is no beginning or end, the Alpha and Omega.
> 
> When we talk about what God created, we mean created in a physical universe with physical attributes in a physical state of existence. Since God has none of these physical constraints, there is no "create" when it comes to God, there is no purpose for it. Your problem is your illiteracy of spiritual nature and failure to understand the difference between a physical and spiritual existence. Because of your mental disability, you can't rationalize what "spiritual existence" means and so you try to apply what you know about physical existence, but this doesn't apply to spiritual nature.
Click to expand...


Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.
> 
> I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.
> 
> I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that's why I get rather bored once more going through the intense theological studies these days. I did the work for years and years, learned all the terminology, concepts, and arguments, went through the theological perspectives of all the church fathers from New Testament times into the Renaissance and Reformation and the spread of the church and its doctrines into the New World.  And I was blessed with a broad spectrum of 'teachers' ranging from Roman Catholic to Anglican/Episcopal to the more protestant mainline churches from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal so I wasn't restricted to one perspective.
> 
> And while none of that was without value and I learned a great deal and significantly expanded my own perspectives, ultimately it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and our relationship with God as to what we believe in our hearts.  If we latch onto the theological arguments/doctrines as the way it is and refuse to see it any other way, we are limiting it all to one person or one group of people's belief and teaching.  And I am convinced that no one person or group of people have God all figured out any more than I do.
> 
> So these days I prefer to discuss it all in more universally common language with other believers and those who are curious or seekers.  And like you I know I have barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...


At least you admit you don't know.  

I too find value in talking to Jehovas, Catholics, Chaldeans, Baptists, Lutherans, Presyterians, Non Demon, Born agains, Mormons, Muslims, Greek Orthodox, Jews, Buddas, Hindus & every other religious type.  It has helped enlighten me.


----------



## sealybobo

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever in the middle of sex all of the sudden decide you want to change positions?  Can't god change direction at any time he wants?
> 
> Hell, he may even have multiple universes where he can play out infinite different versions all at the same time.
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of claims being made that can't be objectively backed by rational experience of by the Bible.  I'm a young Christian, new to the faith but I'm not new to the Bible.  I was raised in a Baptist church that my mother attended with us kids.  I just went along but I do know the Bible as I had to do all those Bible studies for years.  Of course reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit is a whole other level of understanding from just the intellectual level.  The idea that the basic attributes of God are known from the act of thinking about the possible ultimate source of existence being intelligent and spiritual rather than being material, that humans can  perceive what that would mean in the highest sense is biblical.  David,  Moses, the prophets and the apostles talk about that and why God did that to our minds constantly.  Some of the best affirmations of this are found in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Job, the epistles and the gospels.  The very things that can be known about God by thinking about the issue of origin are specifically named by the inspired writers also.  I have no problemfollowing what M.D.R. is saying.  What he calls the "imperatives of the problem of origin" that come to our minds when we think about the idea of God without the Bible are in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that these things can be seen without the Bible and what they are.   I don't get what arguments you think he's rejecting out of hand.  I still don't really know what you're saying about free will.  All I can get out of what you said is that you believe free will happens.  M.D.R. believes free will happens.  I believe free will happens.  I believe the same way he does that total omniscience and free will can be at the same time.  You seem to be saying that these two things can't happen at the same time but you don't really say why that can't be, except that for some reason you think that means everything is mapped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were given limited omniscience that allowed you to see every second/minute/hour of what you would be doing, thinking, speaking, believing, hoping during the next 24 hours, is not that 24 hours already determined?  There is nothing you can do to change it.  It is fixed already in time in that the past/present/future already exists.  How then do you have free will within that concept?  For what purpose is this existence if your present has no ability to alter or change your future?
Click to expand...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kept it simple.  That's as simple as it gets.  The Bible asserts the following things:  (1) God exists in the eternal now, (2) God is omniscient; (3) creatures have free will; (4) God predestines history/historical figures.  The Foreknowledge view is the best way that I know of to square all these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
Click to expand...



Who have I insulted but the likes of Jake or Hollie who always try to derail/terminate discussions about God with their antics? I said what I said to them to get them off this thread.

*"But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments."*

Judge others? Wow. Seriously?

Methinks that _you_ think I've never heard of the various arguments being asserted on this thread before, that I've never objectively or exhaustively considered them before. Or perhaps you think I don't understand them. Perhaps you think I don't understand QW's arguments regarding the nature of logic, for example. Au contrair. I too am learned in the various forms of logic above the level of nature's logic.

Methinks that you're not really reading or thinking about my posts because you keep attributing attitudes to me that I don't have. You keep imagining that I think I have God all figured out when in fact my posts are one concession after another that I don't.

Methinks you have closed your mind to those objectively and universally apparent potentialities of divine attribution relative to the problem of origin, which *I obviously did not cause to exist*.

*All I'm doing is reporting on them* in terms of their *totally open-ended*, conceivably highest degree. Unlike some, who, ironically, do not grasp what they're actually doing, I don't pretend to know *in terms of ultimacy* whether or not they are volitionally constrained to some lesser degree in order for free will to persist. And unlike some, I certainly don't claim that *in terms of ultimacy* the intrinsically organic laws of logic do not universally apply to existence. I leave that sort of "philosophical bullshit" to others.

Methinks, in fact I know, that at the very least *the major premise of the transcendental argument cannot be refuted, let alone falsified, without presupposing it to be true, which of course defeats the counterargument.* As for the implications of that fact of human cognition relative to what is ultimately true, *I leave that for other's to decide for themselves.*

*QW is still trying to defeat it, in spite of fact that I have incontrovertibly shown that contrary to what he has claimed on this thread the organic laws of logic do in fact coherently encompass actual rational existents that are two or more things simultaneously and coherently anticipate the potentiality that any given material existent could be two or more things simultaneously.*

And guess what?

Today, we know that things like the Majorana particle exist! Such things do not violate any one of the organic laws of logic! Rather, the discovery of these things affirms the cogency of the organic laws of logic!

Can I get a witness?

Amen, brother!

Thank you.

QW's error in this instance as I have shown is false predication, which demonstrates that he did not understand what the organic laws of logic comprehensively entail. 

_Now_, he is asserting that an alternate-world-construct of logic, namely, *intuitionistic/constructive logic*, which I understand very well, mind you, refutes or challenges or overturns the organic laws of logic.

*That's false!
*
And I will show why that’s false too. Just like his logical error of false predication regarding the law of the excluded middle, he's asserting something that on the face it looks right, but is in fact wrong once the matter is comprehensively expounded. In the meantime, there's one or two other assertions he's made that are not accurate either, including his mischaracterization of Aristotle's error regarding geocentricism.

I don't have any personal agenda here, but I will defend the Principle of Identity as it is imprinted on our souls as the internal signpost that points to God. 

That's no small thing!


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to just accept that we have a friendly disagreement on that one.  I do not subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine and while I do believe God has a grand master plan, I don't pretend to be privy to why he calls who he call to implement it.  And my mind cannot conceive of free will and a future that is already set in granite.  Once the movie is in the can, the actors cannot alter it in any way.  I just don't see us an actors in some kind of cosmic movie being played out for all of what we call eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who have I insulted but the likes of Jake or Hollie who always try to derail/terminate discussions about God with their antics? I said what I said to them to get them off this thread.
> 
> *"But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments."*
> 
> Judge others? Wow. Seriously?
> 
> Methinks that _you_ think I've never heard of the various arguments being asserted on this thread before, that I've never objectively or exhaustively considered them before. Or perhaps you think I don't understand them. Perhaps you think I don't understand QW's arguments regarding the nature of logic, for example. Au contrair. I too am learned in the various forms of logic above the level of nature's logic.
> 
> Methinks that you're not really reading or thinking about my posts because you keep attributing attitudes to me that I don't have. You keep imagining that I think I have God all figured out when in fact my posts are one concession after another that I don't.
> 
> Methinks you have closed your mind to those objectively and universally apparent potentialities of divine attribution relative to the problem of origin, which *I obviously did not cause to exist*.
> 
> *All I'm doing is reporting on them* in terms of their *totally open-ended*, conceivably highest degree. Unlike some, who, ironically, do not grasp what they're actually doing, I don't pretend to know *in terms of ultimacy* whether or not they are volitionally constrained to some lesser degree in order for free will to persist. And unlike some, I certainly don't claim that *in terms of ultimacy* the intrinsically organic laws of logic do not universally apply to existence. I leave that sort of "philosophical bullshit" to others.
> 
> Methinks, in fact I know, that at the very least *the major premise of the transcendental argument cannot be refuted, let alone falsified, without presupposing it to be true, which of course defeats the counterargument.* As for the implications of that fact of human cognition relative to what is ultimately true, *I leave that for other's to decide for themselves.*
> 
> *QW is still trying to defeat it, in spite of fact that I have incontrovertibly shown that contrary to what he has claimed on this thread the organic laws of logic do in fact coherently encompass actual rational existents that are two or more things simultaneously and coherently anticipate the potentiality that any given material existent could be two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> And guess what?
> 
> Today, we know that things like the Majorana particle exist! Such things do not violate any one of the organic laws of logic! Rather, the discovery of these things affirms the cogency of the organic laws of logic!
> 
> Can I get a witness?
> 
> Amen, brother!
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> QW's error in this instance as I have shown is false predication, which demonstrates that he did not understand what the organic laws of logic comprehensively entail.
> 
> _Now_, he is asserting that an alternate-world-construct of logic, namely, *intuitionistic/constructive logic*, which I understand very well, mind you, refutes or challenges or overturns the organic laws of logic.
> 
> *That's false!
> *
> And I will show why that’s false too. Just like his logical error of false predication regarding the law of the excluded middle, he's asserting something that on the face it looks right, but is in fact wrong once the matter is comprehensively expounded. In the meantime, there's one or two other assertions he's made that are not accurate either, including his mischaracterization of Aristotle's error regarding geocentricism.
> 
> I don't have any personal agenda here, but I will defend the Principle of Identity as it is imprinted on our souls as the internal signpost that points to God.
> 
> That's no small thing!
Click to expand...


See?  Right there.  Can I get a witness?  And everyone all in a frenzy yells AMEN?  What the fuck did they just witness?  Nothing but a bunch of god damn fools wishful thinking together.

I notice every time us atheists make a good point I notice none of you ever reply back.  

Oh you'll argue in circles all night about bullshit but point out why your religion is made up or how those dead sea scrolls don't prove nothing and I hear crickets chirping.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.



Nothing physical. That's the point. You cannot argue physical things never required creation if physical things have entropy. So we know because of entropy, physical things must have started somewhere, they must have had a beginning, something must have created them. 

Logic tells us that nothing physical is capable of creating itself. It may be able to reproduce itself or regenerate itself, but it cannot create what it isn't here to create to begin with.... following me? So if physical nature couldn't create physical nature, and physical nature must have been created because it has entropy, then what could have created physical nature? The only rational explanation is something not physical in nature, something metaphysical, or spiritual.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *QW is still trying to defeat it...*



Actually, I am not trying to defeat anything, all I have done is show you that the Law of Thought is not applicable to the universe outside our thoughts. I then proceeded to show you that, despite your assertion that these laws are universally held to be axiomatic, there are actually different types of logic that do view them as axioms.

In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing physical. That's the point. You cannot argue physical things never required creation if physical things have entropy. So we know because of entropy, physical things must have started somewhere, they must have had a beginning, something must have created them.
> 
> Logic tells us that nothing physical is capable of creating itself. It may be able to reproduce itself or regenerate itself, but it cannot create what it isn't here to create to begin with.... following me? So if physical nature couldn't create physical nature, and physical nature must have been created because it has entropy, then what could have created physical nature? The only rational explanation is something not physical in nature, something metaphysical, or spiritual.
Click to expand...


Something may have very well created everything you see.  We could have come from another black hole.  But I see what you are saying.  What created the black hole or all the matter, planets and stars?  Something can't come from nothing.  I know what Hawkins says but he hasn't convinced me yet.  

I like your point though and I do get it finally.  Pretty deep.  I know you've been trying to explain it to me for awhile and I finally get it.  I'll have to think about it more and do some research on the idea that nothing physical is capable of creating itself.  

Is something non physical capable of creating itself?  I'm thinking about how clouds are made and how they create lightening.  

I still don't think this creator gives a rats ass about you or me and there is no heaven unless frogs and goats get to go too.  Just like when a star dies that's it, same for you and me.  What happens to your spirit?  Nothing.  It dies with you, I believe.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing physical. That's the point. You cannot argue physical things never required creation if physical things have entropy. So we know because of entropy, physical things must have started somewhere, they must have had a beginning, something must have created them.
> 
> Logic tells us that nothing physical is capable of creating itself. It may be able to reproduce itself or regenerate itself, but it cannot create what it isn't here to create to begin with.... following me? So if physical nature couldn't create physical nature, and physical nature must have been created because it has entropy, then what could have created physical nature? The only rational explanation is something not physical in nature, something metaphysical, or spiritual.
Click to expand...


quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.

Above my pay grade.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.
> 
> Above my pay grade.



And your comprehension, what you said is total bullshit.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity together help us understand how universes could have formed out of nothing.
> 
> Above my pay grade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your comprehension, what you said is total bullshit.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything.  I just posted what people a lot smarter than you or I believe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I didn't say anything.  I just posted what people a lot smarter than you or I believe.



There is absolutely no evidence that there was nothing before the Big Bang.

Just to show you I actually know what the fuck I am talking about, here is Stephen Hawking explaining his views on the origin of the universe. Since he is arguably the smartest man alive, and he doesn't believe the universe came from nothing, I see no reason to believe lesser intellects you think are qualified to discuss the matter, especially since no physicist alive says anything remotely close to that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not successfully explain the emboldened at all; rather, you were roundly refuted with more to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are referring to your childish attempt to use the laws of thought to explain sub atomic particles, I refer you to the definition of thought.
Click to expand...


No. I'm referring to the all grown up fact that the principle of identity is not contradicted by the existence of any given _A_ that is simultaneously two or more things.  The organic laws of logic readily and coherently allow for that and even anticipate the possibility that such things exist in the material realm of being. Conceptually, the Majorana particle is not as you claimed *A and ~A*; rather, its *A = A (X and Y simultaneously)*.  That goes to thought. Understanding the properties and the behavior of sub atomic particles goes to scientific inference and the processes of falsification . . . as directed by the laws of thought, which, of course, can be applied mathematically in other forms of logic, in both alternate-world forms and amplificatory forms.



Quantum Windbag said:


> [Dude, the principle of identity is about how we think, not how the universe works.



No.  That does not follow.  Neither you nor anyone else in history has ever shown that the way we think is not transcendentally synchronized with how the universe works.  In other words, the universe doesn't work the way it does because of the way we apprehend it.  Rather, the way we apprehend things and the way the universe works and are lined up by God because He is the Principle of Identity, the ground of existence and has primacy over the cosmological order.   You're saying that's not possible?  Based on what?  You're misconstrued notion of the principle of identity and your false predication of the Majorana particle?




Quantum Windbag said:


> Yep, they are right there in the Book of Bullshit, AKA The Sayings of People Who Cannot Find the Things They Insist are in the Bible.



The Bible declares that God is the Principle of Identity.  It is in Him that the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other forms of logic are fine as long as they are faithfully bottomed on the principle of identity, which, by the way, you just asserted in your distinction.  You cannot escape it.  It can't be refuted.  You _can't_ opt out.  You never have and never will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because only your opinion matters in what type of logic is valid, right?
Click to expand...


That's not what I said.  My opinions don't have primacy over the principle of identity or over the ground of existence.  You seem to think your opinions do without a shred of evidence.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct on both counts.  The fact of the matter is that Aristotle's organic logic was rock solid insofar as its unaided analysis of the raw sensory data went.  This was not a breakdown in logic.  This was merely mathematically unamplified logic, essentially, insufficient data.  All the while the organic principle of identity was doing precisely what it's supposed to do, including eventually alerting us to the actual nuts and bolts of the problem.  Ultimately, the real problem was simply a lack of knowledge, not a problem of logic at all.
> 
> But QW knows these things . . . except when his ill-considered expressions confuse the matter, as in his FYI that there are things that exist that our brains can't detect, which, ultimately, is the same thing as saying that our senses limit us.  Yet we know these things exist!  How?  Because as he tells us we can imagine the existence of things (via the organic principle of identity) and build technology that magnifies our senses that we might perceive/measure the effects of their presence, which was initially conceived to be in our minds because of other effects that we were able to perceive/measure due to other forms of technology.  But then who in their right minds believes that we can reliably explain things based on what our senses convey alone in the first place?
> 
> No one who understands the principle of identity believes that for moment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Copernicus, with that same rock solid analysis of sensory data, reached a different conclusion, and used math to prove it.
> 
> What did Aristotle use again?
> 
> That's right, he didn't use anything. Why? Because philosophers think their brain is better than science.
Click to expand...


Actually, more accurately, they both used sensory data _and_ math, but there's a twist here, which I really didn't want to get into, but since you seem to think I'm doing extracurricular philosophizing, which I'm not, or defending such. . . .

First of all, I don't know why you keep saying Aristotle didn't use sensory data. That's false. That's mostly what he did use. Aristotle was not the Idealist. Plato was. Aristotle was the classical inspiration for the empiricists of the Enlightenment era: Locke, Hume, Berkeley and others. . . . Aristotle's blank slate is Locke's _tabula rasa_, which, by the way, has been mostly falsified too.

What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing *in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity*. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head that the perfections of the Logos (God)—which, according to him and the latter empiricists, are inferred by our minds upon experiential reflection rather than from innate ideas directly—that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity must be miscalculations. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!

(Now of course the latter empiricists didn't make the same astronomical mistake; one had nothing to do with the other. Besides, Copernicus' model, improved by Brahe and Kepler and affirmed by Galileo, was well-established, and Newton was in the mix by then.)

In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem.

Copernicus, on the other hand, refused to "square that circle."  He paid attention to the recommendations of the principle of identity and took Averoes' criticisms of the Ptolemaic model seriously. He intuited a heliocentric model and found that its mathematics squared all the data.

I'll say this again. Philosophy is not bullshit. It's indispensable to science, and it precedes science. It deals with the what. _What is it_ metaphysically and, thus, _what is it _definitively? We can't do conceptualization or language without it either. The problem arises when people abuse philosophy, or science for that matter!

They both have strict limitations, and we may know what they are via the principle of identity.

Abuse or disregard the recommendations of the principle of identity and you will drive off the road into a ditch. The principle of identity is indispensable to theology, philosophy and science. It's the fundamental tool of apprehension and the assimilation of data. That's all it is. The principle of identity is reliable. It's the tool that tells us that only so much about _the why_ and _the how_ can be had relative to the data at hand, and philosophy is not the right medium for getting at the deeper truths of _the why_ and _the how_.

I understand what the principle of identity is. I understand how it works. I don't disregard it or misconstrue it. That's why I don't do "philosophical bullshit." 
That's why I don't imagine that things like the Majorana fermion violate it when they don't. That's why I don't harbor any illusions that the major premise of its logical proof can be refuted given the fact that the principle is necessarily asserted by the arguer in the very act of trying to refute it.

That's why I embrace the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence and the ramifications thereof as they come at us without bias. That's why I don't countenance the "philosophical bullshit" that would arbitrarily impose a limitation on the unadulterated perfection of the Eternal Now's ability to create an infinite number of dimensional states of being wherein free will would readily thrive without conflict.  In other words, I don't pretend to know that I'm _not_ in such a dimensional state that would be perfectly compatible with the principle of identity which allows for *A = A (X, Y, Z simultaneously)*. 

Overly technical?

Coercive?

Whaaaaaa?

 I'm not the one suggesting God has to be something less than absolutely omniscient, i.e., must necessarily withhold Himself from knowing things absolutely in some way or another in order for free will to actually persist!

The interesting thing about this assertion from theistic philosophy is that it's actually predicated on the organic laws of logic, albeit, as misconstrued to preclude that any given _A_ cannot be simultaneously _X_ and _Y_. But that notion is false, and given the fact that professional philosophers know that (I'll get to Intuitionistic logic tomorrow.), one wonders why some of them don't simply allow that they are treading on ground that belongs to theology.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing physical. That's the point. You cannot argue physical things never required creation if physical things have entropy. So we know because of entropy, physical things must have started somewhere, they must have had a beginning, something must have created them.
> 
> Logic tells us that nothing physical is capable of creating itself. It may be able to reproduce itself or regenerate itself, but it cannot create what it isn't here to create to begin with.... following me? So if physical nature couldn't create physical nature, and physical nature must have been created because it has entropy, then what could have created physical nature? The only rational explanation is something not physical in nature, something metaphysical, or spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something may have very well created everything you see.  We could have come from another black hole.  But I see what you are saying.  What created the black hole or all the matter, planets and stars?  Something can't come from nothing.  I know what Hawkins says but he hasn't convinced me yet.
> 
> I like your point though and I do get it finally.  Pretty deep.  I know you've been trying to explain it to me for awhile and I finally get it.  I'll have to think about it more and do some research on the idea that nothing physical is capable of creating itself.
> 
> Is something non physical capable of creating itself?  I'm thinking about how clouds are made and how they create lightening.
> 
> I still don't think this creator gives a rats ass about you or me and there is no heaven unless frogs and goats get to go too.  Just like when a star dies that's it, same for you and me.  What happens to your spirit?  Nothing.  It dies with you, I believe.
Click to expand...


Those last two words are very important... You believe. 

I'm glad you get what I have been trying to explain. The OP asks for a syllogistic argument and that is it in a nutshell. There is no "proof" for God because God is outside the physical. Any evidence for God is spiritual evidence and subject to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence. 

*Is something non physical capable of creating itself?*

I don't understand what you mean by the question. Do you mean, can something non-physical create itself in a physical manifestation? Because "create" is understood to mean, physically brought into a state of existence. Regardless of whether spiritual nature can do this or not, it doesn't have to and there is no reason for it to. However, one might argue that is precisely what "physical" is, the manifestation of spiritual nature in a physical dimension.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?











the yes to what is the question not it's existence.

.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Those last two words are very important... You believe.
> 
> I'm glad you get what I have been trying to explain. The OP asks for a syllogistic argument and that is it in a nutshell. There is no "proof" for God because God is outside the physical. Any evidence for God is spiritual evidence and subject to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.



Copra sanctum!

That dog ain't dead yet?


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those last two words are very important... You believe.
> 
> I'm glad you get what I have been trying to explain. The OP asks for a syllogistic argument and that is it in a nutshell. There is no "proof" for God because God is outside the physical. Any evidence for God is spiritual evidence and subject to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copra sanctum!
> 
> That dog ain't dead yet?
Click to expand...


Nope, the dog ain't dead. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, if you can't accept the existence of something, you can't accept evidence it provides. If I said the Denver Broncos don't exist, you can take me to Denver, show me the stadium, tour the facilities, meet the team, shake hands with the coach, watch a game... I am still going to find ways to dispute the existence and explain away all the "evidence" as anecdotal. I have to first believe that it's possible the Denver Broncos exist, then I am able to evaluate the evidence objectively.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those last two words are very important... You believe.
> 
> I'm glad you get what I have been trying to explain. The OP asks for a syllogistic argument and that is it in a nutshell. There is no "proof" for God because God is outside the physical. Any evidence for God is spiritual evidence and subject to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copra sanctum!
> 
> That dog ain't dead yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the dog ain't dead. It doesn't matter what we're talking about, if you can't accept the existence of something, you can't accept evidence it provides. If I said the Denver Broncos don't exist, you can take me to Denver, show me the stadium, tour the facilities, meet the team, shake hands with the coach, watch a game... I am still going to find ways to dispute the existence and explain away all the "evidence" as anecdotal. I have to first believe that it's possible the Denver Broncos exist, then I am able to evaluate the evidence objectively.
Click to expand...



You have it all bass ackward.

If you could demonstrate proof, even logic, I would accept your argument.

It doesn't go the other way around.

If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence..

All you do is claim that one has to believe in what has not been proven to exist to accept proof of its existence..

That is simply absurd.

So you may never become a great thinker. At least you tried.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> You have it all bass ackward.



Nope. I've gotten it right. 



> If you could demonstrate proof, even logic, I would accept your argument.



How can you ever accept something as "proof" if you don't believe in what it supposedly proves? I don't understand what the hangup is with this, it's not that complicated. Anything you can think of... If I do not accept or believe that it can or does exist, then nothing you will ever be able to show me is going to be viewed as evidence that proves it's existence. Sorry, just how things are. 

Look... I tried giving you an example of something we both understand clearly exists... the Denver Broncos. I tried to explain how, you can show me all kinds of "evidence" they exist, but if I stubbornly refuse to believe they exist, I am never going to accept your evidence as such. Apparently, you didn't get that. So let's try using something more dubious... Aliens visiting from outer space. If you don't believe in aliens, or don't believe aliens have visited, it does not matter how many things I show you and call "evidence" you'll find some way to explain those things, rationalize them in some logical way, to avoid accepting them as evidence. Now, it can be evidence as clear as day to me, but to you it's just coincidence or fluke... doesn't prove a thing to you.  



> It doesn't go the other way around.
> 
> If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence..



Not so. Let's take an example here... the O.J. Simpson case. Clear evidence existed that OJ was at the scene of the crime, his DNA was there, his victim's DNA was in his truck and on his fence, the case was laid out an all the evidence presented to a jury. Did everyone accept the evidence that was provided and find OJ guilty? No, because "evidence" means something different to each individual who looks at it, depending on perspective. The jurors held the belief that OJ was framed by the police and the evidence was tainted. 



> All you do is claim that one has to believe in what has not been proven to exist to accept proof of its existence..
> 
> That is simply absurd.
> 
> So you may never become a great thinker. At least you tried.



Hey, I've been through this entire debate with Moonbat in another thread a few months ago, I don't have to go through it all again. If you're not comprehending what I am saying, I can't explain it any differently. I understand what you are trying to hear me say, and I keep correcting you but you're not listening, and it's almost like it's on purpose. 

I've never said you have to believe in what's not been proven to exist. I said that before you can begin to accept evidence for something, you must first acknowledge that 'something' can exist. If you don't believe that it can, it doesn't matter what is presented, it isn't evidence.

I'll pose the same challenge I gave Moonbat back then... Give me one example of something you absolutely do not believe is possible to exist, yet you can cite credible evidence that it does exist? You see the problem there, right? 

You're hung up on this idea that I am asking you to first believe whatever the evidence is supposed to prove, and that's not what I've said. So what the fuck do I need to do, slap you upside your goofy head with a board? Get with the program, that's not my argument here.


----------



## Picaro

Quantum Windbag said:


> Funny thing, using logic I can prove anything I want,



Exactly. It's merely semantic gamesmanship.

""The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil"-Bertrand Russell.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> I notice every time us atheists make a good point I notice none of you ever reply back.



What's the problem?  We _are_ talking about the evidence and the reasoning for your idea of God.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the yes to what is the question not it's existence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have no idea what that means.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> How can you ever accept something as "proof" if you don't believe in what it supposedly proves? I don't understand what the hangup is with this, it's not that complicated. Anything you can think of... If I do not accept or believe that it can or does exist, then nothing you will ever be able to show me is going to be viewed as evidence that proves it's existence. Sorry, just how things are.




Are you serious? Many atheists clearly admit the possibility that God might exist but a belief in a possibility is not proof. If you presented any verifiable evidence at all that would support such a possibility they would believe in God as surely as they believe in gravity. What you do is present evidence that is not evidence and then expect people to believe in what has not been proven and then say they don't believe the evidence which is not evidence, because they don't believe in God which is bullshit.

For instance your previous assertions that a spiritual reality exists because the evidence shows that people have always worshiped God is a non sequitur based on an unfounded assumption that is simply untrue because many people have always worshiped things that we now know beyond any doubt are not God. People used to worship trees, or the star and moon, or animals, or made up mythological creatures which are not gods and have no existence or basis in reality and the historical worship of that which does not exist does not prove the existence of anything and is not evidence of the existence of spiritual reality or God..

You also never addressed the fact that by and large most people who ever lived were only pretending to believe in what ever god was being worshiped at the time out of fear and self preservation because if they didn't act like they believed they were shunned, made anathema, banned from the synagogue, beaten, persecuted, imprisoned or killed.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act so bewildered when you encounter other people who just don't have what it takes to be so gullible.


----------



## Picaro

There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.


----------



## Foxfyre

Picaro said:


> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.



For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.

Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.

While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.


----------



## hobelim

Foxfyre said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
Click to expand...



No, when a person claims that the world is no more than 6000 years old and has nothing but a collection of bronze age stories as evidence and another says that the world is billions of years older and points to the overwhelming geological and archeological evidence and gives you a human skeleton 200,000 years old to examine is is not a faith based belief but a verifiable fact based on verifiable evidence.

The two positions are not equal.

One is right, the other is wrong.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the failure to consider the unlimited possibilities or modes of existence due to God's unlimited power is the sort of thing that lets fuzzy thinking jam Him into a box in my experience, not the a careful definition of these implications. If God can do anything but something that would contradictorily deny Himself then what stops Him from being totally omnificence and there being total free will at the same time?  What I'm getting from you and Q.W. is that you flatly reject that possibility base on our conception of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of claims being made that can't be objectively backed by rational experience of by the Bible.  I'm a young Christian, new to the faith but I'm not new to the Bible.  I was raised in a Baptist church that my mother attended with us kids.  I just went along but I do know the Bible as I had to do all those Bible studies for years.  Of course reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit is a whole other level of understanding from just the intellectual level.  The idea that the basic attributes of God are known from the act of thinking about the possible ultimate source of existence being intelligent and spiritual rather than being material, that humans can  perceive what that would mean in the highest sense is biblical.  David,  Moses, the prophets and the apostles talk about that and why God did that to our minds constantly.  Some of the best affirmations of this are found in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Job, the epistles and the gospels.  The very things that can be known about God by thinking about the issue of origin are specifically named by the inspired writers also.  I have no problemfollowing what M.D.R. is saying.  What he calls the "imperatives of the problem of origin" that come to our minds when we think about the idea of God without the Bible are in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that these things can be seen without the Bible and what they are.   I don't get what arguments you think he's rejecting out of hand.  I still don't really know what you're saying about free will.  All I can get out of what you said is that you believe free will happens.  M.D.R. believes free will happens.  I believe free will happens.  I believe the same way he does that total omniscience and free will can be at the same time.  You seem to be saying that these two things can't happen at the same time but you don't really say why that can't be, except that for some reason you think that means everything is mapped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were given limited omniscience that allowed you to see every second/minute/hour of what you would be doing, thinking, speaking, believing, hoping during the next 24 hours, is not that 24 hours already determined?  There is nothing you can do to change it.  It is fixed already in time in that the past/present/future already exists.  How then do you have free will within that concept?  For what purpose is this existence if your present has no ability to alter or change your future?
Click to expand...


I understand the reasoning of the supposed philosophical paradox. What I don't understand is why Christians think it's a problem since organic rules of logic from God and the Bible tells us God is the deity of infinite simultaneousness. What I learned from my awful encounter with that atheist is that you can't defend the cosmological argument or explain anything else if you abandon complete divine omniscience. What you get is a multitude of contradictions, paradoxes much bigger than what is really not a problem at all. Everything unravels and I mean everything. That's the first thing he asked me, if I believed I had free will like the Bible says. The he asked me how I could have free will if God knows everything like the Bible says. Easy I said. God can do anything, which was the right answer but I didn't have the understanding to explain how in this case. Then he asks me if God contradicts Himself. All I'm telling you is that there's no good reason to limit God.  The understanding that God lives in the eternal now and the understanding of God's logic which we have and by which we can see that an infinite number of states of existence can exist simultaneously is all we need to know to see that the paradox of secular philosophers if a false dilemma and the Bible backs all of this.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> (By the way, this should read:  *Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors tending toward infinity of function f.*  I see that I wrote it out and then pasted the symbolic expression redundantly, but you probably figured that out.  But just in case it caused confusion.)
> 
> 
> That's great.  But when you do it, think about the biblical ideas about God's attributes, beginning with the universally apparent attributes, which some are claiming are not in the Bible too just so, as if Saint Paul, for example, were just pulling on our legs when he wrote:
> 
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men *who suppress the truth in unrighteousness*, because *that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them*. For since the creation of the world *His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made*, so that they are without excuse. *For even though they knew God*, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but *they became futile in their speculations*, and their foolish heart was darkened. *Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man*. . . .​
> Some folks have mistakenly taken this passage to be a cosmological argument when in fact it's essentially the same transcendental argument asserted in the Book of Job by Moses, whom tradition holds to be the author. Paul clearly has that argument from Job in mind because he begins it and ends on the very notes as Moses did in Job.
> 
> We can readily perceive contradiction via the organic principle of identity. We "hold the truth in unrighteous". The essence of sin is embracing contradiction and acting on it.
> 
> We can't know the more intimate truths about God from reason alone. We need direct revelation to know those kinds of things. But we can know from contemplating the problem of origin that He must be. We are compelled to account for our existence, and the idea of God jumps up!
> 
> Also, the attributes of God at the conceivably highest degree of being are objectively and universally apprehensible. It's not necessary to go into a tediously detailed definition of divine perfection as philosophical theists tend to do. What is the very highest order of origin? Sentience. What is the very highest degree of perfection in any one of the categories of attribution? Eternal, infinite, indivisible and immutable. Why must this be? It's very simple really. Because God by definition is the unsurpassedly supreme being. It's not rocket science. And what is the other pertinent factor that we may safely assert? The organic principle of identity by which we ascertain these things must universally apply to all of existence as grounded in God.
> 
> Now does this mean that God couldn't by His own volition "compartmentally" reduce the capacity of any given aspect of His being in order to accomplish some purpose or another? I don't see why not, but then I don't see why He would have to do that either. In any event, how in the world would I know anything about that without further revelation?  The objectively apparent imperatives regarding the issue of origin only tell us so much, and no more.  And I've had to strike some things I imagined I saw listed among the generally revealed knowledge in our minds that I unwittingly inserted from deeper revelation in the past.  Oops.
> 
> God designed it that way.  Eventually one must take the leap of faith to get past the barrier between reason and the arms of God.  At least that seems right to me, though some philosophers and theologians have claimed that the proofs are absolute in the ultimate sense.  Hmm.  I don't see how that's right.  The only argument that gets close to something like that in my opinion is the transcendental argument.  It just seems to me that God does two things.  He gives us all the evidence we need and then some, both rational and empirical, but it is by faith that we please Him.  I know that both of these ideas are biblically supported.  As for the idea that reason absolutely bridges the gap, I don't see where that's biblically supported and I don't think that's what Paul is saying. He's after something more intimate where the gap is concerned.
> 
> The problem with purely philosophical theists is that they invariably take these divine attributes of absolute perfection and think to imposed them in some sense on the essences of material things, which are of a lower order of being, or think to denigrate them without justification to make them work anthropomorphically in some sense relative to humanity's dimensional sense of reality, albeit, in violation of the very same principle of identity from which they delineated the various attributes and established the necessary degree of supremacy. Neither of these things necessarily follow. So you end up with subjective mush, mere speculation.
> 
> From there consider things like divine love, justice, mercy, grace . . . as defined by the Bible!  That may seem weird, but it's okay.  Just don't go alone.  Take God's hand and go along with Him in pray.  In other words, If He permits, go with the Holy Sprit and take the Word with you.
> _________________________________
> P.S.  Yes.  You never actually divide by infinity as such, because, while _infinity_ is defined in this case as "every existent or potential existent simultaneously" or as "every number that exists simultaneously," any number divided by infinity is undefined.  We mathematically intuit what happens as we approach infinity or zero respectively.  I'll give one thing that God gave me.  The infinity end gives you God and all other existents.  The zero end gives you the Triune God who stands and stays "before" and apart from all other existents.
> 
> 
> Oh, by the way, in the above, I didn't mean to imply that the Son did not empty Himself of full divinity in His humanity.  He did of course, but He was never disconnected from the Father.  Remember Christ still knew all things immediately pertinent  via that connection . . . well, except in that horrible moment when He took our sins upon Himself.  Imagine His anguish. You know I don't think it was the prospect of the physical torture He knew He would have to endure for our sake, though no doubt that was part of his anguish in the Garden.  Rather it was the knowledge that He would be separated from His Father in that instance on the cross in order to complete His mission.  Whoa!



"Now does this mean that God couldn't by His own volition "compartmentally" reduce the capacity of any given aspect of His being in order to accomplish some purpose or another? I don't see why not."

This is the only thing I don't agree with for reasons that I just told Foxfyre.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it must be determined what you mean by "existence" here. If you mean a physical existence, then there is no evidence that God physically exists. Now, what other types of "existence" do you acknowledge? If you can't acknowledge spiritual existence, then there is no way to show you evidence of God.
> 
> The syllogistic argument for God is simple. Time, space and a physical universe exist. Something had to create the physical. It's illogical that it created itself. Something had to create it because the universe has entropy, it is not perpetual. So until you can provide a syllogistic argument for how "physical" came to exist, we have to assume something beyond "physical" must have created it.
> 
> Now... Atheism is still justified. Atheism is a faith-based belief that God does not exist. The simple fact that God does not physically exist is enough to justify Atheism. This doesn't validate Atheism, but it is justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Atheism is not justifiable in the formal sense at all because the assumption of it is contradictory to the fact that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism is purely faith-based without a justifiable argument to back it at all.  We have existence.  That's it.  How is it that we have existence?  Something must have always existed because how do you get something from nothing?  So either some material thing has always existed or some immaterial thing has always existed, and the immaterial thing can be intelligent.  To say that anyone of these things is impossible is to say that you know something that you can't possibly known is true.  Atheism is not logical whether it's true or not. You can say that God is or must be though without such a contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying and I agree, Atheism is not valid for the reasons you mentioned. Still, it doesn't have to be valid to be justifiable. If an Atheist is unable to realize spiritual existence and all they are aware of is physical existence, then to not believe in God's existence is simply to not believe in God's physical existence. I believe that is justified because God is metaphysical and doesn't physically exist.
> 
> Atheists are spiritually illiterate. They have no concept or understanding of spiritual nature at all. Any talk of "existence" can only mean in a physical state of existing, they have no knowledge of any other kind of existence. Therefore, their sentiments are justified, given their illiteracy of spiritual nature.
Click to expand...


What I'm saying is that we exist.   The atheist accepts that the universe exists.  Then he says God doesn't exist. Who doesn't exist?  God doesn't exist.  So he has an idea of God in his mind because he realizes that the origin of his existence could be God.  Since that's true.  It's not logical to say that something that is obviously possible can't be.  His claim that God does not exist is not rational.  It's contradictory.  The knowledge that God could be is justifiable knowledge.  The claim that God cannot be after the atheist necessarily admits that He could be is not logically justifiable.  It's not justifiable knowledge either.  This has already been covered on this thread.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to know what is most likely just ask an agnostic atheist who is also a scientist.  You'll get the most logical/rational/probable answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic atheists do not exist, how is anyone supposed to ask them anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking a human if they know for sure there is a god?  100% sure?  No human could honestly answer you yes.
> 
> Agnostic means not sure.  Agnostic Atheism means, at least to me, that we can't say for sure 100% there is not god.  That's the agnostic part of us.  But we see zero evidence so don't believe there is a god.  That's our atheist part.
> 
> I'm at 1% there is a god and 99% there isn't one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did god ever talk to you?
Click to expand...


Because I let Him talk to me.  He's always a gentleman about these things.  You have free will.  Just take the cotton out of your ears.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.
> 
> I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.
> 
> I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...


What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how my concept limits God in any way.  I base my perceptions on what God has revealed of himself to me personally, however limited that may be. That I do not require God to be this or that is not coercive of God nor does it restrict him to any particular character or state of being, but it is simply what I believe he has revealed to humankind.  To insist that God MUST be this or that seems to me to be much more coercive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To _insist_ or to know from what God Himself has revealed? Once again, it is not I or Justin, as far as I can tell, who is putting God in chains around here. Though, admittedly, I haven't been able to read all of his posts.
> 
> _I'm_ sharing with you what's self-evident to all from the general revelation (the cosmological order beginning with our own reflections upon the problem of existence and origin) should they take the blinders off and open up their minds. *These are the very same things asserted about God in the Bible*, and *the Bible tells us they are self-evident from reflection on the contents of our minds relative to the principle of identity too*. *There in the Bible!* *The Bible tells us they may be seen without scripture, but scripture backs what I'm telling you*.
> 
> I have nothing to do with what is being revealed. I have nothing to do with stamping the Image God on your mind. I'm sharing with you the universally apparent attributes of God *in terms of their entire upper range without limitations of any kind whatsoever*, save one: God will not and cannot violate the principle of Identity, as He is the ultimate Principle of Identity: God = NOT-God for obvious reasons cannot be.
> 
> That's coercive? That's requiring Him to be something He's not or must be? I don't know what your imaging, but that's the only limit I'm talking about. *There is no other limitation on Him or full, unrestrained expression of His attributes whatsoever. *
> 
> For example, Foxfyre, there is no reason to believe that absolute omniscience and free will cannot coexist. The Bible utterly rejects that contention!  That restraint.  That length of chain.  God does not have to *limit* His knowledge in any sense whatsoever for free will to thrive.
> 
> The principle of identity does not tell us that's impossible and neither does the Bible. Illusion. That's not a movie in the can--your chain on Him. Illusion. QW is wrong. I just falsified his notion that existents cannot be two or more things simultaneously according to the principle of identity. False. The principle of identity readily and coherently apprehends such things with no problem at all.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to take a look at that fact, you'd realize that it's you who are believing something that originated, by the way, from secular philosophers making baby talk, trying to put God into their models of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have looked at that fact and still draw my own conclusions with the reason and logic that God gave me.  You obviously have been very well educated in theology and I do not question your motives or intentions here.  But methinks you are sometimes too quick to judge others and reject their arguments, and not always charitably or without insult, and sometimes I think that weakens your own arguments.  Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?   One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I'm standing I'm seeing a lot of claims being made that can't be objectively backed by rational experience of by the Bible.  I'm a young Christian, new to the faith but I'm not new to the Bible.  I was raised in a Baptist church that my mother attended with us kids.  I just went along but I do know the Bible as I had to do all those Bible studies for years.  Of course reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit is a whole other level of understanding from just the intellectual level.  The idea that the basic attributes of God are known from the act of thinking about the possible ultimate source of existence being intelligent and spiritual rather than being material, that humans can  perceive what that would mean in the highest sense is biblical.  David,  Moses, the prophets and the apostles talk about that and why God did that to our minds constantly.  Some of the best affirmations of this are found in the Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Daniel, Job, the epistles and the gospels.  The very things that can be known about God by thinking about the issue of origin are specifically named by the inspired writers also.  I have no problemfollowing what M.D.R. is saying.  What he calls the "imperatives of the problem of origin" that come to our minds when we think about the idea of God without the Bible are in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that these things can be seen without the Bible and what they are.   I don't get what arguments you think he's rejecting out of hand.  I still don't really know what you're saying about free will.  All I can get out of what you said is that you believe free will happens.  M.D.R. believes free will happens.  I believe free will happens.  I believe the same way he does that total omniscience and free will can be at the same time.  You seem to be saying that these two things can't happen at the same time but you don't really say why that can't be, except that for some reason you think that means everything is mapped out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were given limited omniscience that allowed you to see every second/minute/hour of what you would be doing, thinking, speaking, believing, hoping during the next 24 hours, is not that 24 hours already determined?  There is nothing you can do to change it.  It is fixed already in time in that the past/present/future already exists.  How then do you have free will within that concept?  For what purpose is this existence if your present has no ability to alter or change your future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand the reasoning of the supposed philosophical paradox. What I don't understand is why Christians think it's a problem since organic rules of logic from God and the Bible tells us God is the deity of infinite simultaneousness. What I learned from my awful encounter with that atheist is that you can't defend the cosmological argument or explain anything else if you abandon complete divine omniscience. What you get is a multitude of contradictions, paradoxes much bigger than what is really not a problem at all. Everything unravels and I mean everything. That's the first thing he asked me, if I believed I had free will like the Bible says. The he asked me how I could have free will if God knows everything like the Bible says. Easy I said. God can do anything, which was the right answer but I didn't have the understanding to explain how in this case. Then he asks me if God contradicts Himself. All I'm telling you is that there's no good reason to limit God.  The understanding that God lives in the eternal now and the understanding of God's logic which we have and by which we can see that an infinite number of states of existence can exist simultaneously is all we need to know to see that the paradox of secular philosophers if a false dilemma and the Bible backs all of this.
Click to expand...


I don't limit God and I don't pretend to begin to understand how or why God does what he does except to the very limited extent of what I believe he has revealed to me.  And I am perfectly willing to be wrong in my reasoned perception that if the future already exists, then we have no means to alter what it holds for us and we have no free will.  I don't mind at all that MDR or you see that differently and I suspect all three of us have our perceptions wrong in some way, but I also am fairly secure that God accepts me (and you and him) as we are so long as we are seeking the real truth and not somebody's preconceived perceptions of what truth is.

I suppose I just rankled a bit at being told what I think or what I am doing and how wrong I am by those who seem so confident they have it all figured out.  But God and I are working on my stubborn pride thing too.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the yes to what is the question not it's existence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...


there is a biblical bias to responses by biblicists this thread by its OP has already excluded as a possible answer the biblicists have not demonstrate as being otherwise while debating as though they have provided the sought after proof. - 

proof since the publication of that document that has never been verified, ergo the reason for this Thread.

are christians not able to conduct a sectarian discussion for the existence of God ?

.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you ever accept something as "proof" if you don't believe in what it supposedly proves? I don't understand what the hangup is with this, it's not that complicated. Anything you can think of... If I do not accept or believe that it can or does exist, then nothing you will ever be able to show me is going to be viewed as evidence that proves it's existence. Sorry, just how things are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? Many atheists clearly admit the possibility that God might exist but a belief in a possibility is not proof. If you presented any verifiable evidence at all that would support such a possibility they would believe in God as surely as they believe in gravity. What you do is present evidence that is not evidence and then expect people to believe in what has not been proven and then say they don't believe the evidence which is not evidence, because they don't believe in God which is bullshit.
> 
> For instance your previous assertions that a spiritual reality exists because the evidence shows that people have always worshiped God is a non sequitur based on an unfounded assumption that is simply untrue because many people have always worshiped things that we now know beyond any doubt are not God. People used to worship trees, or the star and moon, or animals, or made up mythological creatures which are not gods and have no existence or basis in reality and the historical worship of that which does not exist does not prove the existence of anything and is not evidence of the existence of spiritual reality or God..
> 
> You also never addressed the fact that by and large most people who ever lived were only pretending to believe in what ever god was being worshiped at the time out of fear and self preservation because if they didn't act like they believed they were shunned, made anathema, banned from the synagogue, beaten, persecuted, imprisoned or killed.
> 
> Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act so bewildered when you encounter other people who just don't have what it takes to be so gullible.
Click to expand...


Oh, I am very serious big boy. No, Atheists DO NOT believe it is possible that God exists, that's what makes them Atheist. There is tons of evidence God exists, but it is spiritual evidence and you refuse to accept spiritual evidence because you don't believe the spiritual exists. 

*...your previous assertions that a spiritual reality exists because the evidence shows that people have always worshiped God is a non sequitur...*

I've never said that people always worshiped God or that this is evidence of spiritual reality. Again, you are taking my words and morphing them into what you want to hear, then popping off some smart ass retort. Humans have always been spiritually connected, it's our most defining attribute as a species. What this proves is, humans (almost universally) believe something spiritual exists, and they always have. 

Now, the only thing I have ever argued this is evidence of, is that human spirituality is fundamental to the species. If not, the attribute would have diminished over time and we wouldn't have a human history where basically all humans believed in something spiritual. 

*....historical worship of that which does not exist...*

Now you are back on what "exists" and we've been through this already. Spiritual existence does not mean physical existence. If you don't believe in spiritual nature, nothing spiritual can exist. Any evidence for something spiritually existing is met with stubborn unyielding skepticism because you don't accept spiritual nature or spiritual existence. 

*You also never addressed the fact that by and large most people who ever lived were only pretending to believe in what ever god was being worshiped at the time out of fear and self preservation...*

Why should I waste time addressing a point you have failed to prove? You don't fucking speak for the dead. No one gave you authority to decide what people actually believed and didn't believe. You are welcome to your opinion, it doesn't make it a fact. 

For every instance you can cite of people being forced to worship something they didn't believe in, there are examples of people being forced to not worship what they believed in, yet faced death and persecution to do it anyway. In fact, there are probably millions more in that category. Say goodbye to your point, it just crashed and burned. Not that you were on a roll.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No human could honestly answer "yes"?  Where do you get these ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the yes to what is the question not it's existence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what that means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is a biblical bias to responses by biblicists this thread by its OP has already excluded as a possible answer the biblicists have not demonstrate as being otherwise while debating as though they have provided the sought after proof. -
> 
> proof since the publication of that document that has never been verified, ergo the reason for this Thread.
> 
> are christians not able to conduct a sectarian discussion for the existence of God ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will.  For me that's just not something you can understand from just the  things that the thoughts of origin give you.  All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time.  I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical  concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist.  Huh?  The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says.  I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.


----------



## Justin Davis

Picaro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, using logic I can prove anything I want,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's merely semantic gamesmanship.
> 
> ""The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil"-Bertrand Russell.
Click to expand...


So nothing can be actually shown to be true.  Great.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> No. I'm referring to the all grown up fact that the principle of identity is not contradicted by the existence of any given _A_ that is simultaneously two or more things.  The organic laws of logic readily and coherently allow for that and even anticipate the possibility that such things exist in the material realm of being. Conceptually, the Majorana particle is not as you claimed *A and ~A*; rather, its *A = A (X and Y simultaneously)*.  That goes to thought. Understanding the properties and the behavior of sub atomic particles goes to scientific inference and the processes of falsification . . . as directed by the laws of thought, which, of course, can be applied mathematically in other forms of logic, in both alternate-world forms and amplificatory forms.



As I said from the beginning, all philosophy is bullshit, especially philosophy that attempts to ignore facts by claiming they are something else.

There is a reason the Law of Identity is part of the Law of Thought, and it is not because the universe is run by our thoughts.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> No.  That does not follow.  Neither you nor anyone else in history has ever shown that the way we think is not transcendentally synchronized with how the universe works.  In other words, the universe doesn't work the way it does because of the way we apprehend it.  Rather, the way we apprehend things and the way the universe works and are lined up by God because He is the Principle of Identity, the ground of existence and has primacy over the cosmological order.   You're saying that's not possible?  Based on what?  You're misconstrued notion of the principle of identity and your false predication of the Majorana particle?



Just because you cannot follow it does not mean the idea is invalid. As I already explained, the Law of contradiction is not an axiom in all forms of logic. That means that I don't actually have to prove what you say has not been proven, all I have to do is free me from the constraints of classical logic and admit that the it is possible for something to be its own opposite. Since I am using a logic that you refuse to acknowledge, and you are using a logic that is based on the assumption that people thousands of years ago knew more than we do now, guess which person wins this argument.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Bible declares that God is the Principle of Identity.  It is in Him that the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being.



Show me the verse that says that and you have a point. Until then, all you have is the ravings of a philosophaster.

Look it up, it is a real word.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> That's not what I said.  My opinions don't have primacy over the principle of identity or over the ground of existence.  You seem to think your opinions do without a shred of evidence.



I think no such thing. I keep pointing out that you philosophy is incomplete because you insist that untested assumptions from classical logic trump newer schools of logic that acknowledge that it is actually possible to tell the truth and still be lying.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> What I'm saying is that we exist.   The atheist accepts that the universe exists.  Then he says God doesn't exist. Who doesn't exist?  God doesn't exist.  So he has an idea of God in his mind because he realizes that the origin of his existence could be God.  Since that's true.  It's not logical to say that something that is obviously possible can't be.  His claim that God does not exist is not rational.  It's contradictory.  The knowledge that God could be is justifiable knowledge.  The claim that God cannot be after the atheist necessarily admits that He could be is not logically justifiable.  It's not justifiable knowledge either.  This has already been covered on this thread.



It's because the only "exist" which they can comprehend is physical. If something does not have physical existence, it doesn't exist. If you cannot prove God physically exists, then God does not exist to the Atheist. They are illiterate of spiritual existence. 

Now, in the Atheist's defense, if I did not believe in or comprehend spiritual nature, and the only "exist" is physically, I wouldn't believe God could exist either. You and I comprehend another type of "exist" which is spiritual. It's not physical existence, there is no physical proof, and that is where we meet with disagreement with the Atheist view. 

A rainbow doesn't exist to a blind person. We can tell them all about rainbows, how beautiful they are, all the colors... means nothing to a blind person, they don't know of colors or beauty, they can't see. Their viewpoint (pardon the pun) is justified, whether it is correct or not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Actually, more accurately, they both used sensory data _and_ math, but there's a twist here, which I really didn't want to get into, but since you seem to think I'm doing extracurricular philosophizing, which I'm not, or defending such. . . .
> 
> First of all, I don't know why you keep saying Aristotle didn't use sensory data. That's false. That's mostly what he did use. Aristotle was not the Idealist. Plato was. Aristotle was the classical inspiration for the empiricists of the Enlightenment era: Locke, Hume, Berkeley and others. . . . Aristotle's blank slate is Locke's _tabula rasa_, which, by the way, has been mostly falsified too.



I never said Aristotle did not use sensory data, I said he didn't use math. If he had he would have seen that the planets retrograde motion totally destroyed his classical logic axiom that the universe was perfect.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing *in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity*. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head that the perfections of the Logos (God)—which, according to him and the latter empiricists, are inferred by our minds upon experiential reflection rather than from innate ideas directly—that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity must be miscalculations. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!



In other words, like you, he chose to ignore reality in favor of the idea that the Laws of Thought were governed the universe. He was wrong, so are you.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> (Now of course the latter empiricists didn't make the same astronomical mistake; one had nothing to do with the other. Besides, Copernicus' model, improved by Brahe and Kepler and affirmed by Galileo, was well-established, and Newton was in the mix by then.)
> 
> In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem.



Sigh.

I guess you are unaware that Aristotle actually accounted for the retrograde motions of the planet by having them orbit a point that orbited the Earth. This was a purely logical approach that ignored the math that made such a construction impossible, and his model was very complicated by the time of Newtons insistence that Copernicus got it right.

By the way, both Brahe and Kepler contributed to the annoying complex geocentric model. They ended ub having the planets in multiple orbits because they preferred to believe the laws of thought governed the universe because God would never create anything less perfect than they could imagine. Kinda reminds me of someone in this thread. 



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Copernicus, on the other hand, refused to "square that circle."  He paid attention to the recommendations of the principle of identity and took Averoes' criticisms of the Ptolemaic model seriously. He intuited a heliocentric model and found that its mathematics squared all the data.



Yes, he used math, not logic, to see how the universe worked.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> I'll say this again. Philosophy is not bullshit. It's indispensable to science, and it precedes science. It deals with the what. _What is it_ metaphysically and, thus, _what is it _definitively? We can't do conceptualization or language without it either. The problem arises when people abuse philosophy, or science for that matter!
> 
> They both have strict limitations, and we may know what they are via the principle of identity.
> 
> Abuse or disregard the recommendations of the principle of identity and you will drive off the road into a ditch. The principle of identity is indispensable to theology, philosophy and science. It's the fundamental tool of apprehension and the assimilation of data. That's all it is. The principle of identity is reliable. It's the tool that tells us that only so much about _the why_ and _the how_ can be had relative to the data at hand, and philosophy is not the right medium for getting at the deeper truths of _the why_ and _the how_.
> 
> I understand what the principle of identity is. I understand how it works. I don't disregard it or misconstrue it. That's why I don't do "philosophical bullshit."
> That's why I don't imagine that things like the Majorana fermion violate it when they don't. That's why I don't harbor any illusions that the major premise of its logical proof can be refuted given the fact that the principle is necessarily asserted by the arguer in the very act of trying to refute it.
> 
> That's why I embrace the concepts of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence and the ramifications thereof as they come at us without bias. That's why I don't countenance the "philosophical bullshit" that would arbitrarily impose a limitation on the unadulterated perfection of the Eternal Now's ability to create an infinite number of dimensional states of being wherein free will would readily thrive without conflict.  In other words, I don't pretend to know that I'm _not_ in such a dimensional state that would be perfectly compatible with the principle of identity which allows for *A = A (X, Y, Z simultaneously)*.
> 
> Overly technical?
> 
> Coercive?
> 
> Whaaaaaa?
> 
> I'm not the one suggesting God has to be something less than absolutely omniscient, i.e., must necessarily withhold Himself from knowing things absolutely in some way or another in order for free will to actually persist!
> 
> The interesting thing about this assertion from theistic philosophy is that it's actually predicated on the organic laws of logic, albeit, as misconstrued to preclude that any given _A_ cannot be simultaneously _X_ and _Y_. But that notion is false, and given the fact that professional philosophers know that (I'll get to Intuitionistic logic tomorrow.), one wonders why some of them don't simply allow that they are treading on ground that belongs to theology.



Understand all you want, unless philosophy accepts that the principle of identity is not universal, which classical thought is incapable of admitting, it will always be bullshit. Other forms of philosophy are slightly less full of bullshit than classical philosophy, but they are still founded on bullshit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.



I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. 

The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.

There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will.  For me that's just not something you can understand from just the  things that the thoughts of origin give you.  All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time.  I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical  concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist.  Huh?  The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says.  I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.



Actually, philosophy has pretty much settled into the position that free will does not exist.


----------



## Boss

> ...they preferred to believe the laws of thought governed the universe...



Along this same axiom, I would like to interject something for your consideration. The root of this can be found in the famous "double-slit experiment" where it was discovered that light has both wave-like properties and particle properties. It is also found in some quantum theory as well as theory of relativity, but to me it's very fascinating stuff. 

It seems that the act of _observation_ has an effect on actual matter and physics. Does matter behave differently because it is being observed? As bizarre as that may sound, it does appear to be the case with the double-slit experiment. 


The video is a simplified version of my point, but simple is good for some of this bunch. I was just wondering what QW and Justin's take on this is?


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Oh, I am very serious big boy. No, Atheists DO NOT believe it is possible that God exists, that's what makes them Atheist. There is tons of evidence God exists, but it is spiritual evidence and you refuse to accept spiritual evidence because you don't believe the spiritual exists.
> 
> *...your previous assertions that a spiritual reality exists because the evidence shows that people have always worshiped God is a non sequitur...*
> 
> I've never said that people always worshiped God or that this is evidence of spiritual reality. Again, you are taking my words and morphing them into what you want to hear, then popping off some smart ass retort. Humans have always been spiritually connected, it's our most defining attribute as a species. What this proves is, humans (almost universally) believe something spiritual exists, and they always have.



Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.

You have failed miserably.

You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God,  you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.

Does Alzheimer's run in your family?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything has entropy, no?  Maybe a rock doesn't but even a rock will eventually die when this world expires.  So everything you see will be gone one day if it isn't already gone.  NOTHING lives forever.  Nothing we know about YET anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing physical. That's the point. You cannot argue physical things never required creation if physical things have entropy. So we know because of entropy, physical things must have started somewhere, they must have had a beginning, something must have created them.
> 
> Logic tells us that nothing physical is capable of creating itself. It may be able to reproduce itself or regenerate itself, but it cannot create what it isn't here to create to begin with.... following me? So if physical nature couldn't create physical nature, and physical nature must have been created because it has entropy, then what could have created physical nature? The only rational explanation is something not physical in nature, something metaphysical, or spiritual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something may have very well created everything you see.  We could have come from another black hole.  But I see what you are saying.  What created the black hole or all the matter, planets and stars?  Something can't come from nothing.  I know what Hawkins says but he hasn't convinced me yet.
> 
> I like your point though and I do get it finally.  Pretty deep.  I know you've been trying to explain it to me for awhile and I finally get it.  I'll have to think about it more and do some research on the idea that nothing physical is capable of creating itself.
> 
> Is something non physical capable of creating itself?  I'm thinking about how clouds are made and how they create lightening.
> 
> I still don't think this creator gives a rats ass about you or me and there is no heaven unless frogs and goats get to go too.  Just like when a star dies that's it, same for you and me.  What happens to your spirit?  Nothing.  It dies with you, I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those last two words are very important... You believe.
> 
> I'm glad you get what I have been trying to explain. The OP asks for a syllogistic argument and that is it in a nutshell. There is no "proof" for God because God is outside the physical. Any evidence for God is spiritual evidence and subject to whether or not you accept spiritual evidence.
> 
> *Is something non physical capable of creating itself?*
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by the question. Do you mean, can something non-physical create itself in a physical manifestation? Because "create" is understood to mean, physically brought into a state of existence. Regardless of whether spiritual nature can do this or not, it doesn't have to and there is no reason for it to. However, one might argue that is precisely what "physical" is, the manifestation of spiritual nature in a physical dimension.
Click to expand...


I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.  

This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.
> 
> You have failed miserably.
> 
> You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God,  you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.
> 
> Does Alzheimer's run in your family?



You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old? 

You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God. 

Now you can sit here and reel off one lie after another about what you think I've said, and I can spend all day correcting you on that and setting the record straight, but what is the point? You have proven that you want to deliberately misconstrue things I've said and pretend I've said something absurd, so that you can strut around acting like a genius. Honestly, I just don't have time for your nonsense. We can either have an honest discussion about the topic or we can't, and at this point, we're not having that honest discussion.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.



*In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*

But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went. 

We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Exactly. It's merely semantic gamesmanship.



Nonsense.  Enough of your obtuse philosophizing.  Jesus Christ is the Logos!  He _is_ the universal Principle of Identity in whom the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being!   



Quantum Windbag said:


> As I said from the beginning, all philosophy is bullshit, especially philosophy that attempts to ignore facts by claiming they are something else.



Not all philosophy is bullshit, just "philosophy that attempts to ignore facts by claiming they are something else", like how the Majorana particle is conceptually A and ~A, *as if that meant* it were A or ~A, by the way, splitting the predicate, and not A = A (X and Y simultaneously). We don't split wholes of a single predicate into halves that would necessarily become two different things as analyzed separately and then claim that the whole of the single predicate is not what it was. Or did you not follow the sarcasm after I dissected the conflation in your head in the first post touching on this matter, i.e., what you're actually thinking when you write A and ~A . . . simultaneously. You're writing A and ~A, but you're thinking A or ~A.  The Majorana particle is not matter or antimatter. That would constitute its third value, though as rightly rendered by me there's no excluded third to eliminate because we're talking about an _A_ of a single predicated. It's always both at the same time!

Hence, A (positive A) and ~A (negative A) is in reality the same things as A = A (X and Y simultaneously).

Do you get the sarcasm now?  You're writing, correctly, the very same thing I am, only you keep thinking of it or arguing it as A or ~A. 

*A and ~A = A (X and Y simultaneously).*​
Or more accurately expressed in terms of classic notation:

*The Majorana particle as a whole of a single predicate = A: X and Y, wherein X is positive and Y is negative*.​
That's the whole of its identity! It's not rocket science.

Further, it has always been understood as I have clearly shown that the organic laws of thought hold that any given _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously. That's the whole of _that_ apprehension's identity! Any such existents are perfectly rational, just as God is perfectly rational. For example, according to the Bible, God is three Persons. The identity of the Triune God is not Father + Son + Holy Spirit = three Gods. Rather, G = {Father, Son, Holy Spirit simultaneously} in terms of expressional set logic.  That does not violate the comprehensive principle of identity either.   



Quantum Windbag said:


> There is a reason the Law of Identity is part of the Law of Thought, and it is not because the universe is run by our thoughts.



Thanks for sharing that. We agree. Where have I ever asserted anything contrary to that . . . aside from those voices fallaciously impersonating me in your head?



Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. That does not follow. Neither you nor anyone else in history has ever shown that the way we think is not transcendentally synchronized with how the universe works. In other words, the universe doesn't work the way it does because of the way we apprehend it. Rather, the way we apprehend things and the way the universe works and are lined up by God because He is the Principle of Identity, the ground of existence and has primacy over the cosmological order. You're saying that's not possible? Based on what? You're misconstrued notion of the principle of identity and your false predication of the Majorana particle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you cannot follow it does not mean the idea is invalid. As I already explained, the Law of contradiction is not an axiom in all forms of logic. That means that I don't actually have to prove what you say has not been proven, all I have to do is free me from the constraints of classical logic and admit that the it is possible for something to be its own opposite. Since I am using a logic that you refuse to acknowledge, and you are using a logic that is based on the assumption that people thousands of years ago knew more than we do now, guess which person wins this argument.
Click to expand...


Because I can't follow? "Based on the assumption that people thousands of years ago knew more than we do now"?

What they _knew_ is that any given _A_ can be X and Y simultaneously in accordance with the principle of identity, as _you_ yourself have written, A and ~A, the whole, though you keep thinking of this as A or ~A, spitting the predicate. The Majorana particle is not merely it's own opposite or it's own antimatter; it's also it's own positive or it's own matter. That's the whole of its identity. Dude. We don't apprehend it's identity to be matter OR apprehend it's identity to be antimatter, though we apprehend that any given _A_ could be either one of these things. What we apprehend about this particular _A_ (the Majorana particle) is that it is both matter and antimatter. That's the whole of its identity as distinguish from a bed bug.



Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible declares that God is the Principle of Identity. It is in Him that the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the verse that says that and you have a point. Until then, all you have is the ravings of a philosophaster.
Click to expand...


No. One's ignorance ≠ I don't have a point. "Just like the universe is [not] run by our thoughts." The truth is what it is.

Actually, I provided you scriptural proof of this, but you dismissed it out of hand on the basis of the well-known fact that YHWH's name carries connotations of action and/or unknown connotations in addition to those that go to being due to the ritualistic tradition of the transcription of His name clouding its etymology. But what you're not aware of is that the bulk of Prophetic and Apostolic authority asserts His name in terms of being and the universal ramifications thereof, including the action of sustaining the universe via His very own being as the universal Logos or first principle of identity.

I'm not going to research it all over again now.  I don't have my "white book" with me.  It's loaned out.  But I'll provide you a list of those scriptural references after Sunday when I see the brother who has it.  I'll ask him to bring it and I'll make copy of the pertinent pages.

In the meantime contemplate on these:  John 1:1-4, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 1:18-23 (again) and the post in the above again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101
*


Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. My opinions don't have primacy over the principle of identity or over the ground of existence. You seem to think your opinions do without a shred of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think no such thing. I keep pointing out that you philosophy is incomplete because you insist that untested assumptions from classical logic trump newer schools of logic that acknowledge that it is actually possible to tell the truth and still be lying.
Click to expand...


No.  Let me point something out to you. Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are in and of themselves philosophy.  They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . .  The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity.  Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophy, _What is it?_ can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics.  As for as system-building philosophy goes . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture:  I've got no use for it.   

What you have failed to share with the others as you make this assertion for the third time is that the _identity_ of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms. 


Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world-model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world-model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it’s a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositional formulations in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides an alternative way of looking at the real world that can divulge new possibilities, albeit, from a negative perspective that goes to some real-world positive.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated.

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

But in constructive logic it cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material
evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below). In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of constructive logic all along, most of you unawares.  Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it' not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction. 

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms.

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:

From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists! But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. But the observer beyond this mortal coil can safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he has direct evidence, not merely inferential evidence.​
In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us with an IQ above that of a gnat have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as the proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order arguably constitutes direct evidence under the terms of organic logic.

*As for the vitally important distinction in the above: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.*

One of them is a scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic or universally hard-wired by nature in our brains. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value. 

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God, as He is universal the Principle of Identity on Whom they are contingent.  Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.
> 
> You have failed miserably.
> 
> You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God,  you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.
> 
> Does Alzheimer's run in your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?
> 
> You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.
> 
> Now you can sit here and reel off one lie after another about what you think I've said, and I can spend all day correcting you on that and setting the record straight, but what is the point? You have proven that you want to deliberately misconstrue things I've said and pretend I've said something absurd, so that you can strut around acting like a genius. Honestly, I just don't have time for your nonsense. We can either have an honest discussion about the topic or we can't, and at this point, we're not having that honest discussion.
Click to expand...


You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will.  For me that's just not something you can understand from just the  things that the thoughts of origin give you.  All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time.  I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical  concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist.  Huh?  The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says.  I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, philosophy has pretty much settled into the position that free will does not exist.
Click to expand...


Materialist philosophers have, but not most idealists or rationalists, not even most empiricists, and organic logic is not philosophy.


----------



## Boss

NYcarbineer said:


> You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.



And you obviously aren't comprehending that all evidence is subjective to the given evaluator. What you might consider as evidence, I might consider as a load of shit that means absolutely nothing... and visa versa. Evidence becomes what is accepted as evidence by the individual. 

Evidence is not proof. That's another great misnomer. Evidence may support a belief that something has been proven, but again, what is "proven" is subjective. If you aren't comprehending this, I can't help you, it's a problem you'll have to deal with on your own.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
Click to expand...


Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.
Click to expand...


Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations? 

An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable. 

You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?
> 
> An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.
> 
> You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!
Click to expand...


Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours.  And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Boss said:


> Along this same axiom, I would like to interject something for your consideration. The root of this can be found in the famous "double-slit experiment" where it was discovered that light has both wave-like properties and particle properties. It is also found in some quantum theory as well as theory of relativity, but to me it's very fascinating stuff.
> 
> It seems that the act of _observation_ has an effect on actual matter and physics. Does matter behave differently because it is being observed? As bizarre as that may sound, it does appear to be the case with the double-slit experiment.
> 
> 
> The video is a simplified version of my point, but simple is good for some of this bunch. I was just wondering what QW and Justin's take on this is?



I actually mentioned this earlier in the thread to demonstrate why classical logic doesn't apply to the universe. In logic, there would be no way for an inanimate object to do something different simply because someone, or something, was watching. It would have to do the same thing every single time. Some people have a problem with admitting this because they have spent way to much time immersing themselves in logic instead of looking at the real world.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.



Wow, you do not comprehend even the most basic elements of science, do you? First you argue that science tells us how everything came from nothing, when it doesn't, now you claim that matter is eternal, which is even more absurd.

If matter has no end, how do you explain Hiroshima?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Along this same axiom, I would like to interject something for your consideration. The root of this can be found in the famous "double-slit experiment" where it was discovered that light has both wave-like properties and particle properties. It is also found in some quantum theory as well as theory of relativity, but to me it's very fascinating stuff.
> 
> It seems that the act of _observation_ has an effect on actual matter and physics. Does matter behave differently because it is being observed? As bizarre as that may sound, it does appear to be the case with the double-slit experiment.
> 
> 
> The video is a simplified version of my point, but simple is good for some of this bunch. I was just wondering what QW and Justin's take on this is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually mentioned this earlier in the thread to demonstrate why classical logic doesn't apply to the universe. In logic, there would be no way for an inanimate object to do something different simply because someone, or something, was watching. It would have to do the same thing every single time. Some people have a problem with admitting this because they have spent way to much time immersing themselves in logic instead of looking at the real world.
Click to expand...


You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you do not comprehend even the most basic elements of science, do you? First you argue that science tells us how everything came from nothing, when it doesn't, now you claim hat matter is eternal, which is even more absurd.
> 
> If matter has no end, how do you explain Hiroshima?
Click to expand...


Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years.  Next question?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?
> 
> An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.
> 
> You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours.  And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.
Click to expand...


LMAO... Oh, your theory is good alright... if any science journal has a joke page for toilet humor, your theory would fit in rather nicely there. You may even be able to pitch it to SNL or Jon Stewart. As for being a credible scientific theory, it's just simply not that. 

It seems to loosely be based on outdated Singularity theory but then, combined with the more recent and contradicting quantum string theory to form something that doesn't even comport with logic. You've now avoided giving any further explanation as to how this convoluted theory can work, but you're insisting it is legitimate. 

I've still not heard you explain how matter can have entropy but has always existed. Another contradiction in logic that you failed to explain. 

*And neither one of us knows...*

Well that's at least HALF true, you certainly don't have a clue. However, this is where I have a distinct advantage over you because I do know. Spiritual nature created physical nature. How that happened, I am not sure of, maybe one day it will be discovered.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
Click to expand...


*That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie. 

You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity. 

According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.  

Stop presses! 

Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears. 

*God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.* 

You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation. 

But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!

Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?

What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?

*crickets chirping*

What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more. 

And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy. 

The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.

What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?

Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.

It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.

Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?

That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?

Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Nonsense.  Enough of your obtuse philosophizing.  Jesus Christ is the Logos!  He _is_ the universal Principle of Identity in whom the cosmological order, respectively, lives and moves and has its being!



Your beef is with someone else, I never said what you quoted.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Not all philosophy is bullshit, just "philosophy that attempts to ignore facts by claiming they are something else", like how the Majorana particle is conceptually A and ~A, *as if that meant* it were A or ~A, by the way, splitting the predicate, and not A = A (X and Y simultaneously). We don't split wholes of a single predicate into halves that would necessarily become two different things as analyzed separately and then claim that the whole of the single predicate is not what it was. Or did you not follow the sarcasm after I dissected the conflation in your head in the first post touching on this matter, i.e., what you're actually thinking when you write A and ~A . . . simultaneously. You're writing A and ~A, but you're thinking A or ~A.  The Majorana particle is not matter or antimatter. That would constitute its third value, though as rightly rendered by me there's no excluded third to eliminate because we're talking about an _A_ of a single predicated. It's always both at the same time!
> 
> Hence, A (positive A) and ~A (negative A) is in reality the same things as A = A (X and Y simultaneously).
> 
> Do you get the sarcasm now?  You're writing, correctly, the very same thing I am, only you keep thinking of it or arguing it as A or ~A.
> 
> *A and ~A = A (X and Y simultaneously).*​
> Or more accurately expressed in terms of classic notation:
> 
> *The Majorana particle as a whole of a single predicate = A: X and Y, wherein X is positive and Y is negative*.​
> That's the whole of its identity! It's not rocket science.
> 
> Further, it has always been understood as I have clearly shown that the organic laws of thought hold that any given _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously. That's the whole of _that_ apprehension's identity! Any such existents are perfectly rational, just as God is perfectly rational. For example, according to the Bible, God is three Persons. The identity of the Triune God is not Father + Son + Holy Spirit = three Gods. Rather, G = {Father, Son, Holy Spirit simultaneously} in terms of expressional set logic.  That does not violate the comprehensive principle of identity either.



You keep saying that, and then you resort to bullshit to attempt to prove you are right.

It ain't working because, As I have already explained, there are other ways of looking at the universe and how we perceive it than classical thought. None of these methods require me to slam a square peg into a round hole and pretend it fits.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Thanks for sharing that. We agree. Where have I ever asserted anything contrary to that . . . aside from those voices fallaciously impersonating me in your head?



You haven't said it, and I never said you did. You do, however, continue to argue that the laws of thought, which are not universal axioms, mean we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Because I can't follow? "Based on the assumption that people thousands of years ago knew more than we do now"?
> 
> What they _knew_ is that any given _A_ can be X and Y simultaneously in accordance with the principle of identity, as _you_ yourself have written, A and ~A, the whole, though you keep thinking of this as A or ~A, spitting the predicate. The Majorana particle is not merely it's own opposite or it's own antimatter; it's also it's own positive or it's own matter. That's the whole of its identity. Dude. We don't apprehend it's identity to be matter OR apprehend it's identity to be antimatter, though we apprehend that any given _A_ could be either one of these things. What we apprehend about this particular _A_ (the Majorana particle) is that it is both matter and antimatter. That's the whole of its identity as distinguish from a bed bug.



And now we know that they were wrong. At least, those of us who can look at the real world do.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> No. One's ignorance ≠ I don't have a point. "Just like the universe is [not] run by our thoughts." The truth is what it is.
> 
> Actually, I provided you scriptural proof of this, but you dismissed it out of hand on the basis of the well-known fact that YHWH's name carries connotations of action and/or unknown connotations in addition to those that go to being due to the ritualistic tradition of the transcription of His name clouding its etymology. But what you're not aware of is that the bulk of Prophetic and Apostolic authority asserts His name in terms of being and the universal ramifications thereof, including the action of sustaining the universe via His very own being as the universal Logos or first principle of identity.
> 
> I'm not going to research it all over again now.  I don't have my "white book" with me.  It's loaned out.  But I'll provide you a list of those scriptural references after Sunday when I see the brother who has it.  I'll ask him to bring it and I'll make copy of the pertinent pages.
> 
> In the meantime contemplate on these:  John 1:1-4, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 1:18-23 (again) and the post in the above again.



The truth is you said something that is not true.


----------



## sealybobo

What happened to your dead cats matter?  The maggots are eating it.  A chicken eats the maggot.  You eat the chicken.  Some day you die.  Maggots eat you body.  A chicken eats that maggot, repeat the process until this planet blows up and then we're just drifting in space.  

Where does all the mass/matter of a star go when it burns out?  We see a shooting star.  What happens to all the rocks on a sun?  Maybe a sun is like a fire ball and when it burns out there is nothing left.  

But ultimately, the earth is a ball of rock and that rock will never just disappear.  Right?  Even if this planet and everything in this solar system dies with the sun, this rock we exist whether in pieces or fully in tact, will still exist somewhere in 100 billion trillion zillion years, right?  It may not be floating here but it will be floating somewhere out in space, right?  It won't just disappear, right?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?
> 
> An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.
> 
> You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours.  And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spiritual nature created physical nature
Click to expand...


Can you provide one link of anyone else who backs up this theory?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?



If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years.  Next question?



Can you prove that using actual math and observed data?

Didn't think so.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe everything we see today came from nothing.  And I think that the matter that now makes up all the planets, moons, stars, meteors & comits we see  have always existed in one form or another.  In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.  No beginning, no end.
> 
> This planet may expire and blow up, but the pieces will float in space, maybe get sucked into a black hole or may all eventually condense together and create another big bang 1 million billion trillion years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In other words, the physical stuff that you see all around you has always existed.*
> 
> But this completely contradicts the principle of entropy. If physical stuff has entropy, then it is impossible that it has always existed. We can observe a freshly-baked loaf of bread, we can watch it become stale over time, it grows moldy and hard, eventually becomes inedible and even unrecognizable as a loaf of bread. If we wait long enough, entropy will reduce the molecules to dust. At no point in time does it comport with logic or reason that the loaf of bread always existed. It came, it saw, it went.
> 
> We also need to discuss physical stuff that we see all around us. Sight is a sense humans have which is basically perception of reflective light. Does something have to reflect light or be perceptible by one of our senses in order to exist in reality? I don't think so. What you are doing is severely limiting what reality can comprise, based on your rather pitiful and limited human senses. Every sense you have, there is some other form of living thing right here on this Earth that can do it better. Yet, you believe that is the totality of all that is real... what YOU, as a human being, can sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ashes to ashes, dust to dust my friend.  In with the new, out with the old.  When this planet finally blows up or dies out, it'll hover and float and drift in space until the gravitational pull of a far away sun picks it up and sucks it in and one day every star in the sky will die out and all the "matter" will drift and eventually come together and pack together so tight that you could fit all the matter of the universe in your hand.  All that matter that tight then gets sucked into a black hole and what spits out is a new big bang somewhere else in another universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting theory, too bad it has already been debunked. All the matter in the universe in your hand? Seriously? Do you even listen to this shit before you throw it out there? How can that even be possible in the wildest of imaginations?
> 
> An atom is comprised of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. In order for an atom to exist, it has to have this. For the electrons to orbit, requires some amount of space. To factor in all the space needed for all the atoms in the universe, would be very much larger than your hand. There is no way to further compress the atoms. What you have done is taken the Singularity theory, combined with other theories and applied your infantile and illiterate way of thinking, which has resulted in a theory that is totally laughable.
> 
> You should avoid science topics altogether man. Seriously!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but my theories are just as good as yours.  And neither one of us knows so stop acting like you do felix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO... Oh, your theory is good alright... if any science journal has a joke page for toilet humor, your theory would fit in rather nicely there. You may even be able to pitch it to SNL or Jon Stewart. As for being a credible scientific theory, it's just simply not that.
> 
> It seems to loosely be based on outdated Singularity theory but then, combined with the more recent and contradicting quantum string theory to form something that doesn't even comport with logic. You've now avoided giving any further explanation as to how this convoluted theory can work, but you're insisting it is legitimate.
> 
> I've still not heard you explain how matter can have entropy but has always existed. Another contradiction in logic that you failed to explain.
> 
> *And neither one of us knows...*
> 
> Well that's at least HALF true, you certainly don't have a clue. However, this is where I have a distinct advantage over you because I do know. Spiritual nature created physical nature. How that happened, I am not sure of, maybe one day it will be discovered.
Click to expand...


Corinthians 15:46 says you are wrong.  LOL

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

Then you ask how can all of our universe fit in your hand?  How can this be true?  *All physical things are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. If the nucleus is the size of a marble, the electrons would be specks of dust a half mile away. Every physical thing has that much empty space in it.*

*We can come from nothing!  Why?  Because Nothing is really something.

Einstein's general relativity equations show that space bends and prove that nothing is really something with substance. Supposedly, empty space is shaped, and it is the shape of space that creates the gravity that controls and creates the whole universe. It holds the planets in orbit, makes the sun and other stars burn, and it is empty space, nothing.*


----------



## sealybobo

*Value of general relativity:* I always wondered what the practical benefit of general relativity was, and now I know. It proves that nothing is something, and in fact controls and creates the whole universe.

*Nothing causes everything to happen.* It creates gravity, gravity creates planets and stars, stars concentrate and release all energy and matter. Thus everything physical comes from and is created by nothing. *0 = 2*


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years.  Next question?



Please explain how this can happen with a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating? Every second of time that passes, every atom in the universe gets further apart and does it faster than the second before. Now... You've heard of Newton's Laws of Motion, I assume? So how is it, all these atoms suddenly stop doing what they've been doing forever, and a reverse process happens? According to Newton, the ONLY way such a thing could ever happen, is if a stronger force acted upon the atoms of the universe. Hmm.... what is more powerful than the universe? 

Let me catch you up to date on science here... Back about 90 years ago, scientists held a theory that the universe may be cyclical. That matter compressed tightly, creating friction and the energy caused an explosion (the big bang). Then all the matter burst out into the universe in this explosion, eventually stopped expanding and the forces of gravity drew it all back together again into a singularity. Rinse and repeat. 

However.... and this is very important. The more science studied the universe, the more they realized the universe is not behaving as if the expansion was from an explosion. You see, when something explodes, the velocity of matter is greatest at the time of explosion and gradually diminishes over time. Eventually, friction acts upon the matter and velocity reaches a zero point. (See Newton's Laws of Motion) But the velocity of the universe expansion is increasing, not diminishing. Therefore, it is not possible for the universe to "reverse course" and contract back in on itself, unless some other unknown force acts upon the universe to cause this. We find no evidence of any such force. Black holes are not that force, if anything, they are working against any such contraction of matter, sucking up massive portions of the universe. Gravity is not that force because gravity is constant, it would be working on the universe at present to slow the velocity and it's not. 

So you are left with an outdated theory that has no relevant basis in physics. Still, you've heard someone state this theory and it sounded good to you at the time, so you're here repeating it as if you are smart.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
Click to expand...


I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.

I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation


----------



## Boss

LMFAO... Well... when you get silly boob to quote Corinthians to make his point... you've accomplished something, I guess!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some matter may have an end but ultimately whatever happens to this earth and the stars and the comets and meteors will just be recycled into the next universe that comes along or doesn't come along, in another bazillion katrillion years.  Next question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this can happen with a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating? Every second of time that passes, every atom in the universe gets further apart and does it faster than the second before. Now... You've heard of Newton's Laws of Motion, I assume? So how is it, all these atoms suddenly stop doing what they've been doing forever, and a reverse process happens? According to Newton, the ONLY way such a thing could ever happen, is if a stronger force acted upon the atoms of the universe. Hmm.... what is more powerful than the universe?
> 
> Let me catch you up to date on science here... Back about 90 years ago, scientists held a theory that the universe may be cyclical. That matter compressed tightly, creating friction and the energy caused an explosion (the big bang). Then all the matter burst out into the universe in this explosion, eventually stopped expanding and the forces of gravity drew it all back together again into a singularity. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> However.... and this is very important. The more science studied the universe, the more they realized the universe is not behaving as if the expansion was from an explosion. You see, when something explodes, the velocity of matter is greatest at the time of explosion and gradually diminishes over time. Eventually, friction acts upon the matter and velocity reaches a zero point. (See Newton's Laws of Motion) But the velocity of the universe expansion is increasing, not diminishing. Therefore, it is not possible for the universe to "reverse course" and contract back in on itself, unless some other unknown force acts upon the universe to cause this. We find no evidence of any such force. Black holes are not that force, if anything, they are working against any such contraction of matter, sucking up massive portions of the universe. Gravity is not that force because gravity is constant, it would be working on the universe at present to slow the velocity and it's not.
> 
> So you are left with an outdated theory that has no relevant basis in physics. Still, you've heard someone state this theory and it sounded good to you at the time, so you're here repeating it as if you are smart.
Click to expand...


I just came up with it on my own.  It was just a theory.  Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.

I'm still waiting for a link from  you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories.  Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
Click to expand...


Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.
Click to expand...


Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site.  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation

Sounds like the shit you say.  Check it out.  I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.

I can't find anything pal.  Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I just came up with it on my own.  It was just a theory.  Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a link from  you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories.  Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.



I don't believe you came up with it on your own. I believe you heard bits and pieces of various theories which you didn't understand and were incapable of comprehending, and you morphed these together to form the Silly Boob Super Theory. 

Hey look man, I am more than happy to leave this at "we don't know, let's keep looking" but you simply refuse to abide by those terms. You say this, but no sooner than you post those words, here you are presenting theories as if they are known facts, rejecting anything to the contrary, and pretending you know. We're not going to be able to have this both ways, but that is consistently what you seem to want.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site.  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Sounds like the shit you say.  Check it out.  I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.
> 
> I can't find anything pal.  Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.
Click to expand...


Well, I am certainly not alone in thinking Spiritual Nature created everything. In fact, that's what about 95% of the human species believes to one degree or another. And it makes logical sense, unlike your illogical theory. The physical couldn't create itself if it didn't exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.
> 
> I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.
> 
> I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that's why I get rather bored once more going through the intense theological studies these days. I did the work for years and years, learned all the terminology, concepts, and arguments, went through the theological perspectives of all the church fathers from New Testament times into the Renaissance and Reformation and the spread of the church and its doctrines into the New World.  And I was blessed with a broad spectrum of 'teachers' ranging from Roman Catholic to Anglican/Episcopal to the more protestant mainline churches from the most fundamentalist to the most liberal so I wasn't restricted to one perspective.
> 
> And while none of that was without value and I learned a great deal and significantly expanded my own perspectives, ultimately it comes down to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and our relationship with God as to what we believe in our hearts.  If we latch onto the theological arguments/doctrines as the way it is and refuse to see it any other way, we are limiting it all to one person or one group of people's belief and teaching.  And I am convinced that no one person or group of people have God all figured out any more than I do.
> 
> So these days I prefer to discuss it all in more universally common language with other believers and those who are curious or seekers.  And like you I know I have barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *QW is still trying to defeat it...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I am not trying to defeat anything, *all I have done is show you that the Law of Thought is not applicable to the universe outside our thoughts*. I then proceeded to show you that, despite your assertion that these laws are universally held to be axiomatic, there are actually different types of logic that do view them as axioms.
> 
> In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.
Click to expand...


The term _defeat_ in formal argumentation means _refute.  _I thought you knew everything about logic.  You've been lecturing us all on logic, setting yourself up as the grand master of logic around here, and yet I kept showing that you don't know what you're talking about half the time.

So what we have here in your post is your failure to recognize the formal term for refutation (_defeat_), your contention that you're not trying to refute (_defeat_) followed by a claim that you have refuted (defeated) something I supposedly argued.  
You showed no such thing. Nor could you. No one could show such thing either way!

It's not something that can be proved either way in the ultimate sense.

And you should know by now that the actual idea I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the power of human apprehension.

Don't misstate my position again.

You're insinuating that I have claimed to have proven this in terms of ultimacy when I have never made any such claim whatsoever.  On the contrary, I have made it abundantly clear that it can only be asserted scientifically in terms of human nature and can only be justifiably proven under the rules of organic logic in strictly academic terms.

You’re the one making a claim in terms of ultimacy. DOGMATIC, PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT.

Under the terms of constructive logic which attempts to establish proofs in the absolute sense, albeit, materially, neither the positive or the negative of this potentiality could possibly be assigned a truth value, for there is no direct evidence for an inhabitable proof for either position. The suspension of the law of the excluded middle and double negative elimination as axioms in constructive logic has absolutely nothing to do with the ultimate potentiality of a metaphysical universality of the principle of identity.

How could it?

And neither potentially can be falsified under the fundamental rules of thought (in the organic or academic sense) or under the rules of constructive logic.

You really don't know this stuff at all, do you?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Spiritual Nature created everything.



Spiritual concatenates life, why would it then create a Universe devoid of any representation of its existence but for a single planet among billions ?

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> *Value of general relativity:* I always wondered what the practical benefit of general relativity was, and now I know. It proves that nothing is something, and in fact controls and creates the whole universe.
> 
> *Nothing causes everything to happen.* It creates gravity, gravity creates planets and stars, stars concentrate and release all energy and matter. Thus everything physical comes from and is created by nothing. *0 = 2*



I always wondered how stupid people who think they understand something can be, I am beginning to think you are barely scratching the surface of your stupidity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.



My errors?

How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition? 

How would that work in constructive logic?

If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, _does not_ assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order. 

What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?

On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation



That was funny.

The double slit experiments actually show that Heisenberg was right, and quantum mechanics is a valid field. If it actually was the mind of an observer making a difference it wouldn't work when you put a non sentient detector at the slit to monitor the experiment, or did you not read that far? But, please, keep showing us that you are the intellectual equivalent of a earthworm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The term _defeat_ in formal argumentation means _refute.  _I thought you knew everything about logic.  You've been lecturing us all on logic, setting yourself up as the grand master of logic around here, and yet I kept showing that you don't know what you're talking about half the time.



Yes, and I am not trying to refute them, because there is no need, I am trying to get you to think outside the box.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> My errors?
> 
> How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?
> 
> How would that work in constructive logic?
> 
> If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, _does not_ assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.
> 
> What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?
> 
> On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?



By demanding that you defend your premises instead of assuming, by default, that they are true.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Picaro said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, using logic I can prove anything I want,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It's merely semantic gamesmanship.
> 
> ""The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil"-Bertrand Russell.
Click to expand...


Now this is philosophical bullshit, akin to QW's bullshit about constructive logic wherein truth values can only be assigned to propositions supported by direct evidence for inhabitable proofs while all propositions in general are held to be unproved until falsified by evidence or deduced contradictions.  

"Lies can be true."  "Truths can be lies."  

Hogwash!  

There are no such assignments unless the proposition assigned a truth value is mistakenly perceived to be supported by direct evidence for an inhabitable proof, in which case the error would be due to the abuse or misuse of the principle of identity at some level or another, like QWs' confusion that science is not premised on philosophical apriorities as if it floats in midair.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> My errors?
> 
> How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?
> 
> How would that work in constructive logic?
> 
> If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, _does not_ assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.
> 
> What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?
> 
> On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By demanding that you defend your premises instead of assuming, by default, that they are true.
Click to expand...


I already proved that the major premise of the transcendental argument is incontrovertible as any counterargument is actually the premise of an argument that necessarily presupposes it to be true.  Under the rules of justification of standard, real-world logic (classical and propositional) and under the rules of inference the premise _is_ true.  I don't have to demonstrate anything.  Just point to fact that you yourself presuppose it to be true every time you try to refute it.

Under the rules of justification of constructive logic the proposition, insofar as it pertains to the biological level of the principle, holds a truth value.  At the metaphysical level it holds an unproved value as it cannot be supported by direct evidence, but only by inferential evidence.  Either way it has evidentiary support, just not the kind under constructive logic that warrants an inhabited proof.

Your counterproposition, on the other hand, is falsified by your own argument under the rules of justification of organic logic, i.e., in the generic sense of God and knowledge sans the biblical details, cannot be assigned a truth value at any level or within any model of logic and is at best unfalsfiable under the rules of constructive logic . . . that is, until Christ returns.  Then it will be disproved by direct evidence for Christ will lace you up on Who He is and why we are without excuse in terms of synchronization.

Now prove that wrong. 

Neither objectively demonstrable truth or logic will help you, because the truth and the logic are not on your side, in spite of your previous insinuations before you got clobbered by someone who understands logic better than you.  Give an arrogant asshole who's been a dick to everyone on this thread enough rope. . . .

Scripture won't help you, because all of your talk about such is mere insinuation. 

And your phony allegations about my supposed intellectual bigotry won't help because as I have shown you’re the only one making unjustifiable claims in terms of ultimacy without qualification.  






.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> I never said Aristotle did not use sensory data. . . .



Hogwash!

This is what you wrote:


Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet *Copernicus, with that same rock solid analysis of sensory data*, reached a different conclusion, *and used math to prove it*.
> 
> What did Aristotle use again?
> 
> *That's right, he didn't use anything. *Why? Because philosophers think their brain is better than science.



The brain is the seat of our senses.  The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error.  He disregarded that. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> I said he didn't use math.



As I explained:

What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing *in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity*. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head from the perfections of the Logos (God) . . . that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity *must be miscalculations*. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!

In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, *the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem*.​



Quantum Windbag said:


> If he had [used math] he would have seen that the planets retrograde motion totally destroyed his classical logic axiom that the universe was perfect.



He did see that. He did use math. He went with the bulk of it and disregarded the rest. And it was not a “classical logic axiom” that moved him. It was a creed of Platonic, geometric idealism.


----------



## G.T.

No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.

That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
Click to expand...


The double-slit experiment does not prove the mind affects energy and matter. It is the act of observation that changes how matter behaves, or more specifically, how electrons behave. But hey, the amazing electron is very accustomed to blowing the mind of logic and reason. It can appear or disappear, it can be at two places at one time, or no places at all. It can pop into and out of existence with no explanation. 

The really interesting thing is, electrons are necessary components of every single material thing in our universe. Everything you see or are aware of in physical nature is comprised of atoms with electrons. This has prompted some to theorize and speculate that what we perceive as reality is actually a hologram. I think there is a video on YouTube about the "Holographic Universe" ...it's a little far-fetched, but hey... it's a theory. 

Even more fascinating is the deeper we look inside of the atom, the more amazing things we discover and find. Large Hadron Colliders are busting atoms into tiny pieces (particles) to discover all kinds of special components which give atoms various properties. As we make these discoveries, we must comprehend that physics as we have known it is being rewritten. Many of the ideas we once had about the nature of our physical universe is now obsolete as new things are being discovered.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. One's ignorance ≠ I don't have a point. "Just like the universe is [not] run by our thoughts." The truth is what it is.
> 
> Actually, I provided you scriptural proof of this, but you dismissed it out of hand on the basis of the well-known fact that YHWH's name carries connotations of action and/or unknown connotations in addition to those that go to being due to the ritualistic tradition of the transcription of His name clouding its etymology. But what you're not aware of is that the bulk of Prophetic and Apostolic authority asserts His name in terms of being and the universal ramifications thereof, including the action of sustaining the universe via His very own being as the universal Logos or first principle of identity.
> 
> I'm not going to research it all over again now.  I don't have my "white book" with me.  It's loaned out.  But I'll provide you a list of those scriptural references after Sunday when I see the brother who has it.  I'll ask him to bring it and I'll make copy of the pertinent pages.
> 
> In the meantime contemplate on these:  John 1:1-4, Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:15-20, Romans 1:18-23 (again) and the post in the above again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is you said something that is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly wrong about the excluded middle thing.  What is not true about this idea of YHWH?
Click to expand...


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's just that the conversation has shifted a little bit into the Bible because of the kind of question that's being addressed, free will.  For me that's just not something you can understand from just the  things that the thoughts of origin give you.  All I'm saying is that there's never any reason to put alimit on what God can do or how God can make it logically possible for Him to know all and for there to be free will at the same time.  I don't get the logic that tries to say that logic doesn't work while trying to use the very same logic, though wrongfully ignoring the perfectly logical  concept of infiniteness, to say that logic doesn't let both fully exist.  Huh?  The only thing that logically works is that both fully exist without conflict, and that's what the Bible says.  I don't get the attack on organic logic from Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, philosophy has pretty much settled into the position that free will does not exist.
Click to expand...


I can't tell from this.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is that we exist.   The atheist accepts that the universe exists.  Then he says God doesn't exist. Who doesn't exist?  God doesn't exist.  So he has an idea of God in his mind because he realizes that the origin of his existence could be God.  Since that's true.  It's not logical to say that something that is obviously possible can't be.  His claim that God does not exist is not rational.  It's contradictory.  The knowledge that God could be is justifiable knowledge.  The claim that God cannot be after the atheist necessarily admits that He could be is not logically justifiable.  It's not justifiable knowledge either.  This has already been covered on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's because the only "exist" which they can comprehend is physical. If something does not have physical existence, it doesn't exist. If you cannot prove God physically exists, then God does not exist to the Atheist. They are illiterate of spiritual existence.
> 
> Now, in the Atheist's defense, if I did not believe in or comprehend spiritual nature, and the only "exist" is physically, I wouldn't believe God could exist either. You and I comprehend another type of "exist" which is spiritual. It's not physical existence, there is no physical proof, and that is where we meet with disagreement with the Atheist view.
> 
> A rainbow doesn't exist to a blind person. We can tell them all about rainbows, how beautiful they are, all the colors... means nothing to a blind person, they don't know of colors or beauty, they can't see. Their viewpoint (pardon the pun) is justified, whether it is correct or not.
Click to expand...


It's not justified in any standard sense.  It's just silly.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it.
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
Click to expand...


I don't see where you're getting this from him at all. In fact his take on things shows me a mind tahts wide open. To be honest with you, I'm put off by you. I mostly agree with M.D.R. so that puts me in the same boat. The only thing I think I disagree with him on is his idea that God could choose to limit his powers in anyway except in the sense of what Jesus did for us. I know from deep contemplation on the word and on the various issues that you cannot compromise on that without conceding all. From where I'm standing your mind is closed. I don't see how someone who is taking about the objective ideas of the mind about God that are affirmed in the Bible would be closed minded. I clearly see that there's no excuse for you to not see your error about something as simple as the conceptual set logic of simultaneity., Since when was that a problem for organic logic or science? That's just silly. You're too smart to not know that so something very weird is going there. Why would someone lie about something like that? But not just that, only someone who is not thinking but just regurgitating by rote could believe that there’s anything about the basic ideas of God from organic logic would stop us from seeing the universe as it is or limit God. That's just silly. I stopped posting yesterday to get a grip on intuitionistic logic so I could follow along and spent almost an hour reading what you guys said about it this morning. It’s clear as a bell that M.D.R. is way ahead you on that. You're not making any sense at all.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.
> 
> You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.
> 
> According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.
> 
> Stop presses!
> 
> Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.
> 
> *God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.*
> 
> You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.
> 
> But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!
> 
> Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?
> 
> What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.
> 
> And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.
> 
> What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?
> 
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.
> 
> It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.
> 
> Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?
> 
> That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?
> 
> Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.
Click to expand...


M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, all I have done is show you your errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My errors?
> 
> How can constructive logic falsify a metaphysical proposition?
> 
> How would that work in constructive logic?
> 
> If you correctly understood what I'm asserting, then your proposition would have to be that the divine Logos (the ultimate ground of the universal Principle of Identity), namely, Jesus Christ, _does not_ assure that the rational forms and logical categories of human apprehension are synchronized with the material properties and mechanisms of the cosmological order.
> 
> What precisely is the direct evidence for the inhabitable proof that would allow your proposition to be assigned a truth value, let alone overthrow the fact that the counter proposition cannot be falsified under the rules of justification of either classical logic or constructive logic?
> 
> On the other hand, what precisely did you fail to understand about the fact that your proposition under the rules of justification of classical logic and standard propositional logic (first order predicate logic) is false?
Click to expand...


Bump!


----------



## Justin Davis

NYcarbineer said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists do not believe in God because they see no physical, spiritual, or any type of evidence at all that would support a belief in the supernatural especially as promoted by delusional and irrational people who make absurd assertions that contradict well known and long established facts about reality and have confused faith with obstinate stupidity. Present some evidence. Its not up to the skeptical to believe first before they can see. Its up to the one making the claim to provide convincing evidence that can be seen or even just perceived before belief is even possible.
> 
> You have failed miserably.
> 
> You make ridiculous claims that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves and even call it God and when I show that such is not the case, and in fact what they worshiped is not God,  you act as if that was irrelevant, claim to never have said any such thing and meant something else, start all that you fucking idiot talk, and then go on to clarify your position by saying the exact same thing you said in the first place.
> 
> Does Alzheimer's run in your family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?
> 
> You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.
> 
> Now you can sit here and reel off one lie after another about what you think I've said, and I can spend all day correcting you on that and setting the record straight, but what is the point? You have proven that you want to deliberately misconstrue things I've said and pretend I've said something absurd, so that you can strut around acting like a genius. Honestly, I just don't have time for your nonsense. We can either have an honest discussion about the topic or we can't, and at this point, we're not having that honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously either don't know what constitutes evidence, or you know and refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...


And you obviously don't know what the definition of evidence is.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.



Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?
> 
> You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.



I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God,  I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.
> 
> You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.
> 
> According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.
> 
> Stop presses!
> 
> Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.
> 
> *God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.*
> 
> You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.
> 
> But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!
> 
> Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?
> 
> What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.
> 
> And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.
> 
> What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?
> 
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.
> 
> It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.
> 
> Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?
> 
> That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?
> 
> Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.
Click to expand...


Actually, I'm glad you raised the point.  Yes.  In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all.  I was actually thinking something else and confused it.  You are right to call me out on that.

No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.

C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:

But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​
But then comes the criticism:



God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.

But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given  _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?

Ockham's razor.  A legion of problems vs. no problems.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
Click to expand...


No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis. That is not supported.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.

That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?

Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.

As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that they transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.
> 
> That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?
> 
> Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.
> 
> As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .
Click to expand...


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
Click to expand...


Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, hobbie... you seem to be above the average intellect of most of the loonies here, I see you make some pretty compelling points in other threads and admire your debating abilities... So why in the hell is it that you want to resort to acting like a pissy-pants 7-year-old?
> 
> You say "present some evidence" ...okay... I talk to God daily and he blesses me all the time. Now, you will not accept my evidence because it's not viewed as evidence to you. We have the testimony of billions of people who claim to have received blessings and even miracles from God... again, you refute this as evidence. Why? Because you do not believe God exists. It doesn't change the evidence or render it any less valid, it's simply your perspective and what you are willing to accept as "evidence" with regard to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?
> 
> Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.
> 
> Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.
> 
> Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.
> 
> I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God,  I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.
Click to expand...


Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works? 

Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.
> 
> That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?
> 
> Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.
> 
> As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .
Click to expand...


It's not my fault you misunderstand. 

I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.

Very easily.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Now this is philosophical bullshit, akin to QW's bullshit about constructive logic wherein truth values can only be assigned to propositions supported by direct evidence for inhabitable proofs while all propositions in general are held to be unproved until falsified by evidence or deduced contradictions.
> 
> "Lies can be true."  "Truths can be lies."
> 
> Hogwash!
> 
> There are no such assignments unless the proposition assigned a truth value is mistakenly perceived to be supported by direct evidence for an inhabitable proof, in which case the error would be due to the abuse or misuse of the principle of identity at some level or another, like QWs' confusion that science is not premised on philosophical apriorities as if it floats in midair.



Just because you dislike the idea that premises need to be backed up with actual facts does not mean the rest of the world is stuck in the past.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works?
> 
> Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.




Well, you are right, I won't accept your evidence that you didn't die except by the grace of God, because IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.

It is an unsubstantiated assertion.

The good and the bad escape death every day. the good and the bad die every day. How is that evidence of God?  how is that evidence of spiritual reality? How is that evidence of anything except that humans are mortal.?

How do you know that you didn't die because you were wearing a lucky tie, or ate cornflakes in the morning, or never walked under a ladder?

Where will the grace of God be in the day that you actually do die?


----------



## BreezeWood

> " No one comes to the Father except through me "


.
how could anyone with even a simple understanding of life justify or support a document predicated by the above fallacy attributed without verification as being authentic and base their own or others life's destiny on such an absurd dogma ... M.D. Rawlings.

Edit:  and the other biblicists.
.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hogwash!
> 
> This is what you wrote:



Which does not claim he did not use sensory data, it just points out he didn't use anything to prove his ideas were correct.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> The brain is the seat of our senses.  The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error.  He disregarded that.



That was funny.

Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?



M.D. Rawlings said:


> As I explained:
> 
> What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing *in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity*. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head from the perfections of the Logos (God) . . . that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity *must be miscalculations*. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!
> 
> In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, *the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem*.​


​
In other words, he didn't use math.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> He did see that. He did use math. He went with the bulk of it and disregarded the rest. And it was not a “classical logic axiom” that moved him. It was a creed of Platonic, geometric idealism.



Funny how you are the only person in the universe who thinks Aristotle knew he was wrong.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only went by what it appeared you were saying.  Sometimes you have to ask in some way or guess something in some way to elicit from the other person what he means.  That's all.  I really wish I'd seen this post before posting to Foxfyre, so please look at that post because it's important to this (1294).  I strongly disagree.  One of the first bible studies I did after becoming a Christian was on God's attributes.  This was my own study using a concordance.  The ideas about these things in the philosophy I've read are different from the Bible.  Then I compared my notes to a couple of books on biblical doctrine and theology.  I was seeing the same thngs.  In my opinion, the only thing that can be taken from Aristotle, for example, is the idea that God is indivisible and unchangeable in His being.  The rest of his stuff doesn't work very well with the Bible.  The Bible overwhelming talks about God's attributes in the most perfect or complete sense there is.  I have no idea what verses you could be talking about that contradict this.  I know that Descartes, Plato and Kant talk about God in the most perfect sense but the problem with those guys is that you end up with a philosophy of pure subjective introspection with ideas of perfection about everything else.  Why should that be I ask myself?   Once you get past the objective things that can be seen in the highest sense about God's attributes from thinking about the idea of God from the problem of origin, these guys need to stop and get over themselves.  Lots of the other stuff they go on about past the objective things that can be known about God from reflection is not in the Bible about God or other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should use Nave's Topical Bible to study topics, it helps a lot.
> 
> I have a reading schedule that takes me through the entire Bible 4 times a year, and have read every translation I could find. I even learned Greek so that I could read the Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek. Over many years my view of God changed from what I first learned, but I also learned that New Christians are the most dogmatic about their beliefs. I can tell you that, if you continue to just read the Bible, and study things that you discover in that process, you will eventually learn that most of the stuff you now see as unquestionable is entirely questionable. God will reveal Himself to you on a personal level in a way that I cannot explian, and you will realize that you cannot explain Him to anyone else anymore than you can explain your best friend, you simply do not have the time.
> 
> I said all of that to explain why I am not willing to go into everything on this forum. It would take months just to build a foundation for you to understand the many shortcomings you have in your understanding of God. Being a Disciple is a lifelong journey, it took me years to get to where I am, and I have barely scratched the surface.
Click to expand...


Well, I believe all this is true.  It makes good sense.  I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever.  This Book never ends.  What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that.  When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience.  I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word.  I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well.  But I have been carefully checking the things he says.  I see them in the Bible.  The truth is I'm amazed.  What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you.  Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first.  I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first.  I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.


----------



## G.T.

I do transcend genres though


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.
Click to expand...


Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.

He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.

That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.

On the omniscience of God, he wrote:

". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.

And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:

1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .

you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are refuting my evidence. Doesn't matter why you claim to be refuting it. If evidence were valued the same by everyone, you wouldn't be refuting my evidence. Now, I presented you my evidence because you demanded it, knowing that you were not going to accept it and telling you that beforehand. As soon as I presented it, you accuse me of being mentally ill unless I can give you more evidence. So if I give you more evidence, does it make me "insane" unless I give you even more? Is that how this works?
> 
> Okay, you want more evidence? My life has been spared 3 times by the grace of God. By all logic and reason, I should have died. Again, you will refute my evidence because you don't believe it is evidence. I don't care if you accept my evidence or even value it as evidence. It is evidence to me and that is all that matters. My point has been to demonstrate to your stupid ass that "evidence" means different things to different people and it largely depends on individual perspective. I think my point is proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you are right, I won't accept your evidence that you didn't die except by the grace of God, because IT IS NOT EVIDENCE.
> 
> It is an unsubstantiated assertion.
> 
> The good and the bad escape death every day. the good and the bad die every day. How is that evidence of God?  how is that evidence of spiritual reality? How is that evidence of anything except that humans are mortal.?
> 
> How do you know that you didn't die because you were wearing a lucky tie, or ate cornflakes in the morning, or never walked under a ladder?
> 
> Where will the grace of God be in the day that you actually do die?
Click to expand...


So... back on post #1331 where you said: _"If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." _...you're now admitting that was incorrect? 

I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently. And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do. That is what I mean by demand.



So keep it simple and stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. That way it doesn't matter how smart are you. Smarts has got nothing to do with the price of beans in China.

Simplicity is complexity in God. God is the conceivably highest degree of perfection in attribution. And there are two and only two things that matter in terms of conceivability: contradiction and infiniteness. He is never the former and He always the latter. To always keep these two things in mind is the difference between order and chaos. Period. End of thought.

I don't need to know anything more than that about the extent of His attributes and His prerogatives. He'll fill in the blanks. All I need to know is that there is nothing He can't do but not be Who He is.

"My thoughts are not His thoughts, and My ways are not your ways." Some might take exception to the term _conceivably. _Don't. God obviously made it possibly for us to comprehensively grasp these two vital truths, not the details in total, but the concepts in total. He wants us to know these things that we may know that we can trust Him in all things with absolute confidence.

Nowhere in the Bible among the multitude of iterations regarding our finite nature will you ever find the Hebrew or the Greek terms for our _thoughts_ or _ways_ to mean _wisdom_ or _logic_. _Thoughts_ and _ways_ go to our finite apprehensions and volitions only. God's wisdom and logic is that still, small voice. The calm and quite voice of perfect understanding and reason without the clutter or the chaos or the noise of our thoughts and our ways. It's not our wisdom or our logic inside of us. It's His wisdom and His logic inside of us. And that perfect wisdom and logic is everywhere and in everything, grounded in Him.

With all due respect, we are not to look at Him or the cosmological order in any other way but by His wisdom and His logic. His Wisdom is perfect understanding and His logic is perfect continuity: A = Logos: W and L simultaneously.

It's that simple.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.
> 
> That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?
> 
> Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.
> 
> As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you misunderstand.
> 
> I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.
> 
> Very easily.
Click to expand...


Okay,.  But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want.  Nobody's stopping you, not even God.  But bear this in mind.  God has a way of firming up our decisions.  Say _yes_.  He'll firm that up for ya.  Say _no_.  He'll firm that up for you too.  Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out.  Say _yes_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash!
> 
> This is what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which does not claim he did not use sensory data, it just points out he didn't use anything to prove his ideas were correct.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brain is the seat of our senses.  The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error.  He disregarded that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained:
> 
> What led Aristotle astray was his extracurricular philosophizing *in violation of the recommendations of the principle of identity*. Ironically, as you alluded earlier, he got it into his head from the perfections of the Logos (God) . . . that those "heavenly movements" that didn't line up with the perfection of geometric circularity *must be miscalculations*. He had the information he needed to get it right all along!
> 
> In other words, the classical empiricist Aristotle wasn't entirely free of his teacher's influence; however, *the bulk of the mathematical calculi based on the sensory data of the unaided eye from an earthly perspective worked. He simply decided to disregard those aspects of the sensory data on the peripheral of his "ideal model" in spite the fact that the principle of identity was telling him there was a problem*.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> In other words, he didn't use math.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did see that. He did use math. He went with the bulk of it and disregarded the rest. And it was not a “classical logic axiom” that moved him. It was a creed of Platonic, geometric idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you are the only person in the universe who thinks Aristotle knew he was wrong.
Click to expand...


No.  He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements.  He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.

I didn't say he _knew_ he was wrong.  He _thought_ he was right.  We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.

But you're too harsh on Aristotle.  In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are  Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So keep it simple and stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. That way it doesn't matter how smart are you. Smarts has got nothing to do with the price of beans in China.
> 
> Simplicity is complexity in God. God is the conceivably highest degree of perfection in attribution. And there are two and only two things that matter in terms of conceivability: contradiction and infiniteness. He is never the former and He always the latter. To always keep these two things in mind is the difference between order and chaos. Period. End of thought.
> 
> I don't need to know anything more than that about the extent of His attributes and His prerogatives. He'll fill in the blanks. All I need to know is that there is nothing He can't do but not be Who He is.
> 
> "My thoughts are not His thoughts, and My ways are not your ways." Some might take exception to the term _conceivably. _Don't. God obviously made it possibly for us to comprehensively grasp these two vital truths, not the details in total, but the concepts in total. He wants us to know these things that we may know that we can trust Him in all things with absolute confidence.
> 
> Nowhere in the Bible among the multitude of iterations regarding our finite nature will you ever find the Hebrew or the Greek terms for our _thoughts_ or _ways_ to mean _wisdom_ or _logic_. _Thoughts_ and _ways_ go to our finite apprehensions and volitions only. God's wisdom and logic is that still, small voice. The calm and quite voice of perfect understanding and reason without the clutter or the chaos or the noise of our thoughts and our ways. It's not our wisdom or our logic inside of us. It's His wisdom and His logic inside of us. And that perfect wisdom and logic is everywhere and in everything, grounded in Him.
> 
> With all due respect, we are not to look at Him or the cosmological order in any other way but by His wisdom and His logic. His Wisdom is perfect understanding and His logic is perfect continuity: A = Logos: W and L simultaneously.
> 
> It's that simple.
Click to expand...


But see.  In your very first statement you tell me to ". .  .stop imagining that accuracy means limitation. . . ." --something I have not even suggested much less said--followed by a lecture on simplicity which is exactly what I have been arguing for some pages now  And for some pages now you have been consistently advising me how I have it wrong re wisdom and logic concerning God and accusing me of limiting God because I see that somewhat differently than you have expressed.

Perhaps you know more of his wisdom and logic than I do.  I have no way of knowing that.  Nor do I care.  But I still maintain that to insist that God must be this or must be that is to limit God.  And so far every time I have suggested that, you have disagreed.  So if I draw wrong conclusions re what you believe, then I draw wrong conclusions.  But my conclusions haven't been  developed in a vaccum either.  If I have misunderstood or misrepresented your argument in anything, I am most willing to be corrected on that.  But I have to know exactly what I have misrepresented to correct it. 

I am NOT criticizing your point of view on anything other than your assumptions about what I think, what I believe, what I assume, what I imagine.  I generally resist that sort of thing which may in fact be stubborn pride.  As I told Justin, God and I are working on that.  I thoroughly enjoy friendly--and I do insist that it be friendly--debates with other Christians on all manner of JudeoChristian theology, history, prophecy, law, etc.  I don't demand that anybody agree with me, but only that they hear me and represent my argument accurately and do not presume to draw inferences from it that simply are not there.


----------



## Boss

I actually think Aristotle was one of the first pinheads. Most everything he taught turned out to be completely wrong. His notion that things have "gravity" because they long to be close to the earth and things have "levity" because they long to be near the sky, was the prevailing "scientific" consensus for nearly 2,000 years, until Newton came along. Because it was such an entrenched philosophy, many rejected the teachings of Newton, it took years for his work to be accepted. Same with his wrong-headed theories about motion. 

What we can learn from Aristotle is, man is subject to rationalize based on logical supposition (conventional wisdom) instead of actual scientific methodology. We assume things to be true because it seems like they should be, it makes sense. Turns out, that is not always the case, things are sometimes true that make no rational sense at all. Sometimes what seems should be true is not true at all. Aristotle was a great reasoner and rationalizer but he was a terrible scientist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> Well, I believe all this is true.  It makes good sense.  I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever.  This Book never ends.  What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that.  When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience.  I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word.  I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well.  But I have been carefully checking the things he says.  I see them in the Bible.  The truth is I'm amazed.  What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you.  Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first.  I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first.  I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.



Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking. 

As for free will, it is one of the hottest subjects in theology. There is a wide range of beliefs in Christianity about what, exactly, free will is. They range from the Calvinistic doctrine that we have absolutely no free will to the Catholic teaching that we are totally free to choose to do good or evil despite our innate desire to sin. Many sects see free will as the ability to do evil, and actually teach that it is impossible for man to do good without the direct influence of God.

Tatian a student of Justin Martyr, argued for the the existence of free will over fate to the Greeks in the second century.

(Just an aside, the writings of Tatian clearly disprove any claim that the story of Jesus was not written until hundreds of years after his death, he actually edited the first know Synoptic Gospel.)


ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century Hermas Tatian Athenagoras Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria Entire - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

It wasn't until over a millennia later that predestination became the dominant them in Christian theology. Perhaps you have heard of John Calvin.

Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Many of the modern beliefs of the church contradict the teachings of the people that are considered the church fathers. While it is possible that the people that actually studied under the apostles got things wrong, personally, I am more inclined to believe their teachings over those of later teachers who contradict them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> No.  He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements.  He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.
> 
> I didn't say he _knew_ he was wrong.  He _thought_ he was right.  We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.
> 
> But you're too harsh on Aristotle.  In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are  Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.



Aristotle was wrong. Saying that is not harsh, it is a fact. The only reason to study the work of people who are wrong is to learn how to avoid their mistakes. Aristotle believe his logic proved the universe was perfect. That was his mistake, and I refuse to make the same one.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, attempting to refute the first premise of the tag argument does not prove it to be true.
> 
> That is baseless. You have not proven it, only asserted it. That's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.
> 
> That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?
> 
> Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.
> 
> As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you misunderstand.
> 
> I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.
> 
> Very easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay,.  But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want.  Nobody's stopping you, not even God.  But bear this in mind.  God has a way of firming up our decisions.  Say _yes_.  He'll firm that up for ya.  Say _no_.  He'll firm that up for you too.  Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out.  Say _yes_.
Click to expand...

I'll worry about it just as soon as I see one coherent reason to believe there was a sentient creator of our universe/multiverse/whatever verse.

Psycho babble doesn't tug on my heart strings, there's nothing to date I've seen concrete.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> *Is it possible that you have adopted one particular theory of theology and have closed your own mind to other possibilities?*



The answer is _no_. I have no particular theory, just the knowledge that by Christ all things were made and subsist. I suppose that's a theory of sorts. What I'm after is simplicity. It works every time. I really haven't read a whole lot of theology or a lot of philosophy in the conventional sense. I've read quite a bit of the history of ideas and events and ran into the major themes, the nuts and bolts, of the various schools of thought in philosophy. I know Henry. Justin mentioned him. Good choice. His theology will take you deep into the history of thought too. I've read the more important works of the guys I mentioned in the above because they're more practical than most. I've read some Plato because you have to really due to his influence on the Church, though I think his stuff is pretty dreamy, Aristotle too as a result of Aquinas' love affair with him. I know Locke best, though I don't share his epistemology. I've read some Kant: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The Bible's epistemology is a balanced, commonsensical rational-empiricist approach premised on Christ.  Philosophy proper is metaphysical definition.

The problem with my logic is that (1) it's not really my logic, but (2) my thoughts and my ways impersonating logic.  Christ is the Logos 

All I've been talking about on this thread goes to the objectively and universally apprehensible imperatives of the problem of origin, with the exception, of course, of defending what is the historically orthodox/majority biblical view of creaturely free will, albeit, once again, on the terms of the *totally open-ended, *conceivably highest degree of divine attribution.  Simplicity.  I find nothing in scripture that supports any sort of diminution of God's attributes to accommodate free will.  I trust that it persists.  The Bible says it does.  I see no reason to question it, especially because the diminution of God's attributes creates all kinds of serious problems that most don't get if they're doing their thoughts and their ways.  

Simplicity. 

God can create any dimensional state of existence wherein the two coincide without contradiction.  That's why it's important to rightly render the principle of identity:  A =A (all potential existents simultaneously).  It's perfectly coherent.  It's in our heads.  God can do it without conflict, and it's in the Bible just so.  I don't care about the details.  I wouldn't understand them anyway, though I get peaks at them from time to time.  Bottom line:  I look at the objectively apparent contents of the human mind put there by God, as lead by God.   These things are found in the Bible as the things we all may see relative to the general attributes of God and the particulars of the various proofs for God's existence.  There's a reason there's only a small handful of those. The most immediate and most power is the transcendental.  God says test Me.  Try Me.  Engage Me.  Sure enough they're in my head too.     

Given the fact that I'm merely reporting on what is the *totally open-ended, *conceivably highest degree of divine attribution and the infiniteness of the principle of identity in terms of potential existents or states of existence without bias or bogged down with unnecessary detail, where's this idea coming from that I am imposing any limitation on what God can be or do or how He can do it?  The details are in the journey with God.  You're not going to get at those any other way. I have just the faintest idea about those.  How do you plumb infinity? 

Also, QW's assertion that _the construct of the eternal now_ is not supported by the Bible is false! That's scripturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally and historically false. In short, it's patently false. I trust that from scripture I have shown it to be false in the above.



> *  One thing I have learned about God is that anytime we think we have God all figured out, we are most likely to have it wrong.*



Everything I'm talking about is framework.  They're  in our heads.  They're in the Bible.  And the Bible tells us they're in our heads.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  He did use math, which was indirectly intuited from sensory data, the movements.  He embraced the bulk of it that work according to his ideal model which he believed had to be true.
> 
> I didn't say he _knew_ he was wrong.  He _thought_ he was right.  We know he had essentially the same mathematical calculations as Averoes.
> 
> But you're too harsh on Aristotle.  In my opinion, the five top philosophers worth reading are  Aristotle, Machiavelli, Descartes, Locke and Berkeley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle was wrong. Saying that is not harsh, it is a fact. The only reason to study the work of people who are wrong is to learn how to avoid their mistakes. Aristotle believe his logic proved the universe was perfect. That was his mistake, and I refuse to make the same one.
Click to expand...


Whatever, Dude.  You win.  Jeez.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me or yourself?  We both know your earlier argument failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we both know that refuting that we need a transcendental basis for our reason, *by using reason, does not therefore justify said transcendental basis*. That is not supported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that you can reason that you're not justifying a transcendental ground without there necessarily being an absolute transcendental ground? You stated that as an absolute fact of reality. How is it that you know something that nobody else knows or can know without presupposing that you transcend all of reality, you know, just to make sure? This is very curious. It's eerie even.
> 
> That was you who earlier on this thread insisted that you know that you don't know everything there is to know like a person who would necessarily be supremely transcendent, wasn't it?
> 
> Now you seem to be claiming to be that supremely transcendent person.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe you're God.   That's the stuff of the booby hatch.  But you won't be alone.  There's lots of folks on this thread who think they're God too . . . well, except for those living in alternate worlds of logic.  Now these guys believe they might be God or they might not be God.  They're waiting to be proved or disproved as one or the other.  Now that's a whole other personality disorder.
> 
> As for myself I know that I think . . . so apparently I am.  Now, I remember a time when I was, and I anticipate . . . give me a moment here . . . when I will be . . . right now!  Oh, never mind.  Now when I try to think that I'm doing this all on my own, I realize that I'm not supremely transcendent.  So that's not a rational option.  So that either means that God is or maybe I just don't know.   But if I know that I don' know how do I know that?  Well, it's settled.  I'm off to the booby hatch too. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault you misunderstand.
> 
> I can reason that god doesnt exist without presupposing god by doing so.
> 
> Very easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay,.  But in truth you can't "reason" that God doesn't exist, but you can say he doesn't exist all you want.  Nobody's stopping you, not even God.  But bear this in mind.  God has a way of firming up our decisions.  Say _yes_.  He'll firm that up for ya.  Say _no_.  He'll firm that up for you too.  Your in a dangerous place G.T.. Get out.  Say _yes_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll worry about it just as soon as I see one coherent reason to believe there was a sentient creator of our universe/multiverse/whatever verse.
> 
> Psycho babble doesn't tug on my heart strings, there's nothing to date I've seen concrete.
Click to expand...


Just saying.  Say yes and you can see it.  It's in your head.


----------



## G.T.

For all intents and purposes, from my vantage point everything IS in my head.

Lol


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> You keep saying that, and then you resort to bullshit to attempt to prove you are right.



Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9942916/

The principle of identity holds that any given _A_ can be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, which would make the doctrine of the Trinity a violation, has been exhaustively debunked, and your computer analogy is incoherent gibberish. Your bald protestations to the contrary sans any direct argument is tiresome.

Your either dumb as a box of rocks or you're lying. Which is it?



Quantum Windbag said:


> It ain't working because, As I have already explained, there are other ways of looking at the universe and how we perceive it than classical thought. None of these methods require me to slam a square peg into a round hole and pretend it fits.



No. I explained. All you ever do is insinuate. Constructive logic doesn't lay a finger on the construct of the universality of the principle of identity either: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9943371/




Quantum Windbag said:


> You haven't said it, and I never said you did.



This is what you wrote:



Quantum Windbag said:


> There is a reason the Law of Identity is part of the Law of Thought, and it is not because the universe is run by our thoughts.



You keep saying this to me as it's something I don't understand. If I've never asserted any such stupidity then why to you keep repeating this rather unremarkable observation as if it were something profound?



Quantum Windbag said:


> You do, however, continue to argue that the laws of thought, which are not universal axioms, mean we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.



And you've lost touch with reality. (1) The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hard-wired; (2) they’re universally apparent and hold true for all humans of sound and developmentally mature minds; (3) the rules of artificial, alternate-world models of logic do not negate the fact that these axioms universally hold as premised on the organic paradigm and (4) as artificial, alternate-world models of logic are microcosmic constructs within the macrocosmic construct of real-world logic, they are contingent on the latter.

We never actually lose our awareness of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination because the presupposition of them as axioms is suspended to amplify the principle of identity in order to get at an alternate means of perceiving the cosmological order, from the negative to the positive. Any given extrapolations ultimately must be reoriented to the real world and conform with the comprehensive expression of the principle of identity in order to be of any practical use. Those that cannot be brought back under the sway of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination in the real world are not real!

What is wrong with you?

In astrophysics, for example, this tool can be used to enhance our intuitive powers that we might extrapolate new principles that serve to unify the various sets of physical laws at the points of breakdown. The principle of identity still holds and delineates the various constituents of the problem.

The fundamental distinction between classical logic and constructive logic is not the suspension of certain axioms, but the rules of justification regarding the inhabited proofs of direct evidence, the restraints on the assignment of truth values which, counter-intuitively, allows for a wider variety of the kinds of propositions that can be conceptualized.



Quantum Windbag said:


> we cannot see the real universe because you refuse to see anything that contradicts them.



Well, it’s not clear what this means, but if your still going on about your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, one again, you’ve got it all wrong in your head.

Take two aspirin, stop conflating *A: A and ~A *with* A: A or ~A*, and go to bed.


----------



## Picaro

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Nature created everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual concatenates life, why would it then create a Universe devoid of any representation of its existence but for a single planet among billions ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


To show off?

Maybe it takes such a complex collection of physical influences to make our little existence work, or other plans are in store? Don't know from a theological context, but many reasons are possible. DNA is another example of complexity in itself, not 'universal' in scale but certainly interesting.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> For all intents and purposes, from my vantage point everything IS in my head.
> 
> Lol



I forgot.


----------



## MaryL

Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning  god's existence factually  won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more  overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a  man made up concept to begin  with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism  and pretend to be victims of aggression  when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own  civilians.  I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brain is the seat of our senses.  The mind above the brain is what wields the principle of identity, which alerted him to his error.  He disregarded that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> Can you provide any evidence that Aristotle ever realized he was wrong, or are you just assuming you can read his mind?
Click to expand...


Missed this. I don't remember from what, but I read it somewhere.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

MaryL said:


> Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning  god's existence factually  won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more  overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a  man made up concept to begin  with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism  and pretend to be victims of aggression  when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own  civilians.  I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.



God is a man-made concept?


----------



## G.T.

I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility. 

After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, be that as it may, Agnostic as I am, questioning  god's existence factually  won't make anyone open their eyes. Especially the Muslims, whom seem more  overwhelmed with "Surrender" or to "Submit". To What? And the fact Islam kills people that criticism it, not Jews, Christians or any other religion. And the fact God is a  man made up concept to begin  with, WOW...really, WOW. Muslims condemn drone strikes, but don't actually do anything to stop bad actors in their own camp committing terrorism  and pretend to be victims of aggression  when Muslim terrorist hide amongst their own  civilians.  I hate these people so much for their willing ignorance and self righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is a man-made concept?
Click to expand...

If he/she/it doesn't exist, then yes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Problems with Understanding - QW*

The notion that the cosmological order is contingent on our apprehensions about it suggests epistemological subjectivism. The transcendental argument (insofar as it pertains to the first principle of knowledge, i.e., the imperative of identity, striking the idea of God from the major premise for the moment) utterly repudiates that indemonstrable "philosophical bullshit."  On the contrary, the whole point of the transcendental argument is that the cosmological order persists on its own terms, just as _you_ say, QW, independently of human consciousness.

*The ultimate point of the transcendental argument is not that existence conforms to human consciousness, but that existence has absolute primacy over human consciousness.
*
In other words, the transcendental argument holds that the limits of humanity’s sensory perceptions/rational calculations, that the imperfections of our understanding of things at any given moment, does _not_ impinge upon the realities of the cosmological order itself. The latter remain what they are regardless of what we may mistakenly believe to be true about them. 

The logical principle of identity, the guts of the transcendental argument, as separated from Kant’s subsequent, philosophical-system-building bullshit, asserts absolute realism as premised on a commonsensically balanced rational-empirical epistemic, not epistemological subjectivism at all.
*


Existence has primacy of over human consciousness ≠ "the laws of thought do not apply to the universe itself."
*
We agree on the first idea and always have in spite of your misunderstanding, but the latter does not follow, does it? You keep conflating these two distinct ideas, not I.

Hence, allow me to reformulate the transcendental argument in terms of the principle of identity, which *everybody knows* to be demonstrably true as *everybody* necessarily presupposes it to be true every time they assert their existence and the logical distinctions between all other existents.


1. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension--collectively, the principle of identity--are the *universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition. They are not man made, but an inherent component of Man’s nature. *
2. The principle of identity asserts that any given _A_ might potentially be two or more things simultaneously.
3. Hence, the principle of identity imposes no limitations whatsoever on the potentialities of either a cosmological order or a transcendental order of things, except, ultimately, the absurdity that the nature of any given thing = NOT-its-nature, or the absurdity of existence = NOT-existence.
4. There is nothing in the cosmological order of things that asserts these absurdities.
5. Hence, the principle of identity asserts that existence has primacy over human consciousness.
6. Hence, there is no evidence for the belief or justifiable reason to believe that the laws of thought do not universally apply to all of existence.
7. The principle of identity universally prevails.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.
> 
> After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.



It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.
> 
> After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't.

You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9942916/
> 
> The principle of identity holds that any given _A_ can be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, which would make the doctrine of the Trinity a violation, has been exhaustively debunked, and your computer analogy is incoherent gibberish. Your bald protestations to the contrary sans any direct argument is tiresome.
> 
> Your either dumb as a box of rocks or you're lying. Which is it?



Here we go again.

The Law of Identity, which is the proper term to use, says no such thing. What it says is that everything that is the same is the same, while everything that is different is different. 



M.D. Rawlings said:


> No. I explained. All you ever do is insinuate. Constructive logic doesn't lay a finger on the construct of the universality of the principle of identity either: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9943371/




I never insinuate, I always insult people openly.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> This is what you wrote:
> 
> You keep saying this to me as it's something I don't understand. If I've never asserted any such stupidity then why to you keep repeating this rather unremarkable observation as if it were something profound?



Because you keep repeating that the laws of thought are axioms, and categorically reject all forms of logic that don't agree with you opinion.

Want to ask another stupid question?



M.D. Rawlings said:


> And you've lost touch with reality. (1) The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hard-wired; (2) they’re universally apparent and hold true for all humans of sound and developmentally mature minds; (3) the rules of artificial, alternate-world models of logic do not negate the fact that these axioms universally hold as premised on the organic paradigm and (4) as artificial, alternate-world models of logic are microcosmic constructs within the macrocosmic construct of real-world logic, they are contingent on the latter.



Excuse me, they are not fucking hardwired because they exist only as concepts that we believe. The simplest proof of that is dark matter and dark energy, two things that must exist, yet cannot be defined by science, logic, or philosophy.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> We never actually lose our awareness of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination because the presupposition of them as axioms is suspended to amplify the principle of identity in order to get at an alternate means of perceiving the cosmological order, from the negative to the positive. Any given extrapolations ultimately must be reoriented to the real world and conform with the comprehensive expression of the principle of identity in order to be of any practical use. Those that cannot be brought back under the sway of the law of the excluded middle/double negation elimination in the real world are not real!
> 
> What is wrong with you?



Nothing is wrong with me, other than the fact that I refuse to accept anything as a universal truth just because you say it is, especially when I know enough about logic to know that they are not universal to all forms of logic.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> In astrophysics, for example, this tool can be used to enhance our intuitive powers that we might extrapolate new principles that serve to unify the various sets of physical laws at the points of breakdown. The principle of identity still holds and delineates the various constituents of the problem.



Your points would actually be better argued if you didn't argue using the wrong terms.

Then again, every time you do you help me make my point that you don't know what you are talking about.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> The fundamental distinction between classical logic and constructive logic is not the suspension of certain axioms, but the rules of justification regarding the inhabited proofs of direct evidence, the restraints on the assignment of truth values which, counter-intuitively, allows for a wider variety of the kinds of propositions that can be conceptualized.



And actually proves that you argument that the laws of thought are universal axioms is not true, yet you keep insisting they are because you cannot think outside the limits of classical logic.

If you want to insist that you have universal axioms prove it using constructive logic.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> Well, it’s not clear what this means, but if your still going on about your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, one again, you’ve got it all wrong in your head.
> 
> Take two aspirin, stop conflating *A: A and ~A *with* A: A or ~A*, and go to bed.



I am not the one doing that, you are.


----------



## MaryL

Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.



Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so. 

What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I believe all this is true.  It makes good sense.  I'm mean we'll be living and learning of Him forever.  This Book never ends.  What I don't understand is why you think M.D.R. doesn't know that.  When you say things that are obviously true are not true, like things about set logic or intuitionistic logic or things I know to be in the Bible are not in the Bible about the kind of things that even unbelievers can see if they don't look away, that doesn't give me confidence. Now my confidence isn't in you but you ask me to believe things you say from your experience.  I have a responsibility to verify what you say in God's word.  I see many of the same things he sees though I don't understand everything as well.  But I have been carefully checking the things he says.  I see them in the Bible.  The truth is I'm amazed.  What I see him saying is keep it simple so that you can be open to everything God wants to show you.  Yet you say he's doing the opposite. I know from experience and from what God has told me things get very complex if we start imagining free will from our point of view first.  I agree with him to look at it from God's point of view first.  I think that youre seeing limitation in precision. I see calm and trust in that, not chaos and demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking.*
> 
> As for free will, it is one of the hottest subjects in theology. There is a wide range of beliefs in Christianity about what, exactly, free will is. They range from the Calvinistic doctrine that we have absolutely no free will to the Catholic teaching that we are totally free to choose to do good or evil despite our innate desire to sin. Many sects see free will as the ability to do evil, and actually teach that it is impossible for man to do good without the direct influence of God.
> 
> Tatian a student of Justin Martyr, argued for the the existence of free will over fate to the Greeks in the second century.
> 
> (Just an aside, the writings of Tatian clearly disprove any claim that the story of Jesus was not written until hundreds of years after his death, he actually edited the first know Synoptic Gospel.)
> 
> 
> ANF02. Fathers of the Second Century Hermas Tatian Athenagoras Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria Entire - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
> 
> It wasn't until over a millennia later that predestination became the dominant them in Christian theology. Perhaps you have heard of John Calvin.
> 
> Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
> 
> Many of the modern beliefs of the church contradict the teachings of the people that are considered the church fathers. While it is possible that the people that actually studied under the apostles got things wrong, personally, I am more inclined to believe their teachings over those of later teachers who contradict them.
Click to expand...


I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.
> 
> What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.
Click to expand...

If god doesn't exist, god is completely made up.

You can cite strength in numbers all you'd like - problem there is that there are plenty of psychological and sociological reasons aside from the possibility of it being true - that ppl believe. Its is not swaying the debate to one side or the other, its an appeal to the majority when the majority could be and has historical instances of being WRONG.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.
Click to expand...


Who are these people?  Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited.  Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.
> 
> What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If god doesn't exist, god is completely made up.
> 
> You can cite strength in numbers all you'd like - problem there is that there are plenty of psychological and sociological reasons aside from the possibility of it being true - that ppl believe. Its is not swaying the debate to one side or the other, its an appeal to the majority when the majority could be and has historical instances of being WRONG.
Click to expand...


It's not a "strength in numbers" argument. Every living thing that has ever existed, that we have ever studied, has particular behaviors for a fundamental reason. Nothing exhibits persistent illogical behavior for no reason. Humans have always been spiritually-inclined, spiritually connected, spiritually aware. No civilization has ever existed for any length of time, devoid of spirituality. All humans have brains... that's not a "strength in numbers" argument, it happens to be a fact. 

You're right, if God doesn't exist, it is completely made up. It makes absolutely no logical sense that God is made up, so God must exist. Now..... What IS God? Different subject entirely!


----------



## G.T.

You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Nothing I said about logic is untrue. There is more than one way to look at the universe, and there is more than one form of logic that you can use. The biggest problem with all of them is is that logic is inherently limited by humans ability to conceptualize, and the universe is not bound by our thinking.



I forgot about this part.  What you said about things that we known to exist outside of our minds in the universe contradicting the law of excluded middle is wrong.  We have lots of things in our minds that are two or more things at the same time.  We always have so its nothing new to see things outside of our minds that are like that.  Who has ever said that these things contradict the law of excluded middle.  You are the only one I've ever heard say this.  What youre saying is wrong but now I feel really bad because I think I see why you're getting this wrong and it's not intentional so I apologize.  I'm not sure I can say this in a way that will help but what you're doing is making a thing + and - at the same time as if the thing is not a + and - first.  That's what M.D.R. is trying to get you to see but I think you're comparing it against itself some way.  I can see how someone can do that in their minds because I sort of did that the first time I read your post forgetting how it really works and it messed me up at first until M.D.R. explained it.  I got his satire in his first post on this but only because I have thought a lot about the infinite in the set logic of organic logic before because I was tryng to understand what Henry was talking about in scripture about the infinity of God's being.  I just forgot for a moment.  You have to think about that very carefully or you will get it wrong but you should be able to see that with just two things at the same time.  In the other things it looks to me that you're making logic and concepts the same thing and who but dummies think that "the universe is bound by our thinking"? I'm not saying that and M.D.R. is not saying that. That would have nothing to do with God being the reason the universe is trhe way it is and we see it the right way. I see what you mean that we can get bad ideas in our thinking but that's because we get the facts wrong and our logic gets the wrong conclusion.  Our logic is good and the facts are bad.  It seems to me that's all that's really happening.  Different ways of logic doesn't make any difference to that as far as I can see. You still have to get the facts right.  But I admit I don't fully understand other ways of logic totally.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> \
> So... back on post #1331 where you said: _"If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." _...you're now admitting that was incorrect?



No. What I am saying is that what many people think is evidence of God is simply evidence of their stupidity or superstition or gullibility and does not qualify as evidence of anything at all. People point to a burnt grilled cheese sandwich that vaguely resembles Jesus and think it is evidence of the supernatural.

The reality is that it is just a burnt grilled cheese sandwich and not evidence of anything supernatural at all.
.



Boss said:


> \I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.




Again, you are wrong.

When you point to the historical worship of one thing or another as evidence that people having always worshiped "something greater than themselves" and make the claim that such evidence proves the existence of God or spiritual reality you have made an illogical assumption based on a false premise.

The premise  that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves is false because what most people have historically worshiped we now know with 100% certainty is not God and never was God and in fact was a delusion that was never greater than themselves.

your evidence is not evidence of God or proof of spiritual reality.

If you want to prove the existence of anything, you have to provide evidence that can be looked at and verified by anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

How one interprets 'evidence' may be subjective, but conclusions based on interpretation can either be right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false..

The truth is not subjective.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.
> 
> What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.
Click to expand...

Gods are "made up".  History proves it. None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

As time goes by, and maniacal gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", your desperate _need_ to believe in magic and supernaturalism, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.



Again... If I said "all humans have brains" that is not an appeal to numbers. This is not a matter of a majority of people having an opinion. This is a very real and persistent attribute of human nature. Majorities can be wrong, persistent behavioral attributes of species are not wrong, they are fundamental. There is no plausible explanation, we've never once observed any living thing with a persistent behavioral attribute across 95% of the species without reason. 

If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're again appealing to #'s where in fact majorities are wrong, all of the time, coupled with the fact that there are other plausible explanations means that what you constitute as an irrevocable argument is really soft, a low standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... If I said "all humans have brains" that is not an appeal to numbers. This is not a matter of a majority of people having an opinion. This is a very real and persistent attribute of human nature. Majorities can be wrong, persistent behavioral attributes of species are not wrong, they are fundamental. There is no plausible explanation, we've never once observed any living thing with a persistent behavioral attribute across 95% of the species without reason.
> 
> If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.
Click to expand...

Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> If you honestly and truly do not believe in any power greater than self, you represent about 5% of the species. Now, there are many plausible explanations for such an anomaly in behavior.




As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.

Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> \
> So... back on post #1331 where you said: _"If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence." _...you're now admitting that was incorrect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I am saying is that what many people think is evidence of God is simply evidence of their stupidity or superstition or gullibility and does not qualify as evidence of anything at all. People point to a burnt grilled cheese sandwich that vaguely resembles Jesus and think it is evidence of the supernatural.
> 
> The reality is that it is just a burnt grilled cheese sandwich and not evidence of anything supernatural at all.
Click to expand...


No, what it means is my point is confirmed. "Evidence" is widely subjective and open to interpretation. It is your profound opinion that people's "evidence" is not evidence. 

_*"If something existed, anyone would accept the evidence provided that proves that existence."*_

This is simply not a true statement. If it were true, there would be no need for judges, juries or trials. There would never be any debates or arguments. We would simply all look at and evaluate evidence the same, and that would be that. But fact of the matter is, evidence is subjective and people value evidence differently. 
.



> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> \I don't have to defend my evidence and you don't have to accept my evidence. The fact that you are saying my evidence is not evidence is making the only point I intended to make. Evidence is subjective. Evidence is not universal. Each person can value evidence differently, or acknowledge/refute said evidence as such, depending on perspective. Thanks for helping me demonstrate that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are wrong.
> 
> When you point to the historical worship of one thing or another as evidence that people having always worshiped "something greater than themselves" and make the claim that such evidence proves the existence of God or spiritual reality you have made an illogical assumption based on a false premise.
Click to expand...


I didn't say it "proved existence" of anything. Evidence that humans have always worshiped something greater than self is evidence humans have always been spiritual. This spirituality has caused them to believe in all kinds of things. I've not argued what incarnation of God is the correct one, only that humans have an intrinsic, inseparable and unquestionable spiritual connection to something greater than self.



> The premise  that people have always worshiped something greater than themselves is false because what most people have historically worshiped we now know with 100% certainty is not God and never was God and in fact was a delusion that was never greater than themselves.
> 
> your evidence is not evidence of God or proof of spiritual reality.



Well, no... we don't know anything with 100% certainty. THAT is a false assumption. We know you have an opinion and we know you reject spiritual evidence. Jury is still out on whether you comprehend "evidence" is subjective. 



> If you want to prove the existence of anything, you have to provide evidence that can be looked at and verified by anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.



Again, there is no such thing as universal evidence. Nothing can be 100% proven, not even REALITY! 



> How one interprets 'evidence' may be subjective, but conclusions based on interpretation can either be right or wrong, logical or illogical, true or false..
> 
> The truth is not subjective.



Or they can be both or neither and to a variety of degrees. Truth is not subjective, but if everyone universally understood truth, there would never be a need for evidence or argument. 

You just keep making my points for me, this is too easy!


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.



Thing is, that is a "belief" and not a behavioral attribute like human spirituality.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.
> 
> Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.



Again, you are talking about a specific "belief" and not a human behavioral attribute. 

No, the 5% of the species who are not spiritual are a deviate anomaly.


----------



## G.T.

Other plausible explanations that humans engage in abstract spirituality:

The irrational fear of death/dying comes along with being sentient: widely studied and confirmed.

The ego centrism of being sentient: wanting to be able to explain or rationalize everything, thus inserting theories where no explanations have been observed and accepting said theories en masse until better theories are proven.

Human to human influence: parenting, traditionalism, dogma, social order: hence religious beliefs would appear largely geographically based, which magically they are.

I could go on. 

Dreams. Drugs. Empathy driven irrationality, self comforting explanations in dealing with death of close loved ones.



Etcetcetc.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> As can be seen in many countries in the M.E. to this day, the vast majority of people get down on all fours five times a day because if they don't they are summarily executed.
> 
> Perhaps the 5% who don't are the real lovers of God and truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are talking about a specific "belief" and not a human behavioral attribute.
> 
> No, the 5% of the species who are not spiritual are a deviate anomaly.
Click to expand...



No, the 95% that you claim are spiritual have been spiritual because they would have been, persecuted, imprisoned, maimed or killed if they were not spiritual which has nothing whatever to do with any mysterious spirituality inherent to the species other than an ability to pretend and an instinct to survive.


----------



## G.T.

Engaging in rain dances and it not raining should have been an awesome awakening, but unfortunately dogma is a hard thing for our species to break. Damn.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> 1. The fundamental laws of thought/apprehension--collectively, the principle of identity--are the *universally absolute and intrinsically organic realities of human cognition. They are not man made, but an inherent component of Man’s nature. *
> 2. The principle of identity asserts that any given _A_ might potentially be two or more things simultaneously.
> 3. Hence, the principle of identity imposes no limitations whatsoever on the potentialities of either a cosmological order or a transcendental order of things, except, ultimately, the absurdity that the nature of any given thing = NOT-its-nature, or the absurdity of existence = NOT-existence.
> 4. There is nothing in the cosmological order of things that asserts these absurdities.
> 5. Hence, the principle of identity asserts that existence has primacy over human consciousness.
> 6. Hence, there is no evidence for the belief or justifiable reason to believe that the laws of thought do not universally apply to all of existence.
> 7. The principle of identity universally prevails.



From there we can put God back in and ask why it "universally prevails", right?  What I mean is that we can add to this, 8, 9 and so on.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are these people?  Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited.  Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.
Click to expand...


I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are.   Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.

Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong.  When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology,  I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned:  “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”  (Luke 11)

It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently.  I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools.  A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point.  He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy.  In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, that is a "belief" and not a behavioral attribute like human spirituality.
Click to expand...

It's a belief of human spirituality. Or, at least it was, until they realized that they were wrong.

So if 95% of the world is stupid, and since they're such a super majority, they're not stupid, but intelligent, and must know what's going on?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.
> 
> You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.
> 
> According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.
> 
> Stop presses!
> 
> Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.
> 
> *God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.*
> 
> You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.
> 
> But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!
> 
> Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?
> 
> What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.
> 
> And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.
> 
> What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?
> 
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.
> 
> It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.
> 
> Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?
> 
> That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?
> 
> Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm glad you raised the point.  Yes.  In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all.  I was actually thinking something else and confused it.  You are right to call me out on that.
> 
> No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.
> 
> C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:
> 
> But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​
> But then comes the criticism:
> 
> 
> 
> God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
> If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
> If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
> If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
> Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.
> 
> But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given  _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?
> 
> Ockham's razor.  A legion of problems vs. no problems.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle.  Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're saying makes sense, except the suggestion that I'm being dogmatic.  My thinking is very much like M.D.R.'s, though now I'm not sure I totally get him because I don't agree with something he just said about God voluntarily limiting Himself.  That doesn't work in my mind for reasons I learned the hard way.  Also, it seems to me he's contradicting himself but maybe he means something else.  I don't know now.  What I don't get at all is the idea I'm keep getting from you and Foxfyre that there's something dogmatically closed minded about our view.  Our view is totally open to any possibility for God to do whatever He pleases without any limits at all.  The only people putting limits on him are you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.
> 
> You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.
> 
> According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.
> 
> Stop presses!
> 
> Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.
> 
> *God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.*
> 
> You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.
> 
> But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!
> 
> Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?
> 
> What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.
> 
> And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.
> 
> What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?
> 
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.
> 
> It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.
> 
> Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?
> 
> That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?
> 
> Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm glad you raised the point.  Yes.  In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all.  I was actually thinking something else and confused it.  You are right to call me out on that.
> 
> No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.
> 
> C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:
> 
> But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​
> But then comes the criticism:
> 
> 
> 
> God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
> If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
> If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
> If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
> Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.
> 
> But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given  _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?
> 
> Ockham's razor.  A legion of problems vs. no problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle.  Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.
Click to expand...


No problem.  In the part of the post that threw you I was thinking about Christ emptying Himself of the fullness of His divinity when He took on flesh to save us, but bungled it by not making what was in my mind at the time clear.  Then I  made things worse when I tried to correct that in the P.S. portion and bungled it again. LOL!

Feel free to alert me to anything like that always.  If you think I'm wrong tell me so always.  That's not the first time, of course, that I've done that, won't be the last either.  LOL!

Expressing clear thoughts is a tough business.  It's very easy to think wrong or express something unintended.  Actually, I'm aware of several poorly stated items in my posts but I can't edit them anymore, but their not of a serious nature as this one.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I singled you out as being dogmatic, consider it more of a warning of the dangers of enthusiasm as a young Christian. *My problem with Rawlings is that he insists that the Bible says things it doesn't. His approach is dogmatic because he reads the Bible looking for things that support his ideas, and ignoring everything that contradicts it. *
> 
> The Bible is actually full of verse that, on the surface, appear to contradict each other. I believe that they can all be reconciled, but there are a few I have not figured out the answers to. That doesn't bother me anymore, even though it did at first. I learned way more about God from the questions than I did from the answers.
> 
> There is actually a song that sums this process up, Could it Be, by Michael Card. It is when we think we have the answers that we are dogmatic. Rawlings thinks he has the answers, don't ever fall into that trap. I have never met anyone that is 100% right about God, and that includes the guy in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is a flat out lie!*  You have been shown to wrong about serious matters over and over again, including matters pertaining to that lie.
> 
> You do not grasp what philosophy is and its necessities.  You confounded the law of the excluded middle.  You don't grasp the infiniteness of the single predication of the discrete law of identity.
> 
> According to your logic the doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity via the law of the excluded middle.  According to you the fundamental rational forms and logical categories of humanity's moral, rational and dimensional apprehensions are not universally grounded in God throughout existence.
> 
> Stop presses!
> 
> Somebody rouse the Prophets, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the early Church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Ockham, Arminius, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hooker, Edwards, Wesley, Whitehead, Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Henry . . . from their slumber: QW has something profoundly new to tells us.  It's never been asserted before and we note that he has not provided a shred of scriptural evidence, but we're all ears.
> 
> *God forbid we be accused of being dogmatic, closed-minded or of imposing limitations on God (with our totally open-ended, conceivably highest standard of attribution, no less) or imposing foreign ideas on scripture if we don't all bow down to your insinuations and bald declarations pulled out of thin air.*
> 
> You don't even understand the necessary relationship between philosophy and science.  *dblack* understands that and so does Justin.  You don't really understand the fundamentals of human logic either because you can't keep the ontological distinction between the principle of identity as organically hard-wired, which you've conceded, and  the principle of identity as a theological universal contingent on God, which I have never asserted as anything but a demonstrable truth in terms of the rules of justification of classical logic and in terms of scriptural affirmation.
> 
> But in any event, the Bible incontrovertibly declares Jesus Christ to be the universal Logos!
> 
> Are you declaring that not to be so, reader of Greek?
> 
> What logical proof have you provided that falsifies the major premise in the transcendental argument?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
> 
> What scripture have you provided to support your insinuations that scripture does not assert absolute omniscience, which quite obviously would necessitate God being the universal Principle of Identity whether he provides that our apprehensions be synchronized with the rest of the cosmological order or not. But then I have already provided scripture for all of these things, and will provide more.
> 
> And you insinuated something that's false about the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic, something totally unremarkable, something already acknowledge by all in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> The notion that absolute divine omniscience and free will do not coexist has never been asserted by biblical orthodoxy. The historical origins of the notion that this is not so are philosophically extra-biblical, dating mostly back to the Renaissance, centuries after the testimony of the Apostles.
> 
> What do any of these objectively, historically or scripturally verifiable assertions and your counter assertions have to do the notion I have got God all figured out?
> 
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's never occurred to me that your anthropomorphically, scripturally unsupported beliefs about certain things means that you have God all figured out.
> 
> It's never occurred to me to accuse Foxfyre of thinking she has God all figured out.
> 
> Given the fact that you, QW, have taken the opposite position on these various matters making claims that are no less absolute to the contrary, why would it be any less reasonable for me to accuse you of thinking that you have God all figured out?
> 
> That wouldn't be reasonable, would it?
> 
> Your allegation is obviously stupid, false and despicable. In fact, you're accusing me of blasphemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> M.D.R. I don't blame you for being annoyed. I'm annoyed too because I agree with what you're saying. So I guess I'm closed minded too. I just read through yesterdays posts. This is ridiculous. QW is saying the silliest things I've ever heard from someone who's supposed to smart about this stuff. If he is an expert on logic and can't even see the obvious about set logic something's really wrong and I can see that what he keeps saying about intuitionistic logic is incoherent. In truth I don't really know what he's saying because he never really says anything intelligible. It amounts to your wrong because some other form of logic lets you see what? Intuitionistic logic doesn't change anything we've talked about and it doesn't give anyone grounds to reject what we're talking about. Yeah, I see who's closed minded around here. But I do have to ask you. I don't think you can compromise on omniscience. With all due respect, you seem to be contradicting yourself. I so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm glad you raised the point.  Yes.  In an earlier post I didn't state the matter very well at all.  I was actually thinking something else and confused it.  You are right to call me out on that.
> 
> No. You can't compromise on God's omniscience without creating a legion of problems.
> 
> C.S. Lewis puts it well, better than me:
> 
> But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call today." All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.​
> But then comes the criticism:
> 
> 
> 
> God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely".
> If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C.
> If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination.
> If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities)
> Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.
> 
> But if, as anyone can see, except for the open-minded, it is perfectly rational in expressional set logic under that terms of organic logic for any given  _A_ can be two or more things unto infinity without conflict, what prevents God from producing any given dimensional state of being wherein omniscience and free will coexist without conflict?
> 
> Ockham's razor.  A legion of problems vs. no problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see this because I thought at first something had escaped me and I got a little confused just like I got a little confused at first by QW's idea about the excluded middle.  Don't do that it hurts my head. Just kidding, I know that it's easy to make mistakes like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem.  In the part of the post that threw you I was thinking about Christ emptying Himself of the fullness of His divinity when He took on flesh to save us, but bungled it by not making what was in my mind at the time clear.  Then I  made things worse when I tried to correct that in the P.S. portion and bungled it again. LOL!
> 
> Feel free to alert me to anything like that always.  If you think I'm wrong tell me so always.  That's not the first time, of course, that I've done that, won't be the last either.  LOL!
> 
> Expressing clear thoughts is a tough business.  It's very easy to think wrong or express something unintended.  Actually, I'm aware of several poorly stated items in my posts but I can't edit them anymore, but their not of a serious nature as this one.
Click to expand...


  Same thing with my posts.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing body of evidence that points to religious speculations have a biological base. If it is found, it doesn't prove religious beliefs are false,  nor does it prove there is no God and that concept is a delusion, either. Just because somebody doesn't believe in creationism doesn't mean they are obligated to believe in evolution. These are beliefs, not empirical evidence. Both are similar in general concept; one isn't 'superior' to the other, nor are those who believe in the first 'dumber' than those who believe in evolution. On the other hand, one contributes greatly to sociological and cultural strengths and progress over time, while the other doesn't contribute anything to those. As far as any evidence goes, it's not going to harm children if both intelligent design and evolution were taught in schools, any more than it ever did in the past, as long as they come to understand both are not proven but are just hypotheses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are these people?  Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited.  Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are.   Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.
> 
> Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong.  When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology,  I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned:  “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”  (Luke 11)
> 
> It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently.  I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools.  A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point.  He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy.  In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.
Click to expand...


But who are the people on this thread doing those things. I read the post addressed to M.D.R. suggesting that he's doing that and it feels like you're saying I'm doing that. As far as insulting people his posts to Hollie weren't abusive. They were sarcastic but come on they were funny in an apropos way. I called Hollie an idiot. He is an idiot because all he ever did was call people idiots or say that's stupid.  I don't have to explain things, that's my opinion.  Great, now go away.  Hollie calling somebody like you, QW, M.D.R., Boss, GT or lots others an idiot is like some blond bimbo in a cutie-pie, baby voice babbling about how pretty she is at a science fair. It’s sick. M.D.R.'s adorable blonde remarks were perfect.  As for logic, I'm talking about something that's objectively false, not opinion.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> For many of us, knowledge/assurance of God is based on empirical evidence and is something quite different from pure faith.  Where the faith comes in is trusting God beyond what we have experienced.  But you are quite right that much of the scholarly concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God are pure hypothesis and to choose to accept them is also of necessity faith based.
> 
> Because of our limited mortal existence, Evolution is not something that is empirically experienced, so most of us accept on faith that the scientific information about it that is available to us is trustworthy.  We trust it based on our own ability to reason and understand logic, but it is faith based nonetheless.
> 
> While I do not promote intelligent design being taught as science, I agree that it does not harm students in the least to be honestly informed that many, including esteemed scientists, do see an order in the universe that logically goes beyond mere chance or accident and therefore there is justification for some sort of intelligent design in the process.  And even though science currently has no means or process to investigate that, and the students should know that too, to allow the mind to embrace and consider it all is truly liberating and expands all possibilities to be explored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know of any book I might read that doesn't have "concepts that are speculated, promoted, suggested, demanded, and bloviated about God.?  Especially the demand part.  That demand part throws me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try C.S. Lewis, specially the first part of his book "Mere Christianity".  Of course any time we mere mortals attempt to explain or define what we mean by God, faith, eternal, good, evil, righteousness, unjust, etc. we are working from our own inadequate and flawed language, knowledge, experience, interpretation or whatever and Lewis is no exception to that.  But Lewis describes his own reasoning that took him from Atheist to Christian and describes it in everyday English and concepts for those who don't want to deal with the intense and sometimes pedantic academic theological concepts and jargon.   And he gives a person a lot to think about.
> 
> He hooked me because when I first opened the book--not at the beginning--I read (paraphrased from memory):  God created us with free will and free will means our choices or perceptions can go right or wrong.  It is free will that makes evil possible.
> 
> That so spoke to what I already believed that I was persuaded to read further.
> 
> On the omniscience of God, he wrote:
> 
> ". . .It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. . . .”​
> I myself won't say what is or is not possible for God but simply go with my own reasoning about what is and leave it to God to work out any difficulties with that.
> 
> And that brings us to the 'demand' part.  Whenever you find people who say:
> 
> 1.  God is absolutely this or God is absolutely that. . . .
> 2.  God would do this or would not do that. . . .
> 3.  It is true because it is Biblical. . .
> 4.  It is not true because there is no scientific evidence for it. . . .
> 5.  You must believe this or you are going to hell. . . .
> 6.  You must accept or think like this or you are ignorant, uneducated, or wrong. . .
> 
> you have people who are demanding that God be whatever they say God must be and who are assuming superiority over those who see it differently.  And that, in my opinion, puts restraints on God that we simply are not smart enough to do.  That is what I mean by demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who are these people?  Maybe some people don't get that God being absolutely unlimited means God is absolutely unlimited.  Maybe if some people stopped confusing themselves about the logic God gave them and trusted in that instead of their confusion they wouldn't insist that God be absolutely limited by their confusion and think their confusion gives them a superior understanding of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you six examples of 'who I believe these people' are.   Whomever is confused about the logic God gave them is not likely to be persuaded differently by unkind responses of those who see themselves utilizing superior logic.
> 
> Whenever we presume that we know exactly who and what God is and the other person has it all wrong, I think we are most likely wrong.  When we presume to ridicule or verbally criticize those who are seeking and put them down because we are certain we are superior to them in our theology,  I think we have become as the Pharisees that Jesus himself warned:  “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”  (Luke 11)
> 
> It hurts my heart to see Christians insulting people for no reason other than the other person sees or understands differently.  I don't think it is the Holy Spirit speaking through us when we call them names and tell them in effect that they are fools.  A careful reading of the New Testament does not show Jesus criticizing the Pharisees and Sudducees for their beliefs even though it was obvious he didn't agree with them on every point.  He criticized them for their arrogance, assumed superiority, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy.  In a nutshell, he criticized them for what they DID, not what they believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who are the people on this thread doing those things. I read the post addressed to M.D.R. suggesting that he's doing that and it feels like you're saying I'm doing that. As far as insulting people his posts to Hollie weren't abusive. They were sarcastic but come on they were funny in an apropos way. I called Hollie an idiot. He is an idiot because all he ever did was call people idiots or say that's stupid.  I don't have to explain things, that's my opinion.  Great, now go away.  Hollie calling somebody like you, QW, M.D.R., Boss, GT or lots others an idiot is like some blond bimbo in a cutie-pie, baby voice babbling about how pretty she is at a science fair. It’s sick. M.D.R.'s adorable blonde remarks were perfect.  As for logic, I'm talking about something that's objectively false, not opinion.
Click to expand...


I have intentionally not named names because names are not important.  Those who can relate to my observations will relate to them and those who don't will not.  If I'm right I am right.  If I am wrong I am wrong.  But I don't want to be guilty myself of the problems that I observe.

So what is your motive for calling Hollie an idiot?  Is it to persuade him/her of the reality of a loving God or the truth that God has to offer?  Or is it to make oneself superior to Hollie?  Or something else?  How many people do you believe are encouraged to seek the living God by being told they are going to hell or that they are stupid or, by implication, that they are intellectually inferior?

And as for something that is objectively false, where do you separate what you want to believe from what you know?  We have already shown that the syllogistic argument for the existence of God can be framed so that it is both logical and reasonable and also framed so that it is full of holes and issues of interpretation.

I get as frustrated as the next person by those who go out of their way to insult, belittle, put down, or be unkind to Christians and Christian beliefs or re any other people of faith.  I feel angry when some do their damndest to destroy the faith of believers--I don't understand that kind of unkindness, pettiness, or hatefulness.   And I will call people out on it when appropriate to do so.
I just don't want us Christians behaving similarly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.



There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.

St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.

I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.

Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.

Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Taz said:


> Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.



Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.

Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far. 

Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.


----------



## Foxfyre

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
Click to expand...


And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.

Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.

It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just came up with it on my own.  It was just a theory.  Until we know we should just admit we don't know and keep looking.
> 
> I'm still waiting for a link from  you showing me even one other person that agrees with your theories.  Until then I'm going to just assume you are just one pathetic lunitic on the web who thinks he's smart just like every other insane person thinks they are a misunderstood brilliant mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you came up with it on your own. I believe you heard bits and pieces of various theories which you didn't understand and were incapable of comprehending, and you morphed these together to form the Silly Boob Super Theory.
> 
> Hey look man, I am more than happy to leave this at "we don't know, let's keep looking" but you simply refuse to abide by those terms. You say this, but no sooner than you post those words, here you are presenting theories as if they are known facts, rejecting anything to the contrary, and pretending you know. We're not going to be able to have this both ways, but that is consistently what you seem to want.
Click to expand...


Well you seem pretty sure of yourself too and we both know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  LOL.

And I did make all that up.  I was just thinking out loud.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site.  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Sounds like the shit you say.  Check it out.  I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.
> 
> I can't find anything pal.  Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am certainly not alone in thinking Spiritual Nature created everything. In fact, that's what about 95% of the human species believes to one degree or another. And it makes logical sense, unlike your illogical theory. The physical couldn't create itself if it didn't exist.
Click to expand...


So you can't prove it?  Not even one link that proves or explains how Spiritual nature created physical nature?  Even though 95% of the world supposedly believes this I can't google "Spiritual nature created physical nature" and find a god damn thing?  Interesting.    

95% believe that but have zero evidence or proof to back up their belief?  I don't care how many people believe it.  Look at how many people believe in Islam or Mormonism.  So fucking what 95% believe something.  

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive.

_“A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.”_ – David Stevens


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> The double slit experiments actually show that Heisenberg was right, and quantum mechanics is a valid field. If it actually was the mind of an observer making a difference it wouldn't work when you put a non sentient detector at the slit to monitor the experiment, or did you not read that far? But, please, keep showing us that you are the intellectual equivalent of a earthworm.
Click to expand...


I'm not claiming to know anything.  But keep in mind that no matter how stupid I am it is you who believes in an invisible man who talks to you, cares for you, made a heaven for you and a hell for all your enemies.

Who's the dumb fuck here?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

I'm reposting this with a number of clarifications that are of great importance regarding the distinctions between organic logic and alternate forms of logic, and I'm going to pull portions out of it in response to QW's ongoing confusion.  *It's imperative for all Christians to get the principle of identity straight, *as Christ is the universal Logos!  With regard to the academic rendering of the principle of identity, which must be correctly understood first, the following is not a subjective belief, but should be objectively and abundantly self-evident to all, especially the particulars of the expanded edition of the analogy in this post, which, by the way, touches on what *Boss* is so eloquently arguing.  *The fact of the matter is that the nuts and bolts of constructive logic hammer the points I've been making about the principle of identity home; they do  not undermine it at all as QW has suggested.*

To save time, I'm gong to copy and paste portions of this in answer to some of Fox's and QW's posts.  This idea that I think I have God all figured out or am being unfair to some is bogus!  It's not my mind that's closed or being dogmatic.  *Objective, universally apparent truths are not by definition the stuff of dogmatism!  *Objective assertions regarding the framework, framework, framework, framework, framework of the cognitive facts of human apprehension relative to the problem of origin, or the objectively apparent framework, framework, framework, framework, framework serving as the starting point for questions like free will, regardless of what your personal solution might be, has nothing to do with telling you what you should believe about God.  Personal opinions that might pop up here or there as asides will be in red.

*Fox*, I know you know what follows because I know your mind on certain particulars from other posts and threads in which you have expressed your understanding of these things.  If only you would stop and carefully considered this version of the post without all that personal stuff you might realize that the notion you have in your head about what I'm doing is all wrong.  Put the past away and start fresh.  What have you got to lose? 

*Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101
*

Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are philosophy, in and of themselves. They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . . The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity. Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophies, _What is it?_ can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics. *As for as system-building philosophies go . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture: I've got no use for it.*

What you have failed to share with the others, QW, is that the _identity_ of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms. 

Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it's a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositions in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides alternate ways of looking at the real world that may divulge new possibilities, albeit, from negative perspectives that go back to real-world positives.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law of contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis.

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

(Now, of course, GT and QW are still making the same unremarkable point as Jake that this does not mean that this contention is ultimately true. HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . . In alternate-world forms of logic is the MPTA necessarily true logically or axiomatically? HELLO!  AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . .

NO. IT"S NOT!

It’s regarded to be unproved. I KNOW THIS.

*But don't lose sight of the fact that this observation is the ultimate counterargument that still proves the MPTA to be true in the real world of organic logic.) *

Note that nothing since that last personal opinion is in red.  As for those who subscribe to metaphysical anti-realism, that all is an illusion, that all logic is relative, which is not true, by the way, in organic or alternate forms of logic, as we shall see, that, therefore, nothing can be said to be objective knowledge . . . you win.  I surrender.  We necessarily presuppose certain things:  We exist, the cosmos exists and a transcendent realm of being may exist.  Fine.  I mean, you know, _yawn_, but fine.  Carry on. . . .

As for the rest of you, _read_ on. . . .

In constructive logic the MPTA (in spite of the fact that it is logically true, academically, under the terms of _classical_ logic) cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds with the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below).

*In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of ultimacy, on the terms of constructive logic, all along, most of you unawares.
*
Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it's not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction, and since no contradiction can be deduced about it, it remains something that is unproven or unfalsifiable in constructive logic. This is merely the same thing as saying that currently transcendental propositions are not subject to scientific falsification.

*That's nothing new! *

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms. That*'*s all.

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:

From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists!  That is, He exists . . . logically. The truth value or logical validity of the MPTA is objectively and independently affirmed by any counterargument. 

But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. The proposition is unprovable, but only because constructive logic requires direct evidence, i.e., the inferential evidence of established theory in science, which, by the way, is still a tricky business as certain "established theories" are arguably premised on metaphysical naturalism.

(This demonstrates why QW's thinking that science precedes philosophy is foolishness. With all due respect, it’s his notion that's “philosophical bullshit.”)

Any proposition can be considered within the world of constructive logic, but not all propositions can be assigned a truth value. Constructive logic cannot consider inferential, empirical evidence about something metaphysical . . . unless constructive logic is being applied by someone who is "standing" in the metaphysical realm of being*. * Theoretically, an observer beyond this mortal coil could safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he would be _in_ the realm of direct evidence, not partially or wholly stuck in the inferentially evidential realm of being asserting a logical "truth" of pure reason based on the existence of the cosmological order.

And those of us who believe our being is in Christ Jesus, just like *Boss* is talking about, *can* and do assign a truth value to God's existence on the terms of constructive logic as persons who believe they are standing in the metaphysical realm of being, though still tied to this mortal coil via our physical bodies, *with direct evidence* and a testimony to go with it. We just can't make others experience that evidence directly and, therefore, cannot assert the rules of constructive logic in any universally objective or scientific way. *Others have to open up their minds and say yes to God in order to experience this reality directly.*​
*Can I get a witness, brothers and sisters?*

In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us *with an IQ above that of a gnat* have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as those proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order _does_ constitute direct evidence for God’s existence under the terms of organic logic.

*As for the vitally important distinction: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.*

One of them is a scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic, universally hard-wired, at the very least, in our brains by nature. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true with plenty of scientific evidence. This is not merely intuitively true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value.

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.
*

*


----------



## Taz

Quantum Windbag said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.
> 
> Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far.
> 
> Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.
Click to expand...

Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying there is no way for a tissue or lamp to do something different because I'm looking at it?  What if I had the power to move things with my mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had that power, oh great idiot of the universe, the tissue and the lamp would not be doing something, you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just read this:  *The double slit experiment proves that the mind affects energy and matter.* When the laser beam is observed, it changes from a wave to a particle, so the observer's mind is affecting energy and is connected invisibly to the particles.
> 
> I think this site I've been quoting more backs up your beliefs.  Check it out:  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conradiction of logic... If MOST everything is nothing, then everything is NOT nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I was just trying to find something ANYTHING that backs up your beliefs and I ran across this crazy site.  The Nature of Nothing - Unified Field Equation
> 
> Sounds like the shit you say.  Check it out.  I found it when I googled Spiritual nature created physical nature.
> 
> I can't find anything pal.  Looks like you're all alone with your crazy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am certainly not alone in thinking Spiritual Nature created everything. In fact, that's what about 95% of the human species believes to one degree or another. And it makes logical sense, unlike your illogical theory. The physical couldn't create itself if it didn't exist.
Click to expand...


Couple things.  

1.  
I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider?

Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.

Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.

Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.

I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.

I agree.

2.  I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"

The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.


----------



## G.T.

Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.

Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.


----------



## sealybobo

Taz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the world's people once thought that the earth was flat. Or that the earth was the center of the universe. They were of course wrong as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been listening to your teachers again, haven't you.
> 
> Any intelligent being that looked around could see the world was not flat. Not only did people know for thousands of years before Columbus that the Earth was round, they knew how big it was. Your teachers might have told you that no one wanted to give him the money he needed to sail to Chine because they thought the Earth was flat but they are lying, the real reason no one wanted to give him the money is they knew he couldn't sail that far.
> 
> Turns out they were right, he would have died if he didn't get lucky that there was a bunch of land in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


I was looking at the definition and read that it came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century.

it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.

As a possible reaction to skepticism, dogmatism is a set of beliefs or doctrines that are established as undoubtedly in truth.[8] They are regarded as (religious) truths relating closely to the nature of faith.[9]

The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political[10] and scientific[11] beliefs


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember this? http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9942916/
> 
> The principle of identity holds that any given _A_ can be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity. Your idiotic rendering of the law of the excluded middle, which would make the doctrine of the Trinity a violation, has been exhaustively debunked, and your computer analogy is incoherent gibberish. Your bald protestations to the contrary sans any direct argument is tiresome.
> 
> Your either dumb as a box of rocks or you're lying. Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here we go again.*
> 
> The Law of Identity, which is the proper term to use, says no such thing. What it says is that everything that is the same is the same, while everything that is different is different.
Click to expand...


*(I'll get back to the "here we go again" in another post . . . for the last time in such a way as to leave no doubt.)*

No. *The law of identity, proper, is the first law of the three classical laws of thought.  *Any time I refer to it, *I do write the law of identity*.

Comprehensively,* the three classical laws of thought are the academic principle of identity*, beginning with the first law of thought:  the  _law _of identity (A = A). The second and third laws of thought—the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, respectively—are in fact elaborations on the first law of thought.

Hence, anytime I refer to the laws of thought in the context of their comprehensive expressions, the term I use is _the principle of identity_:   the principle of the three classical laws of thought, the universally transcendent Principle of Identity or the organically universal principle of identity.

Both the law of identity, proper, and the comprehensive principle of identity (the three laws of thought collectively at any level of their expression) hold that any given _A_ of a single predicate may be two or more things simultaneously unto infinity.  Such an A = such an A, as opposed to an _A_ that is _not_ two or more things simultaneously.  This is not rocket science.  The construct of the Holy Trinity is an _A_ of a single predicate that is three Persons in one God.  Infinity is such an _A_ in terms of all existents or numbers simultaneously.  Physical space is such an _A_. Electromagnetic radiation is such an _A_.  The Majorana fermion is such an _A_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> [1] Because you keep repeating that the laws of thought are axioms, and [2] categorically reject all forms of logic [3] that don't agree with your [4] opinion.



(1) The laws of thought _are_ axioms! (2) Where have I ever written that I categorically reject all forms of logic? (3) What forms of logic disagree with anything I've written? (4) What opinion are you talking about?

(The voices in your head don't count.)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*I wrote: The organic laws of the principle of identity are universally hardwired.*

You, unhinged, raving like a lunatic, responded:



Quantum Windbag said:


> Excuse me, they are not fucking hardwired because they exist only as concepts that we believe. The simplest proof of that is dark matter and dark energy, two things that must exist, yet cannot be defined by science, logic, or philosophy.



Excuse me. It's not my fault you can't keep track of reality or comprehend, after already conceding on this thread that they are organic, hence, hardwired by nature, that I'm obviously talking about the science of human cognition, entailing the falsification of the Aristotlean-Lockean construct of a blank slate.

Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization and the structural semantics of language. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third. This is what makes us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Moreover, we are aware of the apparent necessity and existence of what we call _dark matter_ and _dark energy_ via the delineations of organic logic regarding their effects on visible phenomena, including the acceleration of the cosmos' expansion, and these things _are_ defined insofar as they can be at this point via the metaphysical-phenomenal delineations of organic logic. To be aware of something is to put a name on it, to put a name on it is to define it, however inadequately due to a lack of information, but, of course, these things are not immediately relevant to the organic component of human cognition or to the proposition of a universal, metaphysical principle of identity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Nothing is wrong with me, other than the fact that I refuse to accept anything as a universal truth just because you say it is, especially when I know enough about logic to know that *they are not universal to all forms of logic*.



You're a quantum windbag lying through your teeth.

The comprehensive principle of identity is _organically_ universal.

You don't know whether or not the principle of identity in terms of ultimacy is a metaphysical universal via any form of logic, let alone science.

Neither my personal opinion nor yours is irrelevant to the actualities of ultimacy.

Your insinuation that the case for a universal, metaphysical principle of identity is mere opinion backed by nothing more than _just because I say_ is the behavior of a two-year-old, and you are the only one here making absolute metaphysical claims without a shred of evidence or a even the slightest hint of a rational justification.

Your insinuation that I don't understand the emboldened is dishonest.

Your insinuation that artificial forms of logic have equal standing with or primacy over organic logic is false.

Your insinuation that in any way, shape or form artificial forms of logic negate or falsify anyone of the laws of logic or the comprehensive principle of identity is cognitively, academically and factually false.  Indeed, all artificial, alternate-world forms of logic are contingent on organic logic.

You're a fraud.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"If 65,400 repetitions makes one truth, why do we still argue whether G-d exists or not when billions have said more than once that He does?" - Me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Your points would actually be better argued if you didn't argue using the wrong terms.



And your point would valid except, of course, it's not valid, because you are a pretender who doesn't understand Jack or Jill about logic that you can't copy and paste or regurgitate by rote; and once again, *the basis of your complaint is your ignorance regarding the academic distinction between the laws of logic proper and their comprehensive principle: identity*.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fundamental distinction between classical logic and constructive logic is not the suspension of certain axioms, but the rules of justification regarding the inhabited proofs of direct evidence, the restraints on the assignment of truth values which, counter-intuitively, allows for a wider variety of the kinds of propositions that can be conceptualized.
> 
> 
> 
> And actually proves that you argument that the laws of thought are universal axioms is not true, yet you keep insisting they are because you cannot think outside the limits of classical logic.
Click to expand...


LIAR! Everyone on this thread read *Post #1482*: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9952851/



Quantum Windbag said:


> If you want to insist that you have universal axioms prove it using constructive logic.



LIAR! Everyone on this thread read *Post #1482*: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9952851/

*No one who actually understood logic in general or constructive logic especially would make such ignorant and irresponsible statements.*

*You're a fraud.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Want to ask another stupid question?



Want to make another stupid statement?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider? {no, I haven't}
> 
> Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.



Classify it however, it's my evidence. I don't believe, I know. If there were a way for me to prove to you that it existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence does not equal proof. You value my evidence differently. There is nothing  mentally wrong with me for believing in something greater than self, since that's what 95% of our species does. It's actually the 5% who don't that should be worried about. 



> Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.



Well, supernatural things would be things outside of nature, and spirituality is part of human nature. So I reject the assertion spirituality is belief in the supernatural. Blessing is a specific word we assigned for the things we receive through some means greater than self. So we're back to natural human spirituality. 



> Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.
> 
> I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.



I disagree, it certainly IS evidence, to tens of millions of people... to 95% of the species... on a regular basis.... for all of human history. Is it PROOF? Nope. 

You want to argue that human spirituality is from our "unrestrained imagination" but the reason we have that is because we are "inspired" *...inspiration....* the root _'spir'_ is important, it means it comes from something greater than ourselves. So you are taking one of the truly wonderful _blessings_ humans universally get from being _spiritual_ creatures, and claiming that as the reason for our spirituality. 



> 2.  I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"
> 
> The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.



I didn't say anything about Atheists. That 95% includes a good number of Atheists who still believe it's possible something greater than self exists. The 5% who believe in absolute nothingness are Nihilist. As for how many humans practice what degree of spirituality through various religious doctrines, I make no arguments. 

When we start breaking down numbers, we can say that... yeah, 60% believe and 40% don't, but only half of those 60% go to church every Sunday, or only 5% become preachers or leaders in their church, or only .0002% become ordained as Saints... etc. According to Christian religion, 0% are perfect. The only real important number with regard to my argument about human spirituality is the 95% of the species who are spiritual.


----------



## BreezeWood

Picaro said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual concatenates life, why would it then create a Universe devoid of any representation of its existence but for a single planet among billions ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To show off?
> 
> Maybe it takes such a complex collection of physical influences to make our little existence work, or other plans are in store? Don't know from a theological context, but many reasons are possible. DNA is another example of complexity in itself, not 'universal' in scale but certainly interesting.
Click to expand...




> Spiritual Nature created everything.




physiological life did not occur at the moment of singularity and can not be considered a part of the initial creation of the Universe and because spiritual nature is derived from physiology per the prospects of humanity and all living creatures it would not be credible to give credit to the spiritual nature that created the universe as the creators of the life that the Universe evolved. spiritual nature did not create everything.

only the prospects for life is what was made possible and all life so existing has done so by its own initiative.

the physiology encapsulates the new Spiritual nature for the purpose to accomplish purity as the requirement for its Admission to the Everlasting as the replenishment for a future Universe.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
Click to expand...


I didn't accuse you.  You do in fact reject the notion of absolute omniscience, which puts a restraint on God.   

Earlier I suggested that we must be careful regarding evidentiary matters related to the objectively and universally understood imperatives of origin and that it’s important to be cognizant of these things whenever asserting anyone of the arguments for God’s existence in the much same manner that Justin pointed out an error in my expression of something. That was all. You told me you knew all about these things and that they can be addressed as they arise.

Fine.

I have been laying down these things that you told me you know all about as they are pertinent to the OP, which is about the classical arguments for God's existence. That‘s _my_ approach because my calling is apologetics.  What's wrong with that?

Then I start seeing posts written by you that are clearly directed at my approach including one directly addressed to me repeating the very same kinds of things, suggesting that I'm setting myself up as a judge and as one who knows all about God in spite of the fact that all I'm talking about is the objectively apprehensible framework of the OP's topic, the very things you told me you know all about, indeed, the very same things QW says he knows all about.

So does your knowing about these things make you a person setting herself up as a judge or as one who knows all about God?

If not, why not?

Or does that only become problem if one shares that knowledge or disagrees with all those things you guys know about?

In the meantime QW had the gall to launch the very same garbage at me: a man who has been lying about virtually everything that he and I have discussed.

He's an utter fraud.

His understanding of logic and the relationship between philosophy and science is sophomoric. He's making absolute statements in terms of ultimacy and as one of absolute authority about things that no one could possibly assert in the manner in which he is asserting them, for there exists no logical, philosophical or scientific foundation whatsoever for these things!

 He's making absolute metaphysical claims about transcendent realties, not as asseverations inferred from anything objectively discernible, but as scientific or, unwittingly, philosophical facts of ontological proportions and in the vein of an horrifically distorted understanding of constructive logic.

This is objectively self-evident to any intellectually honest person paying attention, and the things I'm alluding to are not directly related to biblical teachings or the issue of free will, as these things are academic matters of an objectively and empirically verifiable nature.

And that appears to be what you think I'm doing, which tells me you're really not thinking about anything I've shared, for if that's what you're getting out of my posts something personal is in the way of your understanding. I am doing no such thing, and if you were to read *POST #1482* you should be able to see that. For that largely summarizes the spirit of the things I've been talking about before one gets to further revelation from God.

But the most amazing thing about all of this is that what I'm trying to get at ultimately with the foundational framework is the revelation of the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, by Whom all things were made and are held together.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.



But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said.  Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you?  He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread.  This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't accuse you.  You do in fact reject the notion of absolute omniscience, which puts a restraint on God.
> 
> Earlier I suggested that we must be careful regarding evidentiary matters related to the objectively and universally understood imperatives of origin and that it’s important to be cognizant of these things whenever asserting anyone of the arguments for God’s existence in the much same manner that Justin pointed out an error in my expression of something. That was all. You told me you knew all about these things and that they can be addressed as they arise.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I have been laying down these things that you told me you know all about as they are pertinent to the OP, which is about the classical arguments for God's existence. That‘s _my_ approach because my calling is apologetics.  What's wrong with that?
> 
> Then I start seeing posts written by you that are clearly directed at my approach including one directly addressed to me repeating the very same kinds of things, suggesting that I'm setting myself up as a judge and as one who knows all about God in spite of the fact that all I'm talking about is the objectively apprehensible framework of the OP's topic, the very things you told me you know all about, indeed, the very same things QW says he knows all about.
> 
> So does your knowing about these things make you a person setting herself up as a judge or as one who knows all about God?
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> Or does that only become problem if one shares that knowledge or disagrees with all those things you guys know about?
> 
> In the meantime QW had the gall to launch the very same garbage at me: a man who has been lying about virtually everything that he and I have discussed.
> 
> He's an utter fraud.
> 
> His understanding of logic and the relationship between philosophy and science is sophomoric. He's making absolute statements in terms of ultimacy and as one of absolute authority about things that no one could possibly assert in the manner in which he is asserting them, for there exists no logical, philosophical or scientific foundation whatsoever for these things!
> 
> He's making absolute metaphysical claims about transcendent realties, not as asseverations inferred from anything objectively discernible, but as scientific or, unwittingly, philosophical facts of ontological proportions and in the vein of an horrifically distorted understanding of constructive logic.
> 
> This is objectively self-evident to any intellectually honest person paying attention, and the things I'm alluding to are not directly related to biblical teachings or the issue of free will, as these things are academic matters of an objectively and empirically verifiable nature.
> 
> And that appears to be what you think I'm doing, which tells me you're really not thinking about anything I've shared, for if that's what you're getting out of my posts something personal is in the way of your understanding. I am doing no such thing, and if you were to read *POST #1482* you should be able to see that. For that largely summarizes the spirit of the things I've been talking about before one gets to further revelation from God.
> 
> But the most amazing thing about all of this is that what I'm trying to get at ultimately with the foundational framework is the revelation of the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, by Whom all things were made and are held together.
Click to expand...


I won't admit that I accept or reject anything that I haven't accepted or rejected. I have only argued that there is more than one way to look at the existence and attributes of God, how he works in the world, free will, and the scriptures that bear testimony to him, and also that  arguments that oppose yours can be just as logical as yours are.   The only thing I have criticized you for either overtly or by inference is that you have misrepresented my arguments and I think we do the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, no favors when we present  him in an angry, insulting, and/or contentious manner.    But I rather like you and I won't fight with you, or anybody else, about my faith or beliefs or the questions I still have or the logic I utilize.  I will wish you a pleasant evening and a good day tomorrow.


----------



## MaryL

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Why are we wasting our time  with region, why bother? Stuff happens, and it will anyway if you believe in a made up God or just go on regardless. And who is to say what  made up superstition  is real and which one is false? The worst ones that crash planes into buildings and chop of the heads? God  wants you to hurt innocent people that aren't like you, they should  dominate? It's Allah's will. Submit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are claiming that "God" is made up. This means, there is absolutely no possibility that any human being has ever experienced anything spiritual, it is all in their head. So this means, when we look at history, all the billions of humans who were persecuted and died for what they spiritually believed, none of it was rational. All the wars that have been fought over religion in human history, none of them were rational. 95% of the human species has been exhibiting an irrational behavior for all of it's existence and continues to do so.
> 
> What you are saying you believe is illogical. I don't have any problem with you saying you don't like this religion because they are radical or extreme, or that religion because they are too rigid and fundamental. Religions are not always good, some of them are very bad. But to claim that God is made up, is way out in left field and has no basis in reason. I think you say this because you don't like religion, and that is your way of attacking religion and religious people... to tell them what they believe in is "made up." Perhaps it makes you feel validated to take such a hard line position, but to any rational and objective thinker, you come across as an illogical kook. Just thought you'd like to know.
Click to expand...

Do tell. Religion itself is illogical. I used to believe in Santa Claus   once, it's a beautiful myth, but I grew out of it. Thing that bothers me is these damned  Muslims. With their suicide bombers, and their crashing planes into buildings  and stoning  people and hacking off heads in HD. For once, I would like to see B-52's  carpet bombing Mecca in HD. But, that's just me, I am like that.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
Click to expand...


I don't believe anything you say anymore.  I see that you're sill believing that your idea about the rules of organic thought is right when it's obviously wrong.  The last two days I've been studying constructive logic which I finally figured out is the same thing as intuitionistic logic and very little about what you're saying could be true.  Your posts don't make any sense.  I read M.D.R.'s posts and they make perfect sense with what I've learned and you keep saying he doesn't understand it or rejects it when obviously he uses it in his own studies of things.  I now understand it pretty good especially after seeing my thinking confirmed by M.D.R. and several different sites on constructive logic all saying the same thing M.D. R is saying and really nothing you're saying.  I don't believe you about Anselm either because Henry goes into depth about his argument and the truth is Anselm was criticized by philosophers because he didn't actually get his idea from thinking about it from his mind but from the Bible.  All he did was make the same argument in a general way without using Bible terms. I mean  he understood the other way  too from thinking about origin but what he was really trying to do was make an argument to help people believe in God so that they might read the Bible and believe in Jesus.  None of the scripture you site in the above counters the idea of complete omniscience and apparently some people will just latch onto anything like Foxfrye.  When you say that we make the choice did you forget that I believe in real free choice?  I notice that you imply things that aren't real a lot and I also know that "it repented the Lord" doesn't mean a change of mind but regret that He would have to bring the judgment of the flood on man. Passages about God repenting are conditional decrees of warning or final decrees depending on whether we choose to be obedient, which God counts as righteousness, or not.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
Click to expand...


So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe anything you say anymore.  I see that you're sill believing that your idea about the rules of organic thought is right when it's obviously wrong.  The last two days I've been studying constructive logic which I finally figured out is the same thing as intuitionistic logic and very little about what you're saying could be true.  Your posts don't make any sense.  I read M.D.R.'s posts and they make perfect sense with what I've learned and you keep saying he doesn't understand it or rejects it when obviously he uses it in his own studies of things.  I now understand it pretty good especially after seeing my thinking confirmed by M.D.R. and several different sites on constructive logic all saying the same thing M.D. R is saying and really nothing you're saying.  I don't believe you about Anselm either because Henry goes into depth about his argument and the truth is Anselm was criticized by philosophers because he didn't actually get his idea from thinking about it from his mind but from the Bible.  All he did was make the same argument in a general way without using Bible terms. I mean  he understood the other way  too from thinking about origin but what he was really trying to do was make an argument to help people believe in God so that they might read the Bible and believe in Jesus.  None of the scripture you site in the above counters the idea of complete omniscience and apparently some people will just latch onto anything like Foxfrye.  When you say that we make the choice did you forget that I believe in real free choice?  I notice that you imply things that aren't real a lot and I also know that "it repented the Lord" doesn't mean a change of mind but regret that He would have to bring the judgment of the flood on man. Passages about God repenting are conditional decrees of warning or final decrees depending on whether we choose to be obedient, which God counts as righteousness, or not.
Click to expand...


Wow!  I was about to explain the essence of the biblical iterations of divine repentance, but you obviously have a solid understanding of this.  Henry?  I don't recall him touching on this, but this is right.  Lots of young believers get the "anthropomorphism thing" stuck in their heads for years until they look at the various Hebrew roots of the English translation which does not adequately convey the matter via the terms _repentance_ or _repented_ that they might understand that these are conditional decrees/irrevocable decrees depending on the context relative to man's response in terms of repentance.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  *Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?*
Click to expand...



Reposted:

I find nothing in scripture that supports any sort of diminution of God's attributes to accommodate free will. I trust that it persists. The Bible says it does. I see no reason to question that, especially because the diminution of God's attributes creates all kinds of serious problems/paradoxes that most don't apprehend if they're doing their own thoughts and their own ways and stop thinking at that point:  presume that the philosophical argument that limits God's foreknowledge in order to accommodate free will is hunky dory, when in fact it creates a whole host of new and staggeringly complex problems that make your movie in the can look like a very small production indeed.  --Rawlings​

Maybe she doesn't think you know what they are.  Just saying.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
Click to expand...


Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.

I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.
> 
> After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).
Click to expand...


But the funny thing is that you never comprehensively state or seemingly allow yourself to comprehensively embrace the immediately pertinent constituents of the matter all at once as one truly dedicated to the very highest standards of academic tradition: in a manner that allows for the issues of existence and origin to be objectively mapped out so that all of the various options are clearly defined and delineated without bias as I did in *Post #1482*.

(But you're not alone, for as we may all see Q.W. is an even more disingenuous practitioner of the ancient, dogmatic sophistry of magical argumentation.  Fortunately, I'm an accomplished practitioner of the art of exposing the fraudulent techniques of those who would self-servingly pass off their rhetorical magic for truth.)  

You can't even bring yourself to describe the actual nature of the assumptions that I have made on this thread. You deceitfully use terms like "insert" or deceitfully imply that things that _are_ proofs under the conventional standards of justification and categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic are _not_ proofs. Indeed, you invoke these very same standards in such a way as to obscure the essence of your deceit, which evinces that you are consciously aware of the fact that these things _are_ legitimately established proofs under these standard just like Q.W..

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.

Well, looky here. It would seem that you're "inserting assertions/assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w."

You even castigated Q.W. for _his_ deceitful abuse of these very same standards, and rightly so, regarding his incoherent, paradigm-shifting gibberish about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer program, and the paradigm he shifted to without warning, without qualification, was that of constructive logic, just like you did without qualification in a "low . . . really bassy Wilford Brimley voice."

Were you accusing me of something untoward or yourself?

You're aware of the fact that the stark assertion of atheism is irrational under the terms of organic/classical logic and that you cannot craft an argument against the MPTA on its own terms of organic/classical logic without actually proving it's true with your very own argument.  Hence, you are compelled to assert the objection of the evidentiary terms of constructive logic, just like Q.W. did without first accurately/honestly stating the nature of your qualification.

And what does your qualification comprehensively entail?

Answer: the acknowledgement that artificial, alternate-world models of logic are necessarily contingent on the _categorical distinctions_ of organic/classical logic's conventional standards!

Let's take another look at *Post ##1482*, which demonstrates that one may know all about the intellectual gymnastics that the likes of Q.W. are up to.  He is clearly someone who is trying deceive or mislead others from recognizing important, objective facts of human cognition and logic.

Actually, G.T., I don't think you're of his ilk, as he dogmatically claims to know all kinds of things absolutely about ultimate metaphysical realities, without a shred of discernible evidence or rational justification, that no one could absolutely demonstrate in terms of ultimacy from this side of heaven, just as I show in *Post ##1482* as he deceitfully pretends to be an authority on logic when quite obviously, as I have shown, he's fraud.

The only things I've been talking about on this thread all along are in *Post ##1482*.  While I obviously believe that the conclusions of organic/classical logic are reliable as I believe they are in fact grounded in a transcendent Principle of Identity, I've never claimed that the variously pertinent constituents of the matter and the imperatives or origin were anything else or other than what is presented in *Post #1#1482.  *The only way we could arguably assert to know anything more about the transcendent potentiality in our minds beyond the objectively immediate imperatives of origin and their ramifications is through direct revelation of a significantly more intimate nature than the purely intellectual explorations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
Click to expand...


I'm not making anything contentious.  You just keep suggesting that any further exploration of things constitutes contentiousness.  But check out post #1506 and see what's really going on around here.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think proving god or not god is currently outside the realm of human possibility.
> 
> After a zillion page thread, our usmb populace has failed to prove it either way, delusions of gigantism aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been proven in spades by me with a club or two thrown in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't.
> 
> You're just OK with inserting assertions /assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w. ( and I said low in a really bassy Wilford brimley voice).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the funny thing is that you never comprehensively state or seemingly allow yourself to comprehensively embrace the immediately pertinent constituents of the matter all at once as one truly dedicated to the very highest standards of academic tradition: in a manner that allows for the issues of existence and origin to be objectively mapped out so that all of the various options are clearly defined and delineated without bias as I did in *Post #1482*.
> 
> (But you're not alone, for as we may all see Q.W. is an even more disingenuous practitioner of the ancient, dogmatic sophistry of magical argumentation.  Fortunately, I'm an accomplished practitioner of the art of exposing the fraudulent techniques of those who would self-servingly pass off their rhetorical magic for truth.)
> 
> You can't even bring yourself to describe the actual nature of the assumptions that I have made on this thread. You deceitfully use terms like "insert" or deceitfully imply that things that _are_ proofs under the conventional standards of justification and categorical distinctions of organic/classical logic are _not_ proofs. Indeed, you invoke these very same standards in such a way as to obscure the essence of your deceit, which evinces that you are consciously aware of the fact that these things _are_ legitimately established proofs under these standard just like Q.W..
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> 
> Well, looky here. It would seem that you're "inserting assertions/assuming things and calling it 'proof' but your standards are looo000w."
> 
> You even castigated Q.W. for _his_ deceitful abuse of these very same standards, and rightly so, regarding his incoherent, paradigm-shifting gibberish about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer program, and the paradigm he shifted to without warning, without qualification, was that of constructive logic, just like you did without qualification in a "low . . . really bassy Wilford Brimley voice."
> 
> Were you accusing me of something untoward or yourself?
> 
> You're aware of the fact that the stark assertion of atheism is irrational under the terms of organic/classical logic and that you cannot craft an argument against the MPTA on its own terms of organic/classical logic without actually proving it's true with your very own argument.  Hence, you are compelled to assert the objection of the evidentiary terms of constructive logic, just like Q.W. did without first accurately/honestly stating the nature of your qualification.
> 
> And what does your qualification comprehensively entail?
> 
> Answer: the acknowledgement that artificial, alternate-world models of logic are necessarily contingent on the _categorical distinctions_ of organic/classical logic's conventional standards!
> 
> Let's take another look at *Post ##1482*, which demonstrates that one may know all about the intellectual gymnastics that the likes of Q.W. are up to.  He is clearly someone who is trying deceive or mislead others from recognizing important, objective facts of human cognition and logic.
> 
> Actually, G.T., I don't think you're of his ilk, as he dogmatically claims to know all kinds of things absolutely about ultimate metaphysical realities, without a shred of discernible evidence or rational justification, that no one could absolutely demonstrate in terms of ultimacy from this side of heaven, just as I show in *Post ##1482* as he deceitfully pretends to be an authority on logic when quite obviously, as I have shown, he's fraud.
> 
> The only things I've been talking about on this thread all along are in *Post ##1482*.  While I obviously believe that the conclusions of organic/classical logic are reliable as I believe they are in fact grounded in a transcendent Principle of Identity, I've never claimed that the variously pertinent constituents of the matter and the imperatives or origin were anything else or other than what is presented in *Post #1#1482.  *The only way we could arguably assert to know anything more about the transcendent potentiality in our minds beyond the objectively immediate imperatives of origin and their ramifications is through direct revelation of a significantly more intimate nature than the purely intellectual explorations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.
Click to expand...





I get It now more fully. All you've been really saying is that while there might be different opinions about things like free will and stuff, at the very least or for simplicity's sake these are the things that are known about the problem of origin for sure assuming the things we have to practically assume about our existence and the universe and stuff.  And that's it.  If we get these things and think about them honestly we can at look at all the other stuff without rancor.  I think that's what you mean.


----------



## G.T.

There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid. 

Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.

I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best. 

Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.



The thing is, "it could just be" isn't valid as a scientific argument, nor does it conform to logical reality of the universe we live in. Nothing "just is" without explanation. That's the whole basis and purpose of science, to discover WHAT is.... and HOW is... not to assume "just is" with anything. 

You can certainly believe in "just is" all you like, that's a faith-based belief, and humans have those, it's perfectly rational and normal. It just has nothing to do with science.


----------



## G.T.

Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET. 

Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.
> 
> Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.



Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is." 

What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.
> 
> Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."
> 
> What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?
Click to expand...

Well dipshit, two things.

I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."

TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU.  IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.
> 
> Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."
> 
> What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dipshit, two things.
> 
> I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."
> 
> TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU.  IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.
Click to expand...


Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!" 

"IT JUST IS"  ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.
> 
> Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."
> 
> What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dipshit, two things.
> 
> I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."
> 
> TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU.  IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!"
> 
> "IT JUST IS"  ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.
Click to expand...

Umm.....paragraph #2 is dumber than a box of rocks.

Also - if I'm the only one you've seen mention tag premise #1, you don't know how to read.

Tag is the transcendental argument for god. Its been widely discussed, and also CALLED tag, by more than just me in this very thread. 



Ssssssso dumb its painful.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid.
> +
> Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.
> 
> I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best.
> 
> Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.



I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have down on the second one.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of this obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?

But looky here. W have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.


----------



## G.T.

To m.d., 

Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.

It isn't, and its far from an axiom.

The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.

It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.

Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'

Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There no burden of proof on me, I'm not the one asserting that a transcendental mind exists and also that arguing against one presupposes its truth. That's......fffffucking stupid.
> +
> Until I see something more than pseudointellectual psychobabble - that remains a naked assertion.
> 
> I have not seen any conclusive reasoning backing the tag - nine, zip, zilch, nadda. It is wishful thinking at best.
> 
> Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper, it could 'just be,' and that very real possibility creates quite the problem for the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have down on the second one.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of this obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You understand that your belief about the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?
> 
> But looky here. W have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendant law keeper"!
> 
> Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. claims to know all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical or alternate-world forms of logic or apprehension
Click to expand...




To be or not to be.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually - its the most scientific argument to date - which is to say - WE DONT KNOW YET.
> 
> Also its not my belief. Its simply another in the sea of possibilities, and that the possibility even exist means that tag premise #1 is abject failsauce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... "We don't know yet" is a far and distant cry from "it just is."
> 
> What the hell is "tag premise #1" you keep mentioning? Can you speak English please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well dipshit, two things.
> 
> I didn't say "it just is," I said 'it just is, is a POSSIBILITY, OF THE MANY."
> 
> TWO: THE TAG ARGUMENT IS SOMETHING OTHERS AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS, I WASNT TALKING TO YOU.  IF YOURE INTERESTED, GOOGLE IT. OR READ THIS VERY THREAD. IF NOT, BUZZ OFF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, dude, you don't get to tell me to buzz off. I simply asked you what "tag premise #1" is, and you are the only idiot I see mentioning such a thing here. You've still not defined it, this thread is FULL of premises and arguments, none are "tagged!"
> 
> "IT JUST IS"  ...is NOT a possibility! It's a CONCLUSION! It is the willing concession there is no possibility and can be none. It is giving up on possibilities for the easy belief that "it just is" without further evaluation. It explains why you are such an insufferable dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm.....paragraph #2 is dumber than a box of rocks.
> 
> Also - if I'm the only one you've seen mention tag premise #1, you don't know how to read.
> 
> Tag is the transcendental argument for god. Its been widely discussed, and also CALLED tag, by more than just me in this very thread.
> 
> Ssssssso dumb its painful.
Click to expand...


Ah.. so "TAG" is an acronym... now I got it. The thread is 76 pages long, I've not read every single post. Well, on the issue of God being transcendental, I think God has to be transcendental since that is what it means. Any argument for any other kind of God is going to be problematic. 

Now... paragraph #2... how is it dumb, in your humble opinion? You failed to explain. 

Again, the statement "it just is" is not a possibility because it's a conclusion. It is the dismissing of all possibilities. You've simply not refuted that and you can't.


----------



## G.T.

Its one possibility OF THE MANY possibilities...and if you don't think so, great, but don't try and converse with me in such a psychotic manor.

Saying 'it just is' is one possibility, it only shuts down all other possibilities IF ITS TRUE. It is NOT PROVEN, therefore its not concluded but only POSSIBLE.

THIS IS A DENSE AS FUCK MEANINGLESS SIDE CONVERSATION. JEEBUS.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> To m.d.,
> 
> Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.
> 
> It isn't, and its far from an axiom.
> 
> The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.
> 
> It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.
> 
> Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'
> 
> Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.



Now we have the tag #1 personality.  This one thinks it's God too.  Amazing!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> To m.d.,
> 
> Still waiting for tag #1 being justified.
> 
> It isn't, and its far from an axiom.
> 
> The rest of the shit you posted was a waste of time.
> 
> It books down to 'we don't know,' everything else is arrogance.
> 
> Saying that a transcendent mind knows it is all knowing is and was meaningless in regard to whether IT DOES OR DOESNT EXIST. SO CONTINUING TO BRING THAT POINT UP IS PSYCHOBABBLE UNAPPLICABLE BULLSHIT. the entire convo about it was called 'an aside.'
> 
> Back to tag #1 - it is not an axiom because exists the possibility that its NOT TRUE. THEREFORE, tag rests on no ground as a poof of god. None.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have the tag #1 personality.  This one thinks it's God too.  Amazing!
Click to expand...


G.T.'s a closet polytheist.


----------



## G.T.

Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing.  Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time?  I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things?  Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing.  Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time?  I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things?  Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?
Click to expand...


I am obviously speaking a language that neither you or MDR understand as both of you keep misrepresenting what I have said and/or accuse me of criticizing your point of view which I have not done.  I have only defended myself and my point of view.  But oh well.  I'm pretty sure neither of you are going to persuade anybody, however, by calling them 'liar' or 'lying nutcase" or other such terms.  Speaking of helping people.

Do have a nice day Justin.  I am going to drop out of the thread for awhile as I only seem to be adding to the angst and contentiousness that I was hoping to calm down.


----------



## MaryL

Prove to me god exists. Every time I  hold the hand of a dying person, I ask that. God, where are you?. They die, no  angels singing.  Nothing happens, just silence. Death is like that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Taz said:


> Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.



First, dogma cannot teach.

Second, the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe was developed by Aristotle, and was part of scientific/philosophical dogma of its day.

Third, you aren't very smart if an idiot has to point things like this out to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Foxfyre said:


> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.



That might be why I didn't use logic to make my argument. Not that I couldn't, I just don't see logic as the be all, end all, solution that many think it is.

Syllogistic argument against omniscience:
If a photon is monitored it will not go through two slits at the same time.

Photons that are not monitored by human or mechanical agents go through two slits at the same time.

There is no being that monitors all the photons in the universe.​Using logic, I just proved that God does not know everything in advance, and that he does not see everything in the universe. This does not mean that God is not capable of looking at those experiments, but it does prove, logically, that He has to focus on them.
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You're a fraud.



I already provided links that show that the Laws of Thought are not axiomatic to other forms of logic. Your refusal to accept that does not make me a fraud.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> And your point would valid except, of course, it's not valid, because you are a pretender who doesn't understand Jack or Jill about logic that you can't copy and paste or regurgitate by rote; and once again, *the basis of your complaint is your ignorance regarding the academic distinction between the laws of logic proper and their comprehensive principle: identity*.



I am ignorant?

Let's find out what the encyclopedia says about that.



> Alternate title: law of identity
> 
> The topic principle of identity is discussed in the following articles:
> laws of thought
> 
> TITLE: laws of thought (logic)
> traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼( p · ∼ p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...



principle of identity logic -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Have you noticed that I provide actual evidence to back up my position, while all you provide is dogma?


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said.  Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you?  He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread.  This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.
Click to expand...




> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.



the same logic could be used and has already been stated, the biblicists participation in this thread is illogical for the same reason they have give as proof for their TAG based biblical beliefs ... (again) you have had your thousands of years to prove your point and have failed, ergo the reason for this thread - as it presupposes all previous arguments have failed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.



Sigh.

All I said about constructive logic is that the laws of thought are not considered universal axioms because the premises they are founded upon are unproven.

Here is what Wiki says about that.



> Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.



Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Want to explain how that proves I don't know what I am talking about? Remember my warning about dogmatic beliefs and look at the way Rawlings responds emotionally to facts that contradict his beliefs, while I simply point out the actual evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.



Are you saying it is impossible for anyone to know things you don't? How is that rational? If you were actually rational you would say it is the only conclusion you can come to based on your understanding, and admit that other people may, or may not, have a better grasp on things than you do.

Are you rational, or do you still claim the ability to speak on what every single human being understands?


----------



## G.T.

No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.

I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions. 

But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.


----------



## Taz

Quantum Windbag said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious dogma taught that the earth was the center of the universe. Plus, you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, dogma cannot teach.
> 
> Second, the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe was developed by Aristotle, and was part of scientific/philosophical dogma of its day.
> 
> Third, you aren't very smart if an idiot has to point things like this out to you.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.

The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing.  Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time?  I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things?  Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am obviously speaking a language that neither you or MDR understand as both of you keep misrepresenting what I have said and/or accuse me of criticizing your point of view which I have not done.  I have only defended myself and my point of view.  But oh well.  I'm pretty sure neither of you are going to persuade anybody, however, by calling them 'liar' or 'lying nutcase" or other such terms.  Speaking of helping people.
> 
> Do have a nice day Justin.  I am going to drop out of the thread for awhile as I only seem to be adding to the angst and contentiousness that I was hoping to calm down.
Click to expand...



I know what happened on this thread.  While you were telling Q.W. how opened minded he is and how closed minded others are I'm watching him say the most ridiculous things that are clear as a bell wrong, making statements that are subjective as if they were something obvious and how others are flatly wrong.  A person who lies about something like that and lies about other things and about what other people are saying is doing harm to both the truth and to the reputation of others.  I don't think that's okay.  How would I persuade Q.W. to stop lying after seeing that he was reasonably and civilly spoken to about a simple thing at first that should have never been an issue in the first place only to see him make it even worst with the things he said about constructive logic which he does  not understand.  He just went on and on with it way past the point of being shown that what he's saying can't be right.  Who in their right mind tries to persuade a liar?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.



Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism.  But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff?   That's all I'm wondering.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism.  But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff?   That's all I'm wondering.
Click to expand...

I didn't change my mind at all, I likely was misinterpreted.

I think theism and atheism are both ego based beliefs. The human ego, being sentient we feel we need rational answers for everything.

That is why for years we adhered to incorrect theories, as opposed to 'no theory,' which is WAY more rational in the face of insufficient absolute answers.

Storms b/c we pissed the gods off? Ego centrism. Later learned: climate science.

I believe that any person who feels that gods existence is conclusively proven is not rational, but blinded by dogma, blinded by ego and needing to insert an answer where there really is yet to be one.

The TAG argument is the greatest example of hubris, its first premise is a half cocked (and arrogant) assertion where the human mind has no basis for calling it self evident.

Some can see that, quite clearly. We've let our ego down.

Others call US, the know it alls.

Windbag is just an ass hole. He's busy quibbling over irrelevant minutia.

I told him "all you do is nit pick minutia, you'd likely see an Einstein theory and instead of discussing the theory, whine about spelling.

His response? "I can't read German."

The exact thing he WOULD say to affirm what I said of him: i created an anecdote out of thin air to point out his obsessive deflections, and he responds by missing the crux of the anecdote and deflecting - minutia.


He is dog shit.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> All I said about constructive logic is that *the laws of thought are not considered universal axioms because the premises they are founded upon are unproven*.
> 
> Here is what Wiki says about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semantically, intuitionistic logic is a restriction of classical logic in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are not admitted as axioms. Excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not hold universally as they do with classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intuitionistic logic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Want to explain how that proves I don't know what I am talking about? Remember my warning about dogmatic beliefs and look at *the way Rawlings responds emotionally to facts that contradict his beliefs*, while I simply point out the actual evidence.
Click to expand...


You're ridiculous. You see that's not all you keep saying.  You lied again.  He called you a liar because you're a liar not because your lies are facts.  And you're lying again pretending to understand something you don't.  *The bold part of your post on the laws is not how logicians understand the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic*.  Those are you words and they're wrong.  That's you pretending again to understand something you don't understand.  See you keep making other statements like that all the time.  Then you quote something from Wikipedia that's right pretending it means the same thing when it doesn't and R's real knowledge in his post about constructive logic is written by someone who actually knows how to use is proves that you're lying again.  What part of those facts show you to be a liar?  All of them.  I actually checked you out after reading your misunderstanding of the law of excluded  middle in classical logic and spent a lot of time learning how it works because like R says it's very useful.  There is nothing in constructive logic that makes the axioms of organic logic false or stops them from being universal axioms in organic logic and I watched you pretend not to understand that concepts proven in constructive logic have to conform back to organic logic in real applications, including the law of excluded middle.  In one post you simply ignored what R told you and said something stupid again.  And you didn't tell him how constructive logic works.  He told you.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well in the face of the evidence its not a very wise belief but it does beat the silliness of atheism.  But why did you change your mind about all those beliefs or start calling your beliefs stupid and silly and stuff?   That's all I'm wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't change my mind at all, I likely was misinterpreted.
> 
> I think theism and atheism are both ego based beliefs. The human ego, being sentient we feel we need rational answers for everything.
> 
> That is why for years we adhered to incorrect theories, as opposed to 'no theory,' which is WAY more rational in the face of insufficient absolute answers.
> 
> Storms b/c we pissed the gods off? Ego centrism. Later learned: climate science.
> 
> *I believe that any person who feels that gods existence is conclusively proven is not rational, but blinded by dogma, blinded by ego and needing to insert an answer where there really is yet to be one.*
> 
> The TAG argument is the greatest example of hubris, its first premise is a half cocked (and arrogant) assertion where the human mind has no basis for calling it self evident.
> 
> Some can see that, quite clearly. We've let our ego down.
> 
> Others call US, the know it alls.
> 
> Windbag is just an ass hole. He's busy quibbling over irrelevant minutia.
> 
> I told him "all you do is nit pick minutia, you'd likely see an Einstein theory and instead of discussing the theory, whine about spelling.
> 
> His response? "I can't read German."
> 
> The exact thing he WOULD say to affirm what I said of him: i created an anecdote out of thin air to point out his obsessive deflections, and he responds by missing the crux of the anecdote and deflecting - minutia.
> 
> 
> He is dog shit.
Click to expand...


You're lying, of course. You’re among the persons on this thread who have acted like gods pretending to have proven things or to know things in an academic sense and its pure subjective philosophy. Q.W. is especially fond of subjective, make it up as you go along philosophy.  Q.W. lies about logic and lies about science.   Prachettford lies about definitions.  Foxfryre imagines liars can be persuaded.    You're all ridiculous, everyone of you, tapping out your lies knowing they're lies pretending their not lies.  You guys lie to yourselves and you lie to each other and you even know that you're lying to each other.  That's the funniest thing of all.  And you tell lies about others too, especially about those telling you the truth.  You'd lie to rocks if they had ears.


----------



## G.T.

Mmm Kay, neat post


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said.  Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you?  He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread.  This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same logic could be used and has already been stated, the biblicists participation in this thread is illogical for the same reason they have give as proof for their TAG based biblical beliefs ... (again) you have had your thousands of years to prove your point and have failed, ergo the reason for this thread - as it presupposes all previous arguments have failed.
Click to expand...



And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about.   Seriously, you guys are in real need of a fresh face around here.  How long have you guys been tapping out lies on this forum?  I've never seen so many lies at once. Is this the liar's club?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Its one possibility OF THE MANY possibilities...and if you don't think so, great, but don't try and converse with me in such a psychotic manor.
> 
> Saying 'it just is' is one possibility, it only shuts down all other possibilities IF ITS TRUE. It is NOT PROVEN, therefore its not concluded but only POSSIBLE.
> 
> THIS IS A DENSE AS FUCK MEANINGLESS SIDE CONVERSATION. JEEBUS.



Yes, it is a conclusion (albeit illogical) and not a possibility because it is not logical. Can you name anything in the reality we exist in that we've _proven_ there is no explanation for and it "just is?" Now there are plenty of things we can't yet explain and don't have an answer for, but the answer is never going to be "just is" because it is not a logical answer. It's the argumentative equivalent to dividing by zero. 

What is amounts to is a cop out for intellectual lightweights who don't want to objectively evaluate the possibilities. We find this a lot with atheistic non-believers who want to use "just because" as a crutch so they don't have to answer tough questions. 

This isn't a "side conversation" at all, it's the nucleus of what makes you such an abject fucktard. I think that is very important to this debate.


----------



## G.T.

If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.

You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Mmm Kay, neat post



What do you mean?  You admitted the five things are true.  I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another.  Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that.  You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5.  So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them.  You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying.  That's just another lie.   But you're right about Q.W..  Now he's the chief liar.  He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.
> 
> You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.



You thought that was a tantrum?  Are you lying again?  Smells like a lie.  Liar, liar, pants on fire.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its one possibility OF THE MANY possibilities...and if you don't think so, great, but don't try and converse with me in such a psychotic manor.
> 
> Saying 'it just is' is one possibility, it only shuts down all other possibilities IF ITS TRUE. It is NOT PROVEN, therefore its not concluded but only POSSIBLE.
> 
> THIS IS A DENSE AS FUCK MEANINGLESS SIDE CONVERSATION. JEEBUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is a conclusion (albeit illogical) and not a possibility because it is not logical. Can you name anything in the reality we exist in that we've _proven_ there is no explanation for and it "just is?" Now there are plenty of things we can't yet explain and don't have an answer for, but the answer is never going to be "just is" because it is not a logical answer. It's the argumentative equivalent to dividing by zero.
> 
> What is amounts to is a cop out for intellectual lightweights who don't want to objectively evaluate the possibilities. We find this a lot with atheistic non-believers who want to use "just because" as a crutch so they don't have to answer tough questions.
> 
> This isn't a "side conversation" at all, it's the nucleus of what makes you such an abject fucktard. I think that is very important to this debate.
Click to expand...


Actually "just is" is just another lie.  It's like "what was" or "what's up, bro" when asked if you've paid your taxes.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm Kay, neat post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You admitted the five things are true.  I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another.  Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that.  You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5.  So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them.  You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying.  That's just another lie.   But you're right about Q.W..  Now he's the chief liar.  He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......
Click to expand...

I haven't lied about a damn thing.

His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.

I am agnostic.

And tags first premise is empty.

The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you post something smart enough to respond to as opposed to childish temper tantrum retardedness like you just did, maybe I'll pay you mind.
> 
> You're just being a jerkoff - albeit thats just my opinion so don't go losing sleep over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You thought that was a tantrum?  Are you lying again?  Smells like a lie.  Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Click to expand...

Lying about an opinion of something?

You're a weird dude.

Go swing from m.d.'s Johnson some more.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm Kay, neat post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You admitted the five things are true.  I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another.  Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that.  You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5.  So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them.  You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying.  That's just another lie.   But you're right about Q.W..  Now he's the chief liar.  He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied about a damn thing.
> 
> His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.
> 
> I am agnostic.
> 
> And tags first premise is empty.
> 
> The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.
Click to expand...


Lying to the trees now I see.  Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science?  So what's your point?  Seriously?  What's your point?  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  You don't have one.  So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it.  You're a broken record.  Are you stuck on brain freeze.  What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life?  Got nothing, eh?  How boring.  You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself.  "Just is"  "Just was."  "My dog farted."  "Where are my shoes?"  What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science?  What's his point?  All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God.  Whoop de do!  la la la la.   That's supposed to be something new?  I can get more out of my piggy bank than that.   Dogmatism, he says.  Is that a song title for dull?  Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that.       Foxfrye's talking about persuading people.    Persuade Liars?    What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars?  What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions?  That was a hoot.  What did that liar get out of this thread?   Reinforced lies that's what he got.  Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief .  Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping.   But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies.    I'm the weirdo?  You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.


----------



## G.T.

Tl; dr


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.
> 
> I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions.
> 
> But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.



Funny, you just claimed that no one can know there is a god, yet you also claim you are not saying it is impossible for anyone to know something you don't. Tell me something, how do you know that these people do not have direct experience with whatever god they believe in? Can you prove these beings did not manifest themselves to these people physically? Can you show that these gods did take these people up into heaven and show them the evidence you insist does not exist?

Tell me something, why does the village idiot douchebag always end up making you look stupid?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Taz said:


> Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.
> 
> The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.



The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.

Not even momentarily surprised.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't claim its impossible for others to know things I don't, jagoff.
> 
> I claim no one knows for an absolute fact that god exists, or doesn't. Cuz if there was absolute proof of such, and not just dick swinging contests like you and m.w. were having, there wouldn't need BE these discussions.
> 
> But lest we forget - you're a douchebag who isn't worth it. Others are also finding this out, as you can plainly see. Let that marinate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you just claimed that no one can know there is a god, yet you also claim you are not saying it is impossible for anyone to know something you don't. Tell me something, how do you know that these people do not have direct experience with whatever god they believe in? Can you prove these beings did not manifest themselves to these people physically? Can you show that these gods did take these people up into heaven and show them the evidence you insist does not exist?
> 
> Tell me something, why does the village idiot douchebag always end up making you look stupid?
Click to expand...

Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing.  Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time?  I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things?  Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?
Click to expand...




Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point would valid except, of course, it's not valid, because you are a pretender who doesn't understand Jack or Jill about logic that you can't copy and paste or regurgitate by rote; and once again, *the basis of your complaint is your ignorance regarding the academic distinction between the laws of logic proper and their comprehensive principle: identity*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ignorant?
> 
> Let's find out what the encyclopedia says about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alternate title: law of identity
> 
> The topic principle of identity is discussed in the following articles:
> laws of thought
> 
> TITLE: laws of thought (logic)
> traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically, ∼( p · ∼ p), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> principle of identity logic -- Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Have you noticed that I provide actual evidence to back up my position, while all you provide is dogma?
Click to expand...


Are you ignorant?

Yes, of course your ignorant.

Yeah.  Let's find out.

Yeah.  I noticed that you provided a citation.

Why is this evidence for?

What's is your position?

What's my alleged dogma?

You don't really tells anything here, do you?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
___________________________________________

Let's review your dogma, which was the notion that the proper term--remember?--for referring to this law is _*the law of identity*_.

But that's not always true.  Why is that I wonder.  Well, actually I don't wonder.

What do we see here?  Why, what we see is my term that you said was improper:  *the principle of identity*.

My term:  *the principle of identity.*

Your term:  *the law of identity.*

Which one of these is in your citation?

Uh-oh, that would be my term, my term, my term . . . not yours.  Oops.  Why is that?

And why are the other two expressed as the _*law*_ of contradiction and the *law* of the excluded middle in this case, as juxtaposed against the *principle* of identity?

Why the shift?

In fact, more often than not they will all be referred to as _laws_ on equal terms, as consider separately from the comprehensive principle.

And why are they listed contradiction, excluded middle (laws) and _then_ identity (principle)?

They're normally listed identity, contradiction and excluded middle.

So what is this particular iteration of the three alluding to?

Essentially the comprehensive principle goes to ontological being.  _What is it?_ What is it's identity as opposed to the identity of all other things.  Identity is the overarching theme!

1.  Everything is. . . . (Everything that exists has a specific nature.)
2.  Nothing can be. . . .
3.  Everything must . . . be.

You see, we don't do two or three, until we one is established.  Then we have the comprehensive principle.

But then dogmatic thinking is all you've got:  copy and paste, regurgitation. You really have no clue.  In fact, the discrete law of identity proper and the comprehensive principle of identity are much more complex than you seem to think, dogma man.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> You're ridiculous. You see that's not all you keep saying.  You lied again.  He called you a liar because you're a liar not because your lies are facts.  And you're lying again pretending to understand something you don't.  *The bold part of your post on the laws is not how logicians understand the relationship between organic logic and constructive logic*.  Those are you words and they're wrong.  That's you pretending again to understand something you don't understand.  See you keep making other statements like that all the time.  Then you quote something from Wikipedia that's right pretending it means the same thing when it doesn't and R's real knowledge in his post about constructive logic is written by someone who actually knows how to use is proves that you're lying again.  What part of those facts show you to be a liar?  All of them.  I actually checked you out after reading your misunderstanding of the law of excluded  middle in classical logic and spent a lot of time learning how it works because like R says it's very useful.  There is nothing in constructive logic that makes the axioms of organic logic false or stops them from being universal axioms in organic logic and I watched you pretend not to understand that concepts proven in constructive logic have to conform back to organic logic in real applications, including the law of excluded middle.  In one post you simply ignored what R told you and said something stupid again.  And you didn't tell him how constructive logic works.  He told you.



I do not give a fuck how logicians interpret things, nor do I appreciate idiots calling me a liar for not saying things that are irrelevant to my point.

That, by the way, is not an emotional response, it is a perfectly rational response to the idiocy you are spouting. I never once claimed that intuitionistic logic invalidated anything in classical logic, all I have ever said is that the Laws of Thought are not universal axioms, and provided an actual example of a type of logic that actually makes that point.

When you decide to stop misrepresenting my arguments I will respond to you like a thinking person. Until then, expect nothing but contempt.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> Actually "just is" is just another lie.  It's like "what was" or "what's up, bro" when asked if you've paid your taxes.



Rawlings is lying when he claims that the law of identity just is?

Good to know.

How does it feel to have your stupidity twisted around and used against you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.



The only way your statement actually makes sense is if you have proof there is no god. Since you have constantly admitted you don't have that proof, your statement is an example of desperate you are to score a point against the village idiot, and how pathetically you fail at your goal.


----------



## G.T.

You're an irrelevant knucklehead.

Walking dead is on.

Fuck off my internet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> Saying there's one thing I know they don't know, is the same as saying there's nothing they know that I don't, at all, period? No, you're just the village retard hell bent on neener neener. Douche towel.



What do you know about the existence of god that a person who actually has experienced god doesn't? Do you have some secret insight that is unavailable to anyone else? Why would an agnostic argue that they know there isn't a god anyway?


----------



## G.T.

I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.

Again proving how fucking dumb you are.

I argued that no human has proof.

I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.
> 
> Again proving how fucking dumb you are.
> 
> I argued that no human has proof.
> 
> I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.



The only way you could possibly know that no human has proof is if you know what every single human being knows.

In other words, no one can know anything you do not.


----------



## G.T.

No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.

Wake the fuck up.

Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.
> 
> Wake the fuck up.
> 
> Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.



And that proves that no one can possibly know something you don't.

Can you tell me my birth name? After all, that is part of the information that travels at the speed of light.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only way I can possibly know - is that information travels light speed at a 24/7 clip.
> 
> Wake the fuck up.
> 
> Also.....still no word of YOUR opinion or theory on GOD, cuz you're a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that proves that no one can possibly know something you don't.
> 
> Can you tell me my birth name? After all, that is part of the information that travels at the speed of light.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac. 

Gods existence or non  the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided links that show that the Laws of Thought are not axiomatic to other forms of logic. Your refusal to accept that does not make me a fraud.
Click to expand...


Liar.
________________________________

*Constructive/Intuitionistic logic 101* 

Neither organic logic nor any additional/alternative forms of logic are philosophy, in and of themselves. They're tools used by scientists, philosophers, theologians, engineers, mathematicians, linguists. . . . The fundamental nature of philosophy is the indispensable business of metaphysical definition premised on the delineations of the organic principle of identity. Unlike the vast majority of system-building philosophies, _What is it?_ can be objectively and universally weighed, tested or falsified as it most immediately goes to conceptualization and linguistics. As for as system-building philosophies go . . . if it's not directly based on natural law as delineated by the principle of identity and affirmed by scripture: I've got no use for it.

What you have failed to share with the others, QW, is that the _identity_ of constructive logic is an artificial analytic tool predicated on the organic principle of identity, as any other form of logic must necessarily be, that merely precludes double negation elimination and the law of the excluded middle from its set of axioms. 

Ultimately, it's a microcosmic, alternate-world model of logic within the macrocosmic real-world model of organic logic. Notwithstanding, it's a very useful tool as it provides a means of evaluating propositions in terms of direct evidence about the real world. Also, in alternate-word mathematics, especially, this model serves to amplify organic logic's power in very much the same way that various technologies amplify our senses. It also provides alternate ways of looking at the real world that may divulge new possibilities, albeit, from negative perspectives that go back to real-world positives.

The foundational law of the principle of identity, the discrete law of identity as considered separately from its elaborations, and the law of contradiction still operate. It cannot be otherwise. But instances of excluded middles or double negation eliminations cannot be generally demonstrated, only discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis. 

In organic logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA), for example, is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof: it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies! For its logical proof is unassailable.

(Now, of course, GT and QW are still making the same unremarkable point as Jake that this does not mean that this contention is ultimately true. HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . . In alternate-world forms of logic is the MPTA necessarily true logically or axiomatically? HELLO! AFTER FOURTEEN-HUNDRED posts. . . .

NO. IT"S NOT!

It’s regarded to be unproved. I KNOW THIS. 

But don't lose sight of the fact that this observation _is_ the ultimate counterargument that still proves the MPTA to be true in the real world of organic logic.) 

Note that nothing since that last personal opinion is in red. As for those who subscribe to metaphysical anti-realism, that all is an illusion, that all logic is relative, which is not true, by the way, in organic or alternate forms of logic, as we shall see, that, therefore, nothing can be said to be objective knowledge . . . you win. I surrender. We necessarily presuppose certain things: We exist, the cosmos exists and a transcendent realm of being may exist. Fine. I mean, you know, _yawn_, but fine. Carry on. . . .

As for the rest of you, _read_ on. . . .

In constructive logic the MPTA (in spite of the fact that it is logically true, academically, under the terms of _classical_ logic) cannot be assigned a truth value in terms of ultimacy because the substance of its Object does not assert any direct material evidence, only inferential evidence, namely, the cosmological order, and the inferentially apparent synchronization of our minds with the cosmological order's properties and mechanisms (more on this vital distinction below).

In other words, we've all been talking about the MPTA in terms of ultimacy, on the terms of constructive logic, all along, most of you unawares.
Instead, the MPTA would be assigned an unknown truth value, as it's not inhabited by a proof of direct evidence. It would be regarded as being valid, though not in the same sense as in organic logic, until it was disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction, and since no contradiction can be deduced about it, it remains something that is unproven or unfalsifiable in constructive logic. This is merely the same thing as saying that currently transcendental propositions are not subject to scientific falsification.

That's nothing new!

In other words, the MPTA cannot be falsified in either of the respective worlds of logic, but for different reasons.

As I said before, because the principle of identity, which is the basis of the MPTA, is organic, one can never escape it or opt out of it. In fact, even in doing constructive logic, one is never actually not aware of the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination. We simply enter into a world of logic where those aspects of organic logic are not presupposed to be axioms. That's all. 

An analogy that assumes God's existence in terms of ultimacy for the sake of illustration:
From this side of heaven, under the rules of organic logic, God exists! That is, He exists . . . logically. The truth value or logical validity of the MPTA is objectively and independently affirmed by any counterargument. 

But under the rules of constructive logic/mathematics, God might or might not exist. The proposition is unprovable, but only because constructive logic requires direct evidence, i.e., the inferential evidence of established theory in science, which, by the way, is still a tricky business as certain "established theories" are arguably premised on metaphysical naturalism. 

(This demonstrates why QW's thinking that science precedes philosophy is foolishness. With all due respect, it’s his notion that's “philosophical bullshit.”)

Any proposition can be considered within the world of constructive logic, but not all propositions can be assigned a truth value. Constructive logic cannot consider inferential, empirical evidence about something metaphysical . . . unless constructive logic is being applied by someone who is "standing" in the metaphysical realm of being. Theoretically, an observer beyond this mortal coil could safely assert that God exists under the rules of both organic and constructive logic, as he would be _in_ the realm of direct evidence, not partially or wholly stuck in the inferentially evidential realm of being asserting a logical "truth" of pure reason based on the existence of the cosmological order.

And those of us who believe our being is in Christ Jesus, just like Boss is talking about, can and do assign a truth value to God's existence on the terms of constructive logic as persons who believe they are standing in the metaphysical realm of being, though still tied to this mortal coil via our physical bodies, with direct evidence and a testimony to go with it. We just can't make others experience that evidence directly and, therefore, cannot assert the rules of constructive logic in any universally objective or scientific way. Others have to open up their minds and say _yes_ to God in order to experience this reality directly.

 Can I get a witness, brothers and sisters?

In short, QW has never really been alluding to anything that constitutes a game changer as far as the principle of identity is concerned. He's simply making the very same rather unremarkable observation that all of us with an IQ above that of a gnat have made all along: the existence of God, beyond the rules of logic and evidence of the organic principle of identity, is not demonstrable/provable in terms of ultimacy, as those proofs for God's existence are based on inferential evidence, not direct evidence, in spite of the fact that the cosmological order _does_ constitute direct evidence for God’s existence under the terms of organic logic.

As for the vitally important distinction: the organic laws of logic (comprehensively, the principle of identity) evince two distinct levels of being.

One of them is scientifically falsifiable: the laws of human apprehension/thought are intrinsically organic, universally hardwired, at the very least, in our brains by nature. Most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true with plenty of scientific evidence. This is not merely intuitively true. Hence, in constructive logic this would be assigned a truth value. 

The other is a theological proposition: the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. This proposition, of course, would only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?



Hey, Justin, allow me to make a suggestion.  Paragraphs.  Now you may know this and maybe this is just the way you want to do.  It's just hard to read.  No slight intended.  Just saying, just in case.  Start a paragraph with an idea that introduces a specific point or related points.  Last sentence: summary/conclusion/end of idea.  It's not an exact science, but practice makes perfect.  Don't have to get it right, just close.  See suggested divisions.

By the way, Foxfryer is good people.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm Kay, neat post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You admitted the five things are true.  I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another.  Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that.  You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5.  So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them.  You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying.  That's just another lie.   But you're right about Q.W..  Now he's the chief liar.  He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied about a damn thing.
> 
> His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.
> 
> I am agnostic.
> 
> And tags first premise is empty.
> 
> The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying to the trees now I see.  Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science?  So what's your point?  Seriously?  What's your point?  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  You don't have one.  So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it.  You're a broken record.  Are you stuck on brain freeze.  What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life?  Got nothing, eh?  How boring.  You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself.  "Just is"  "Just was."  "My dog farted."  "Where are my shoes?"  What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science?  What's his point?  All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God.  Whoop de do!  la la la la.   That's supposed to be something new?  I can get more out of my piggy bank than that.   Dogmatism, he says.  Is that a song title for dull?  Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that.       Foxfrye's talking about persuading people.    Persuade Liars?    What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars?  What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions?  That was a hoot.  What did that liar get out of this thread?   Reinforced lies that's what he got.  Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief .  Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping.   But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies.    I'm the weirdo?  You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.
Click to expand...


Thou shalt not have an infinite God of unlimited possibilities.
Thou shalt not venture beyond _just is_.
Thou shalt go in circles forever about _yawn_.
Thou shalt have objective evidence, whatever that is.
Thou shalt not have any definition:  objective evidence is objective evidence.
Thou shalt not have a universal principle of identity.
Thou shalt not have coherence in laws of thought with things that are two or more things at the same time.
Thou shalt split the _nature_ of thy given thing and make it two different things.  LOL!
Thou shalt talk gibberish about things one knows really nothing about.
Thou shalt lie like the devil, freely, happily and about everything.
Thou shalt not have the excluded middle in constructive logic. (So? And?)
Thou shalt not have any coherent _So?_ or _And?_ LOL!
Thou does not have a clue about _So?_ or _And?_
Thou shalt not have a principle of identity, but a law of identity as thy proper term, except when, sometimes, well, what's the deal?
Thou shalt not have a universal synchronization of apprehension and phenomena; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
Thou shalt not have philosophy before science; i.e., thou shalt not have science.  LOL!
Thou shalt not have an open mind.
Thou shalt not have green eggs and ham.

Did I miss anything?

Oh!

Thou shalt not have a kitchen sink.


----------



## BreezeWood

G.T. said:


> Gt is an agnostic, which is the only rational current position within human understanding.


.
can an agnostic be admitted to the Everlasting without achieving the necessary answers for Admission while their Spirits physiology exists ? -

No, there is discovery for those willing to succeed.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Again, that's baseless, useless, not demonstrated, naked assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But all you're saying is the very same thing M.D.R. said.  Under the rules of direct evidence in constructive logic the mpta can't be assigned a truth value, so why are arguing with him as if he didn't understand something that he obviously understands way better than you?  He understands it way better than anyone else on this thread.  This morning I just thought maybe QW was confused, but now I can  see that he just makes things up about logic that he really doesn't know.  I just spent several more reading on constructive logic again today and almost nothing QW is saying is right, while everything M.DR. is saying right on the money.  I never just take people's word for things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arguing against "mpta" does not presuppose it to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same logic could be used and has already been stated, the biblicists participation in this thread is illogical for the same reason they have give as proof for their TAG based biblical beliefs ... (again) you have had your thousands of years to prove your point and have failed, ergo the reason for this thread - as it presupposes all previous arguments have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about.   Seriously, you guys are in real need of a fresh face around here.  How long have you guys been tapping out lies on this forum?  I've never seen so many lies at once. Is this the liar's club?
Click to expand...





> And there's another liar lying to himself pretending he's not proving something that he just lied about.



.
that you are a biblicist ?

and for centuries nothing of value by your understandings has ( ever ) been accomplished ...

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac.
> 
> Gods existence or non  the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.



There isn't a planet's worth of people after evidence that god exist either, which sort of invalidates whatever point you think you made, and puts us back to your insistence that no one can know anything you don't.

I may be an idiot douchebag pissant, but at least I admit that I don't know everything.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.
> 
> Again proving how fucking dumb you are.
> 
> I argued that no human has proof.
> 
> I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.



Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence. 

Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do? 

The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do. 

There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do. 

God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.
> 
> Again proving how fucking dumb you are.
> 
> I argued that no human has proof.
> 
> I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.
> 
> Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?
> 
> The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.
> 
> There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.
> 
> God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.
Click to expand...

Why do you religious extremists insist on presuming that others will accept your pointless arguments with such quackery as:

"a lot of people believe it so it must be true", and the standard bearer of religious fundies: ".... because I say so".


----------



## G.T.

Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry - but there isn't a planets worth of people after your birth name, megalomaniac.
> 
> Gods existence or non  the other hand is a little more relevant than a pissant such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't a planet's worth of people after evidence that god exist either, which sort of invalidates whatever point you think you made, and puts us back to your insistence that no one can know anything you don't.
> 
> I may be an idiot douchebag pissant, but at least I admit that I don't know everything.
Click to expand...

No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.

Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.



There is no cop out and its not childish, just stating a fact of the matter. I can show you the spiritual evidence but if you think spiritual evidence is anecdotal, I can't do anything about that. The prosecutor in the OJ trial showed the jury the evidence, they didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor so they found him not guilty.

GT, let me pose a question here for you. I notice in your avatar a little girl. I assume this may be your daughter. Let's assume your daughter becomes very ill. You take her to the hospital where she is admitted for tests. After a few days, her condition is worsening and doctors are puzzled as to what the problem is. She continues to decline and is near death, but the doctors still have no idea what to do or what is wrong. They basically tell you that short of a miracle, she will die in the next 24 hours. Faced with this, are you going to hit your knees in the chapel and ask God to save your daughter, or stick rigidly to your disbelief in God? 

You know, I have friends who are flaming gays, bleeding heart liberals, and outspoken Atheists. I know I come across as a real disagreeable asshole here, but in my personal life and relationships, I get along with people very well, even if our views are extremely different. That said, I am amazed at how many times I will see someone on my Facebook who has been absolutely brutal and disrespectful toward religion and religious beliefs, actually ask for their friends to "pray for" someone in their family in a time of need. Or they are holding a "candlelight vigil" for someone...  I'm almost tempted to say... I thought you were an Atheist who didn't believe in God? 

It's just amazing to me how many people claim they don't believe in God until they are faced with some kind of crisis. What's the old saying... there are no Atheists in foxholes?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.
> 
> Again proving how fucking dumb you are.
> 
> I argued that no human has proof.
> 
> I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.
> 
> Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?
> 
> The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.
> 
> There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.
> 
> God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you religious extremists insist on presuming that others will accept your pointless arguments with such quackery as:
> 
> "a lot of people believe it so it must be true", and the standard bearer of religious fundies: ".... because I say so".
Click to expand...


We've already demonstrated how your argument is always "because I say so." Yet, I've seen not one person in this thread present that as an argument for God. I've never said "a lot of people believe it so it must be true." That is a mischaracterization of what was said. You do this because you're dishonest. 

95% of our species does not have a behavioral attribute that is irrational, illogical, and without fundamental purpose. That defies reason, biology and science in general. So I can't let that argument stand when it's tossed out there. It's not about beliefs, it's about behavioral attributes of living things. 

And I guess part of you being a dishonest person is why you continue to label me as a "religious extremist" in thread after thread, despite the fact that I have repeatedly told you that I am not a Christian and don't follow religion. Maybe you think of that as a "dig" that will get under my skin, but it doesn't bother me in the least, it just confirms to me what a totally dishonest person you are.


----------



## G.T.

Boss Its not _*my view*_ that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.

Same with the situation you described with my daughter. If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'

I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'

No, there's plenty of other reasons.

The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss' dumbass argument about ppl not willing to accept evidence is so childish. Ugh. Its a cop out of the most extreme kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no cop out and its not childish, just stating a fact of the matter. I can show you the spiritual evidence but if you think spiritual evidence is anecdotal, I can't do anything about that. The prosecutor in the OJ trial showed the jury the evidence, they didn't value the evidence the same as the prosecutor so they found him not guilty.
> 
> GT, let me pose a question here for you. I notice in your avatar a little girl. I assume this may be your daughter. Let's assume your daughter becomes very ill. You take her to the hospital where she is admitted for tests. After a few days, her condition is worsening and doctors are puzzled as to what the problem is. She continues to decline and is near death, but the doctors still have no idea what to do or what is wrong. They basically tell you that short of a miracle, she will die in the next 24 hours. Faced with this, are you going to hit your knees in the chapel and ask God to save your daughter, or stick rigidly to your disbelief in God?
> 
> You know, I have friends who are flaming gays, bleeding heart liberals, and outspoken Atheists. I know I come across as a real disagreeable asshole here, but in my personal life and relationships, I get along with people very well, even if our views are extremely different. That said, I am amazed at how many times I will see someone on my Facebook who has been absolutely brutal and disrespectful toward religion and religious beliefs, actually ask for their friends to "pray for" someone in their family in a time of need. Or they are holding a "candlelight vigil" for someone...  I'm almost tempted to say... I thought you were an Atheist who didn't believe in God?
> 
> It's just amazing to me how many people claim they don't believe in God until they are faced with some kind of crisis. What's the old saying... there are no Atheists in foxholes?
Click to expand...


More anecdotal hogwash!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list



Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
Click to expand...


I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it. 

That's where simple minds get confused. 

Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
Click to expand...


Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss Its not _*my view*_ that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.
> 
> Same with the situation you described with my daughter. If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'
> 
> I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'
> 
> No, there's plenty of other reasons.
> 
> The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.



Why can't you answer my question about your daughter? I wasn't asking about a miracle, I said the doctors have told you that she needs a miracle to live. What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to go to the chapel and get on your knees and beg God to save your kid? Yes... I guess that would be a pointless waste of your time when you could be picking out a casket and such, huh? Hey... just trying to jar you into THINKING past your vehement hatred of religion here. 

The ONLY thing that I have surmised "must be true then" is that humans have a fundamental and intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I have intentionally left the definition of that open for interpretation because WHAT God is, is NOT the argument. Humans spiritually connect to something and this is a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It always has been, always will be.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't argue that I know there isn't a god.
> 
> Again proving how fucking dumb you are.
> 
> I argued that no human has proof.
> 
> I'll stand by that until one shows me proof, and by proof, I don't mean one of your pseudo douchey definitions ranting on a tangent of minutia. I mean PROOF, clown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove God to me ! Prove God to me! That's all I keep hearing from you morons! It's like you are completely unaware that no one will ever be able to "prove" anything to you when your mind is going to reject the evidence.
> 
> Since God is spiritual, the evidence that proves God is also spiritual. You reject the spiritual, so you can't evaluate the evidence. Now that's not the fault of the evidence or God, or any of us who know God. We can't make spiritual evidence turn into physical evidence you'll accept. We can't turn God into a physical entity so we can prove God exists to you. So what do you want us to do?
> 
> The only thing I can recommend is this... Turn your life over to God, believe in the power of God, pray to God and worship Him daily, ask for God's blessings and forgiveness. Devote yourself to following God and God's Word for the next 90 days. I guarantee you will find evidence for God. That's all I can tell you, if you want to find proof for God, that's what you need to do.
> 
> There is never going to be any physical evidence we can show you that will prove God to you. We've told you this, we've explained why that is, but you just keep ignorantly asking for the same thing over and over. It goes on for days, weeks, months... thousands and thousands of pages worth of yah-yah back and forth in multiple threads on multiple forums. You're not willing to accept the evidence or do what it takes to see the evidence for yourself, so there's nothing anyone can do.
> 
> God exists. Billions of people believe it and have all the evidence they need. You don't believe it because you refuse to accept the evidence or acknowledge it in any way. No one can help you but you.
Click to expand...


They are liars.  It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding.  Even Q.W. is a liar.  He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic.  The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> They are liars.  It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding.  Even Q.W. is a liar.  He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic.  The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.


shaddapp, nobody cares that you dont know the difference between lies and disagreement.

continue to ride md's coat tails and cheerlead from the sidelines, you do better over there dude.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.



Just in case you haven't picked up on it, I am no longer taking your troll bait. I understand you pride yourself in being the antagonist, but you'll need to find someone else to pull this shit on. Whenever you can formulate a coherent argument, we'll talk. Until then, you can pretty much go fuck yourself.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm Kay, neat post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?  You admitted the five things are true.  I read the posts in which you did that, at one time or another.  Depending on the topic you had no choice but to admit that you believed this thing or that.  You say you're an agnostic which alone means you get 4 and 5.  So unless you're now saying that you don't believe you exist or that the universe exists that's all of them.  You mean if you don't admit that you're lying you're not lying.  That's just another lie.   But you're right about Q.W..  Now he's the chief liar.  He's a liar on steroids, totally shameless. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't lied about a damn thing.
> 
> His five whatever the fucks - don't prove god.
> 
> I am agnostic.
> 
> And tags first premise is empty.
> 
> The five whatever the fucks don't matter, to any of that. So uh, yea. Go bark up someone else's tree about being a liar asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lying to the trees now I see.  Did you forget that I agree that God's existence cannot be proven in any ultimate sense by arguments or science?  So what's your point?  Seriously?  What's your point?  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  You don't have one.  So why are you tapping lies out over and over again about something we all know as if we didn't know it.  You're a broken record.  Are you stuck on brain freeze.  What do the things you necessarily must believe to get up every morning tell you about the meaning of life?  Got nothing, eh?  How boring.  You've got huge ideas in front you with huge implications and your conclusion is to lie to yourself.  "Just is"  "Just was."  "My dog farted."  "Where are my shoes?"  What's Q.W.'s point when he lies about logic and science?  What's his point?  All that nutcase is saying in the end is that science can't address questions of ultimate importance, the existence of God.  Whoop de do!  la la la la.   That's supposed to be something new?  I can get more out of my piggy bank than that.   Dogmatism, he says.  Is that a song title for dull?  Logic can prove anything, he says, expect his lies and the lies he tells to cover up those lies and the lies after that.       Foxfrye's talking about persuading people.    Persuade Liars?    What kind of dummy tries to persuade liars?  What's the point of Prachettford lying about definitions?  That was a hoot.  What did that liar get out of this thread?   Reinforced lies that's what he got.  Somebody just repeated one of Q.W.'s lies, one that reinforces disbelief .  Q.W. should be proud, and Foxfyre encouraged that liar blindingly leading others to think he's open-minded, being straight, helping.   But everything that comes out of his mouth was self-serving, false, faith-destroying lies.    I'm the weirdo?  You guys just sit around and lie to each other, pretend like ho hum ideas are big ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thou shalt not have an infinite God of unlimited possibilities.
> Thou shalt not venture beyond _just is_.
> Thou shalt go in circles forever about _yawn_.
> Thou shalt have objective evidence, whatever that is.
> Thou shalt not have any definition:  objective evidence is objective evidence.
> Thou shalt not have a universal principle of identity.
> Thou shalt not have coherence in laws of thought with things that are two or more things at the same time.
> Thou shalt split the _nature_ of thy given thing and make it two different things.  LOL!
> Thou shalt talk gibberish about things one knows really nothing about.
> Thou shalt lie like the devil, freely, happily and about everything.
> Thou shalt not have the excluded middle in constructive logic. (So? And?)
> Thou shalt not have any coherent _So?_ or _And?_ LOL!
> Thou does not have a clue about _So?_ or _And?_
> Thou shalt not have a principle of identity, but a law of identity as thy proper term, except when, sometimes, well, what's the deal?
> Thou shalt not have a universal synchronization of apprehension and phenomena; i.e., thou shalt not have science. LOL!
> Thou shalt not have philosophy before science; i.e., thou shalt not have science.  LOL!
> Thou shalt not have an open mind.
> Thou shalt not have green eggs and ham.
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> Oh!
> 
> Thou shalt not have a kitchen sink.
Click to expand...


Just say "no" to everything.  Even theists on this board say "no" to everything and then fool themselves into believing that it's people like you and me who are saying "no" to everything.  And I see why you mentioned Boss.  Reading his posts is real seeing.  He's got it. Boss is very wise.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss Its not _*my view*_ that your evidence is anecdotal, its that your evidence meets the literal definition of anecdotal.
> 
> Same with the situation you described with my daughter. *If that had occurred, a scientific mind - a sound & reasonable mind- wouldn't automatically attribute the miracle to any particular god or entity at all. That mind would hunt for the reason or explanation for the miracle and absent finding one in an incontrovertible way? The answer is a shoulder shrug and 'I don't know.'*
> 
> I already posted also why the appeal to majority you've used doesn't work, and you skipped right over that, so you can address Post #1465 before you continue the charade. 'Its true' is not the only plausible explanation for humans acting spiritually en masse. An open mind sees many other possibilities. It is the closed mind that says 'well! Must be true, then!'
> 
> No, there's plenty of other reasons.
> 
> The reason I'm being disagreeable with you or anyone at all, and the reason I've EVER been..........is its based on reciprocation. I never begin being the asshole. I'm cordial to anyone who is cordial. Its kinda natural. Its also natural to be a dick to dicks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer my question about your daughter? I wasn't asking about a miracle, I said the doctors have told you that she needs a miracle to live. What are you going to do in that situation? Are you going to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to go to the chapel and get on your knees and beg God to save your kid? Yes... I guess that would be a pointless waste of your time when you could be picking out a casket and such, huh? Hey... just trying to jar you into THINKING past your vehement hatred of religion here.
> 
> The ONLY thing that I have surmised "must be true then" is that humans have a fundamental and intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I have intentionally left the definition of that open for interpretation because WHAT God is, is NOT the argument. Humans spiritually connect to something and this is a fundamental human behavioral attribute. It always has been, always will be.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not going to go into a chapel. 

Absolutely not. 

In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof. 

I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.


----------



## G.T.

As an aside, Boss, my daughter 3 weeks after her second birthday was in the hospital on a ventilator for 3 days with oxygen at dangerous levels and unable to breath on her own. 

I did not pray not a single time. 

She is a perfectly healthy kid, past her bout with RSV and will be 3 in December free of any health issues.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
Click to expand...


Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual. 

What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, science has explanations other than "because it's true" for why humans are spiritual. 

Maybe you haven't dug as deeply into this or whatever, but science has offered several explanations for it. None are conclusive, because they're just as unproven as "because its true."

But that other plausible explanations exist, and there hasnt appeared to have been proof to mine eyes anyways, I find the reasons provided as unsound for forming conclusions. 

I don't like to conclude things when so many other explanations exist, it seems unreasonable to me. That's all.


----------



## G.T.

That is an example - it's been consistently shown(in neuroscience) that increased spirituality in an individual corresponds with increased impairment of the right side of the brain. This can also be done purposefully, as studies on buddhists with healthy brain function have shown that through meditation they've actually learned to purposefully impair the right side of the brain.

That explanations exist other than "the spiritual world must exist," means, that it's not reasonable to reach a conclusion as of yet.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.
> 
> I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.



Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities. 

Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period. 

Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.
> 
> I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.
> 
> Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period.
> 
> Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested past that.

I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.

Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic coming from the poster who vehemently denigrates and insults Atheists whenever they expose his baseless babbling BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just in case you haven't picked up on it, I am no longer taking your troll bait. I understand you pride yourself in being the antagonist, but you'll need to find someone else to pull this shit on. Whenever you can formulate a coherent argument, we'll talk. Until then, you can pretty much go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...


Irony squared that you just proved my point about you!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> That is an example - it's been consistently shown(in neuroscience) that increased spirituality in an individual corresponds with increased impairment of the right side of the brain. This can also be done purposefully, as studies on buddhists with healthy brain function have shown that through meditation they've actually learned to purposefully impair the right side of the brain.
> 
> That explanations exist other than "the spiritual world must exist," means, that it's not reasonable to reach a conclusion as of yet.



I didn't say the spiritual world must exist. I said that humans have an intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. Whether a spiritual world exists or not, humans fundamentally believe it does and this is a major behavioral attribute that is important, if not vital and essential, to humans. 

I've seen and read about all the "explanations" concocted by Atheists to explain away God. Almost to a fault, they simply contradict science and logic. I've gone through these arguments many times, it never changes the mind of the Atheist. 

Humans didn't invent spirituality, if they did there would be archeological evidence to show when that happened, and there isn't. The oldest remains of human civilizations we've ever discovered, reveals humans were spiritual. Not only that, but this human spiritual attribute is found in every civilization around the globe from all corners of the Earth. Consistently, humans are spiritual and always have been. 

Humans DID invent religions. But religions are merely indication that humans are spiritually connected. Another popular argument is that humans are spiritual becuase of an irrational fear of the unknown or death. Again, this contradicts science. No other living thing that we have observed does this. Our irrational fear of death stems from our being spiritually aware of immortality. Man created spirituality to explain the unexplained... again, that's why man created SCIENCE. 

So all of these assorted "explanations" for human spirituality, simply fail the test of science and observation. 95% of the species has a behavioral attribute where we believe in a power greater than self. Even Darwin would conclude that is important to the species.


----------



## G.T.

I don't conclude it. I don't see any evidence of it other than "we practice it."


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
Click to expand...




> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*





2 + 2 = 4.

That is universally accepted evidence.

The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.

Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.



Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me? 

The answer is, you can't. It's impossible. 

So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you keep saying these things.  All we said is that we don't believe it makes sense to limit God's knowledge just to accommodate free will when it's obvious from just plain commonsense that some things could conceivably be an infinite array of things simultaneously.  This is where this whole things started over nothing. Why is that a problem for some?  Why does that mean I'm pretending to know all about God?  I don't pretend to be the person who put my ability to understand that in my mind.  When did I ever pretend that I did that?  I didn't do that.  How could I do that or believe that I did that?  That would be sick.  Is God trying to trick me or fool me into believing something that's not true by putting that into my mind?  Are you like Q.W. pretending not to know why it's rational to believe that some things could be an infinite array of things at the same time? I'm sick of his lies.  He isn't making any sense.  It's this lie of his behind all of this confustion over a simple thing.  He has the rules of organic thought all wrong.  He's lied to me, to you, to everybody on this thread.  He lied about M.D.R., accusing him of saying things that are not true.  He even pretended not to know that M.D.R. understands and uses constructive logic even after M.D.R made that crystal clear.  Who could miss that or keep changing what MD.R. is saying if he's not lying?  Why would anyone lie about these things? Q.W obviously doesn't understand constructive logic at all.  I understand it better than him.  It's not as easy as organic logic but its not that hard to get either.  I don't understand you.  You can't see why it's wrong to try and block an idea that is obviously true.  In all of history who but this lying nutcase has ever said that something like three persons in one God violates the rules of human thought?  How could that be?  You have come down on M.D.r who is arguing for the truth against all these lies.  How can lies help people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Justin, allow me to make a suggestion.  Paragraphs.  Now you may know this and maybe this is just the way you want to do.  It's just hard to read.  No slight intended.  Just saying, just in case.  Start a paragraph with an idea that introduces a specific point or related points.  Last sentence: summary/conclusion/end of idea.  It's not an exact science, but practice makes perfect.  Don't have to get it right, just close.  See suggested divisions.
> 
> By the way, Foxfryer is good people.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the tip.  The truth is I had to quite school to run the family business.  I know I could write better if I had just been able to concentrate on studies more but my dad's condition made that difficult sometimes as I had to take care of things a lot since I was 14.  I'm the oldest so I was the dad and then I started falling into his ways but had to put the brakes on that.  I believe God was there helping me not do that even before I became a Christian.

I think Foxfyre is a nice person too but she just keeps missing the point.  I'm sorry but that is the truth.  I don't have as much knowledge or education as some but I do have more understanding of things than some who have talked to me as if they could be my mentors. 

Q.W. is a ridiculous person without understanding because he lies to himself about everything and so his mind is closed to everything, though the bigger truths are right there in front of him.  How can a man know God when he can't even allow himself to see the simplest things about God or about most everything else really?  I see that he's still lying about logic even after you have made it clear he's lying and is without understanding. That nutcase trying to tell someone like you that youre ignorant or dogmatic is like a rock trying to think its way into something alive.  Even I have a better understanding of things.  Any who really understood constructive logic would see that it points to God too and I just learned constructive logic from my own research.  It's not that hard to learn about.

I understood you from the beginning what you are talking about, the principle of identity from scripture, from the idea of Jesus as the unifying creative word of God and naturally the apostles talk about this idea constantly.  I don't believe Q.W. when he tells me he has all this reading in scripture.  How could someone have all that reading he's talking about and not see this?  How could Foxfyre not see that this man is so ignorant and unwise?  Also, the idea of Jesus being the universal being of the universe's physical laws and the connection between that and our minds is talked about by all kinds of bible teachers and theologians.  It's a standard idea understood for centuries and I know that from my study of what these guys have told me about history citing scripture too.  It's self-evident from scripture and from the understanding of Christians in history.  It's not just an idea that philosophers have had.  As far as science goes how could we do science if our thinking wasn't connected to the way things work.  Q.W. is a nutcase.  And I'm just starting to learn about what you said about the Logos.  The apostles intentionally used that word in Greek because it meant the same thing as the idea that Greeks had about God, whoever that might be to them.  They saw the same truth from thinking clearly about the things that God shows us in our minds, they just had the wrong God or gods.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
Click to expand...


My mind isn't committed to not accepting.

That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.

I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.

Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.

It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.

Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.



Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there. 

There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
Click to expand...




Drowning in denial again?

You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason. 

What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers. 

Your desperation is palpable!


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
Click to expand...


First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.) 

You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
Click to expand...


It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it. 

You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
Click to expand...

im not gunna start worrying about what ppl think they know of me, thanks though


----------



## Justin Davis

p.s. It's bugging me to all get out but I googled an article on the internet about a year ago after getting it from a book I was reading on the unifying word of God. That article begins with the comprehensive academic principle of identity for the laws of thought and then goes on to the universality of it in the human mind and the universality of it in how we do science, and then also the universality of it as Jesus being that principle of identity ultimately. It had a bunch of other related links and these guys used the very same term in the very same way as you. This idea is nothing new. Again that's why I had no problem following you and know Q.W. lies about everything and is so ignorant, pretending to know things or understand things he doesn't. I've tried to find it again but can't remember the title of the article. But who but a dull mind would need that except for greater insight. It's self-evident!  Q.W. has gotten in the way of understanding on this topic more than any other person.  At first I liked the things he said but the more you read his posts you can see that in reality he's a closed minded person who has opinions on everything based on nothing sensible who sometimes gets things right by accident but there's no understanding there. Like you said this is the kind of guy who gets links and quotes from the internet and then implies they mean something they don't. He didn't even really explain anything about  his links on constructive logic or this last one about classic logic. He just implies things without understanding.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
Click to expand...


It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)
> 
> You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.
Click to expand...




You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.

What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.

Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.



Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here. 

QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)
> 
> You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.
> 
> What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.
> 
> Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!
Click to expand...


Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted. 

Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)
> 
> You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.
> 
> What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.
> 
> Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.
> 
> Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.
Click to expand...


Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.





That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.

Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.

Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.

We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> p.s. It's bugging me to all get out but I googled an article on the internet about a year ago after getting it from a book I was reading on the unifying word of God. That article begins with the comprehensive academic principle of identity for the laws of thought and then goes on to the universality of it in the human mind and the universality of it in how we do science, and then also the universality of it as Jesus being that principle of identity ultimately. It had a bunch of other related links and these guys used the very same term in the very same way as you. This idea is nothing new. Again that's why I had no problem following you and know Q.W. lies about everything and is so ignorant, pretending to know things or understand things he doesn't. I've tried to find it again but can't remember the title of the article. But who but a dull mind would need that except for greater insight. It's self-evident!  Q.W. has gotten in the way of understanding on this topic more than any other person.  At first I liked the things he said but the more you read his posts you can see that in reality he's a closed minded person who has opinions on everything based on nothing sensible who sometimes gets things right by accident but there's no understanding there. Like you said this is the kind of guy who gets links and quotes from the internet and then implies they mean something they don't. He didn't even really explain anything about  his links on constructive logic or this last one about classic logic. He just implies things without understanding.



Here's the thing about "logic" and what I believe QW was trying to articlute. We can't always say that logic is valid. Most of the time it is, but not always. Logic is often the basis for conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong numerous times. The double-slit experiment is a good example of logic failing. Turns out, logical assumptions are sometimes false. 

Now that is not to say that logic is invalid when it comes to objective reasoning. I logically assume God is real because I talk to God daily and God blesses me in my everyday life... could I be wrong? Sure! I could be mentally unstable. but I don't think I am. So my objective reasoning is that God is real and God blesses me daily. I don't need to prove that to anyone else, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Justin Davis said:


> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere



In which case you should have no problem providing this "universally accepted evidence for God's existence".

So let's see what you have.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's not. (even if you believe it's evidence and not a mathematical fact.)
> There is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. There is also the quantum physics consideration of event horizons and what happens inside black holes... 2+2 may not always equal 4 there.
> 
> There is not even universally accepted evidence for reality itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)
> 
> You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.
> 
> What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.
> 
> Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.
> 
> Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.
> 
> View attachment 32831
> 
> That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.
> 
> Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.
Click to expand...


Again, I addressed your point. Why are you still whining about that? DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise. They are not universally accepted evidence and I gave you a very good and well-known example of that. What you did was reject my point on the basis that it was the first time... but still, my point is valid. What if I am totally ignorant of what DNA or fingerprints are? Say I live in a hut in the middle of Africa or something? Would that evidence be universally accepted by me, someone who has no idea of what the hell you're even talking about? No... because evidence is subjective, like I said.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning in denial again?
> 
> You really are a complete and utter failure when it comes to logic and reason.
> 
> What is the language of quantum physics? Mathematics, right? So according to you quantum physicists don't agree that 2 + 2 = 4 but somehow they all use the same mathematics to communicate their ideas to one another even across language barriers.
> 
> Your desperation is palpable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, when I said there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, I wasn't talking about mathematics. But even with mathematics, on a subatomic or quantum level, we are uncertain... (see Heisenberg.)
> 
> You are the one who is desperate here, Dorito. You want so desperately to jump in here and prove me wrong about something so you can feel good about yourself, but you are just too stupid to pull it off. I kinda feel sorry for you...nahh... I don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get b/slapped by the facts that your allegations are just FOS and so retreat into denial.
> 
> What is notable is that you ignored the hard evidence of fingerprints and DNA uniquely identifying an individual because you couldn't refute it.
> 
> Your disingenuousness oozes out of your posts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I ignored it because you didn't mention it? Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence... ask the OJ Simpson jurors. Yep, it's hard evidence, it's compelling evidence, and perhaps most people would agree with the evidence, that still doesn't mean it's universally accepted.
> 
> Evidence can always be refuted by someone because evidence is subjective. That's not being disingenuous and you're not bitch slapping anyone. In fact, I am slapping you around like a little crack whore with my 12-inch e-cock as we speak.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you edited out what I posted for your own nefarious purposes doesn't alter the FACTUAL record in the USMB posts.
> 
> View attachment 32831
> 
> That you have to use BS like the OJ case says volumes. It was the first instance of using DNA and the fact that it was mishandled by the LAPD is irrelevant.
> 
> Your DNA and fingerprints are evidence that identify you as an individual. If they are found at a crime scene you would have been there either before, during or after the crime was committed. Your lawyer can argue about the time frame but no one can refute that evidence that you were at the crime scene at some point in time is not subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I addressed your point. Why are you still whining about that? DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise. They are not universally accepted evidence and I gave you a very good and well-known example of that. What you did was reject my point on the basis that it was the first time... but still, my point is valid. What if I am totally ignorant of what DNA or fingerprints are? Say I live in a hut in the middle of Africa or something? Would that evidence be universally accepted by me, someone who has no idea of what the hell you're even talking about? No... because evidence is subjective, like I said.
Click to expand...




> *Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence*





> *DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise*.



Flipflopping now?



You are so FOS. The case you provided was anything but a "good" one. It exposed the fallacy of your position because it is well known for the *mishandling of evidence*. 

You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.

As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
Click to expand...


I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature. 

Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.


----------



## Boss

Derideo_Te said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence*
> 
> *DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flipflopping now?
Click to expand...


No, there are two completely different statement there, are you retarded? 



> You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.
> 
> As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.



Well you're the one talking about juries and courts,  I was talking about universally accepted evidence. Again, I presented you with an example of how even something you consider irrefutable is not universally accepted. If you still don't see my point, you must be retarded.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Boss said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fingerprints and DNA are not universally accepted evidence*
> 
> *DNA and fingerprints ARE evidence, I never claimed otherwise*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flipflopping now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are two completely different statement there, are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are equivocating by introducing all kinds of red herrings that are utterly irrelevant. Someone in a hut in Africa is not one of your peers and eligible to be on a jury.
> 
> As usual you just make a fool of yourself when faced with the irrefutable facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you're the one talking about juries and courts,  I was talking about universally accepted evidence. Again, I presented you with an example of how even something you consider irrefutable is not universally accepted. If you still don't see my point, you must be retarded.
Click to expand...


Resorting to ad hom attacks is a de facto admission that you have conceded your position.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.
> 
> QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.
Click to expand...


Q.W. is lying.  Everything about him is just his subjective opinion.  It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says.  I can see that now.  At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies. 

Classical logic is the one thing I know very well.  I have done in depth studies of it.  I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity.  And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too.   Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it.  I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things.   Q.W. does not understand constructive logic.  He pretends to understand it when he doesn't.  The things he is saying or implying cannot be true.  They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things.  You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively. 

The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things.  It can't be any other way by this time.  I'm sick of it.  Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand  the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic.  Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic  and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic.  He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that.  But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad.  I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly.  He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic.  He's a fool  and M is way past Q's understanding of things.  Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn.  The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke.  Yeah.  I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off.  Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.


----------



## Taz

Quantum Windbag said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.
> 
> The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.
> 
> Not even momentarily surprised.
Click to expand...

Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.


----------



## Henrik

I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.
> 
> The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.
> 
> Not even momentarily surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.
Click to expand...


Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories. 

Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.
> 
> The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.
> 
> Not even momentarily surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories.
> 
> Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm agnostic, there's no proof for or against a god.


----------



## Boss

Henrik said:


> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.



In a way, I think you are close to right. God is a spiritual force... I use those words because they are the only words man has developed to define God. I also commonly talk about "intelligent design" because those are words we've attached to the concept itself, but I also think man is somewhat incapable of totally grasping God. Perhaps "intelligent" is too invalid a word to apply to God? If God is an energy, imagine electricity... is it "intelligent?" Well, it certainly knows how to light a lightbulb. But is that what we understand "intelligent" to be? 

Same with "design" ...could be the "design" is simply the Operating System enabled in a physical universe and reality is the possibilities present within parameters of that OS? Or it could be that what I am describing as an OS is actually a peripheral for an even larger system yet undiscovered? Lots of possibilities. 

But I do think you are right, man has a problem comprehending God and naturally assigns humanistic characteristics to God in order to better understand and relate.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you admit that you're an idiot, It's a good start.
> 
> The church believed that the world was the center of the universe. Doesn't matter where the idea originated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic church believed the scientists who said that the Earth is the center of the universe, just like they now believe the scientists who say it isn't, and you, for some reason, think of that as an example of a bad thing.
> 
> Not even momentarily surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya sure, the church believes everything scientists say, starting with the Big Bang. And Creationists don't exist in your world. Lucky for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am a "creationist" if you mean a person who thinks our universe was created by an intelligent designer. I also believe there could have been a "big bang" to start everything up. Or some other cosmic event could have happened to start things up, I am not sold on "The Big Bang Theory" entirely, I leave the possibility open on that one. Still, most religious people I know of, rationalize a God who is fully capable of causing a big bang or cosmic event to occur. So such a theory doesn't cancel out God.... Same with "evolution" theories.
> 
> Now the people who have blind faith in scientific theories, who think it's 100% absolute a big bang happened or are 100% certain life originated through evolution and there is no God or other metaphysical explanation... those people are a concern. They are the kind who are a real danger to science.
Click to expand...

You managed to regurgitate every ignorant cliche' and shibboleth to be found on christian fundamentalist websites.

Firstly, there is no faith required for the process of the Scientific Method. You make the mistake typical of creationists/supernaturalists in that your loathing of science is used as a means to vilify science and the consensus it brings. Creation tales/supernaturalism offers nothing that can be used to come up with a plausible means to investigate magical, supernatural gods. You religious zealots can't even offer some tentative hypothesis, the beginnings of a framework to objectively investigate your alleged supernatural realms and the gods you claim live in those realms. What useful role can your incoherent rantings play in the advancement of knowledge? 

Lastly, life didn't originate through evolution. Evolution is broadly defined as changes in populations over time. The beginning of life is not addressed by the theory of evolution.

Really, you should stop trolling christian fundamentalist websites for your science information. The putrid bile they inflict upon you gullible, easily persuaded types is a crying shame.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list



No shit, Sherlock.

That doesn't change the fact that you claim that there is no evidence of god's existence, does it? Does that mean you aren't actually agnostic, or does it mean that you said something stupid and don't want to admit it?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person. Therefore, it's important to love the creation. America does so, Hitler hated it and Sovjet was something between.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a way, I think you are close to right. God is a spiritual force... I use those words because they are the only words man has developed to define God. I also commonly talk about "intelligent design" because those are words we've attached to the concept itself, but I also think man is somewhat incapable of totally grasping God. Perhaps "intelligent" is too invalid a word to apply to God? If God is an energy, imagine electricity... is it "intelligent?" Well, it certainly knows how to light a lightbulb. But is that what we understand "intelligent" to be?
> 
> Same with "design" ...could be the "design" is simply the Operating System enabled in a physical universe and reality is the possibilities present within parameters of that OS? Or it could be that what I am describing as an OS is actually a peripheral for an even larger system yet undiscovered? Lots of possibilities.
> 
> But I do think you are right, man has a problem comprehending God and naturally assigns humanistic characteristics to God in order to better understand and relate.
Click to expand...

Here's a bit of enlightenment for you. Electricity doesn't "know" how to light up a lightbulb. See, this is the problem you religious extremists share. You assign attributes and characteristics to forces of nature just as you do your gods. You're really no different than some stone age knuckle-dragger looking at thunder and lightning around him and based upon his fears and superstitions, begins adding supernatural forces to fully natural processes.

Can I get you a bandaid and some salve for your bleeding knuckles?


----------



## BreezeWood

Taz said:


> That's why I'm agnostic, there's no proof for or against a god.



does the agnostic recognize the Everlasting as an objective for their Spiritual habitation irregardless the question of whether their is a distinctive guidance for its presence or not ?

Edit: is the agnostic destined to perish with their physiology.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> They are liars.  It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding.  Even Q.W. is a liar.  He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic.  The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.



There you o again.

I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal. Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.

Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're in fact the ONLY person in here who has a problem admitting you don't know everything.
> 
> Agnosticism is BASED on NOT KNOWING SOMETHING. So, add daft to your list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that you claim that there is no evidence of god's existence, does it? Does that mean you aren't actually agnostic, or does it mean that you said something stupid and don't want to admit it?
Click to expand...

I didn't say there's no evidence.

You stay owning yourself.

I said there's no absolute proof.

Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.


----------



## dblack

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.
> 
> I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.
Click to expand...


Sure, often they do. But in this case, you're just being a douche, insinuating that atheists don't place as high a priority on their children's well being because they don't share your religious beliefs. The only response such an insult warrants is "Go get fucked", but even that seems like a waste of effort.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, you have just made great errors in your speculations. Is that too hard for you to even consider? {no, I haven't}
> 
> Your professed belief that you talk to God on a daily basis and have received many blessings in your life is indistinguishable from mental illness unless you can offer something more than your professed belief as evidence that what you believe that you are communicating with actually exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Classify it however, it's my evidence. I don't believe, I know. If there were a way for me to prove to you that it existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Evidence does not equal proof. You value my evidence differently. There is nothing  mentally wrong with me for believing in something greater than self, since that's what 95% of our species does. It's actually the 5% who don't that should be worried about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many people who do not appeal to supernatural beings mull things over in their own minds and have received many blessings in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, supernatural things would be things outside of nature, and spirituality is part of human nature. So I reject the assertion spirituality is belief in the supernatural. Blessing is a specific word we assigned for the things we receive through some means greater than self. So we're back to natural human spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that evidence that God does not exist? Of course not.
> 
> I do not refute your claim of evidence because I do not believe in God, I do believe in God, I refute your claim because it is not evidence of anything. It is no more evidence of God or any spiritual reality other than the multitude of delusions possible in an unrestrained imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree, it certainly IS evidence, to tens of millions of people... to 95% of the species... on a regular basis.... for all of human history. Is it PROOF? Nope.
> 
> You want to argue that human spirituality is from our "unrestrained imagination" but the reason we have that is because we are "inspired" *...inspiration....* the root _'spir'_ is important, it means it comes from something greater than ourselves. So you are taking one of the truly wonderful _blessings_ humans universally get from being _spiritual_ creatures, and claiming that as the reason for our spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I read this and it reminded me of how you claim 95% of humans believe "something"
> 
> The guy said, "When you talk about atheists only being 5% of the population, you are just talking about self-identified Atheists, which can’t even be counted in 3rd world countries as they have never even heard that term. But when you add Agnostics and admitted non-believers, you are at around 20% of the world population. When you also consider that in half the world, if you say you don’t believe, you will be killed (yes, God’s loving people) or shunned (like in America), it’s no wonder that percentage isn’t higher. I would expect that about 40% of the world, at least, have no real religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about Atheists. That 95% includes a good number of Atheists who still believe it's possible something greater than self exists. The 5% who believe in absolute nothingness are Nihilist. As for how many humans practice what degree of spirituality through various religious doctrines, I make no arguments.
> 
> When we start breaking down numbers, we can say that... yeah, 60% believe and 40% don't, but only half of those 60% go to church every Sunday, or only 5% become preachers or leaders in their church, or only .0002% become ordained as Saints... etc. According to Christian religion, 0% are perfect. The only real important number with regard to my argument about human spirituality is the 95% of the species who are spiritual.
Click to expand...


I say 95% is too high.  

Oh, and this weekend I heard a Christian on TCT religious tv flat out lie!  He said the people who wrote the bible were all eye witnesses.  First hand accounts he said!  Fucking liar!  See, people are believing a lie Boss.  

If god really exists, someone a long time ago got really lucky when they came up with him.  Its not like god ever visited.

So just consider that.  You may not believe god is made up, but you have to admit everything ever written or said about him is.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are liars.  It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding.  Even Q.W. is a liar.  He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic.  The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you o again.
> 
> I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. *If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal.* Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.
> 
> Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.
Click to expand...


The bold portion of your post is another lie.  You're the dogmatist.  Your insinuation that your lies have not been exposed is another lie.  R has completely exposed your crap.  His post on constructive/intuitionistic logic exposes your lies for what they are.  You're the idiot who doesn't even understand something as simple as the law of excluded middle.

You're a joke, a phony.  And your foul language is just another example of the games you play when you lie.

I challenge you to stop lying.  I challenge you to admit that you have intentionally lied about R's ideas and arguments and that you don't really understand intuitionistic logic.

I'm telling the truth about you as a person who has learned intuitionistic logic in order to follow R's arguments, not yours,  that are based on both classical and intuitionistic logic, liar.  You might be fooling others like you fooled me at first.  But you don't fool me anymore.

You have implied and said things about intuitionistic logic that are false, couldn't be true in a millions years.  I know intuitionistic logic better than you, and the idea that your lying mouth knows more about logic than R is a joke, the biggest lie you've told to date. You are a liar and hypocrite. You're pathetic.   Get off your high horse and admit the truth.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> *Here's the thing about "logic" and what I believe QW was trying to articlute. We can't always say that logic is valid. Most of the time it is, but not always. Logic is often the basis for conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom has been proven wrong numerous times. The double-slit experiment is a good example of logic failing. Turns out, logical assumptions are sometimes false.*
> 
> Now that is not to say that logic is invalid when it comes to objective reasoning. I logically assume God is real because I talk to God daily and God blesses me in my everyday life... could I be wrong? Sure! I could be mentally unstable. but I don't think I am. So my objective reasoning is that God is real and God blesses me daily. I don't need to prove that to anyone else, it doesn't matter.



No one is disputing Q on that.  That is not what the problem is.  It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.

The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true.   He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic.  The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong.  And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately.  He doesn't really believe what he's saying.  He just won't admit that he's wrong.

The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms.  He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that  are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else.  If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things?  He's liar, that's why.  He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic.  He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did.  He just thought from something googled that R was wrong.  Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts.  They do not.  If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters.  He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
Click to expand...


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but you are not behaving like an agnostic. If you honestly are agnostic, then you'd reserve you commentary and not argue so vehemently against God. When someone makes an argument for God, you'd say... _that's interesting, good point, I hadn't thought about that..._ or... _maybe you're right, I don't know._ Instead, we see you repeatedly bash and trash God and those who believe in God. We see a litany of insults and denigration towards God and those who believe in God. You aren't acting like a person who honestly doesn't know, you are acting like an Atheist who's mind is made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
Click to expand...


It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9957728/

The universe is the evidence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Derideo_Te said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which case you should have no problem providing this "universally accepted evidence for God's existence".
> 
> So let's see what you have.
Click to expand...



If you have to ask then you're not letting yourself see the obvious and your making the same mistake as believing that evidence and proof are the same thing when they're not. They are never the same thing in conventional thought because they are not the same thing. G.T. has already admitted the five things. You have to admit them too. Everyone does or they're just lying or being silly about everything being an illusion. Go back and look at what M proved and then you'll see. The idea that there is no universal evidence for God is not even scientific like some fool themselves into believing because they confuse the limits of science and don't think or say te the issue in the right way.

Read:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9957728/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960279/


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
Click to expand...

Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child. 

Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years.  People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

*Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*

*Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*

*It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*

*Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.
> 
> Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years.  People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Justin Davis

IlarMeilyr said:


> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*



"Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Justin Davis said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
Click to expand...


You put quotes marks where they don't belong.  This confuses your meaning.

And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God.  On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.

I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator.  I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well okay, but again... what IS proof? what IS evidence? Can you prove anything to me if I am not willing to accept your evidence? If my mind is thoroughly committed to not accepting what you are attempting to prove, how can you prove it to me?
> 
> The answer is, you can't. It's impossible.
> 
> So you are interested in people trying to do the impossible, demanding they continue trying to do the impossible, so that you can ridicule them for failing to do the impossible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.
> 
> Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years.  People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.

You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
Click to expand...

So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.

Strange, that.


----------



## Justin Davis

IlarMeilyr said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put quotes marks where they don't belong.  This confuses your meaning.
> 
> *And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God.*  On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.
> 
> I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator.  I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.
Click to expand...


I meant to put them around "Prolly not" only.  Actually, you're apparently content to be ignorant about what logical validity, truths, proofs and evidence are because what you just said is objectively and empirically false.  Others who are not content to be ignorant have already debunked what you said.  You don't know of what you speak.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You put quotes marks where they don't belong.  This confuses your meaning.
> 
> *And I am content that there is no valid form of logical argument that PROVES the existence of God.*  On the other hand, I am also content that the existence of God is not dependent upon the ability of humans to formulate a clever syllogism and proof.
> 
> I see plenty of evidence that argues in favor of the existence of a Creator.  I am ok with admitting that this doesn't amount to a logical proof of the existence of a (supernatural) Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant to put them around "Prolly not" only.  Actually, you're apparently content to be ignorant about what logical validity, truths, proofs and evidence are because what you just said is objectively and empirically false.  Others who are not content to be ignorant have already debunked what you said.  You don't know of what you speak.
Click to expand...

And yet, with all your sweaty, chest heaving tirades, you're unable to offer a single pwoof, twoof or logical validity for any of your gods.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.
> 
> QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Q.W. is lying.  Everything about him is just his subjective opinion.  It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says.  I can see that now.  At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies.
> 
> Classical logic is the one thing I know very well.  I have done in depth studies of it.  I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity.  And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too.   Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it.  I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things.   Q.W. does not understand constructive logic.  He pretends to understand it when he doesn't.  The things he is saying or implying cannot be true.  They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things.  You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively.
> 
> The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things.  It can't be any other way by this time.  I'm sick of it.  Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand  the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic.  Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic  and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic.  He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that.  But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad.  I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly.  He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic.  He's a fool  and M is way past Q's understanding of things.  Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn.  The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke.  Yeah.  I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off.  Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mind isn't committed to not accepting.
> 
> That was the first canard that led me to believe you weren't worth conversing with.
> 
> I use reason to evaluate what something is evidence for.
> 
> Humans being spiritual, to me, is evidence that humans are spiritual.
> 
> It is not evidence that spirituality, or a higher anything, _ACTUALLY_ exists. The bar is higher than that.
> 
> Setting a higher bar =/= not accepting anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.
> 
> Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years.  People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.
> 
> You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.
Click to expand...


Simmer down, Adorable, before you pop a bra strap.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not going to go into a chapel.
> 
> Absolutely not.
> 
> In fact, I'd be cursing a God even if I knew one ABSOLUTELY existed for even PUTTING HER THERE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
> 
> Also, what you've surmised is not proof of anything. That's all I'm saying. That other explanations exist and that proof of god is not definitively within current human knowledge means that a rational mind forgoes making conclusions that absolute because it's more honest, reasonable, etc etc to say "I dont know" where you're still lacking proof.
> 
> I also understand that you've got different standards for "proof" than I do, apparently. I suppose that's the same for all humans who are theists. That doesnt hurt my feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, well... may God bless your child and keep her from ever becoming sick like that. I know if it were MY child, whether I hated religions or not, I'd be praying for a miracle. But some people may have different priorities.
> 
> Again... IF I COULD PROVE GOD... we would not be having this conversation. You realize this, no? So let's get that off the table first and foremost, before any more discussion happens... If it were possible for me to prove God to you, then we'd not be having a conversation right now. Period.
> 
> Now... whether or not someone can "prove God" is academic to what is true. I often use what I call the "Jupiter example" here. Many years ago, before man invented telescopes and studied the stars and planets, did the planet Jupiter actually exist? Of course it did, we just had not "proven" it existed yet. The "truth" was that Jupiter was there, it existed, it was real.... we didn't know it, we couldn't prove it. The fact that we lacked the ability to discover Jupiter had no bearing on the truth, and the same applies to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not really interested past that.
> 
> I'm interested in people who believe they've proven god to exist, or proven that he doesn't.
> 
> Other than that, my journey is my own and salami and bacon.
Click to expand...



On  rye or wheat?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't have any beef with QW, or anyone else for that matter. It's just people expressing their opinions on a forum where opinions are expressed. Some people like to present their opinions as facts and tear down the opinions of others by inferring they are irrelevant. That is a debate tactic around here.
> 
> QW and I have not always agreed on things, but that can be said for just about everyone here. It seems to me, he at least makes some attempt to engage in an intellectual conversation, unlike the usual troll brigade. People who just come here to antagonize and insult, offering nothing intellectual to the conversation, are totally not worth my time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Q.W. is lying.  Everything about him is just his subjective opinion.  It only looks like he does things differently because he gets things right lots of times more than others but its just by accident just like M.D.R. says.  I can see that now.  At first I thought the same thing you're saying about him until I started to see his closed mindedness and lies.
> 
> Classical logic is the one thing I know very well.  I have done in depth studies of it.  I have never had any problem understanding M.D.R. about the universality of the principle of identity and Jesus is the ultimate principle of identity.  And I could see that Q.W was lying about the things M.D.R. was saying about that too.   Some of the other stuff was harder to get but I'm getting it.  I had to read and think and research constructive logic to fully get what M.D.R. was saying about other things.   Q.W. does not understand constructive logic.  He pretends to understand it when he doesn't.  The things he is saying or implying cannot be true.  They are stupid and irrational. I'm sorry but I have had enough of his crap getting in the way of important things.  You should carefully read M's, which is what I'm going to start typing instead because it's easier, on constructive logic because it make so much of the things we are talking about crystal clear, things that we all can see objectively.
> 
> The reason I have a problem with Q is because he keeps lying about things.  It can't be any other way by this time.  I'm sick of it.  Anyone with any commonsense at all can see that not only does M accept and understand  the conventions of constructive logic he uses them in his explantion of things along with classical logic.  Q doesn't really understand the nature of either one these forms of logic  and keeps saying that M doesn't accept the conventions of constructive logic.  He's a liar. I'm a plumber in my twenties with a G.E.D. and I can see that.  But I'm also a person who reads and thinks. I just don't have the formal. education others have because I had to take of things for my dad.  I'm not dumb and Q was talking to me condenscendingly.  He's the one whose dogmatic and ignorant. Heck, this self-educated plumber knows more than Q about constructive logic.  He's a fool  and M is way past Q's understanding of things.  Rather than nitpicking and arguing about everything with M he needs to shut up, stop lying and learn.  The idea of Q teaching M how to think outside the box is a joke.  Yeah.  I saw that comment from him to M and laughed my ass off.  Q is a phony and I got a beef with him because he lies consciously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like, reading all your posts, you are pretty committed to not accepting evidence. I've not seen any of this open-mindedness on display, except for when you are crowing and patting yourself on the back for it.
> 
> You just don't seem like you are content with leaving the question of God's existence open or objectively evaluating the evidence presented or the opinions of others. Seems you want to debunk everything that everyone is saying so you can insist that God doesn't really exist. Now maybe you see yourself in a different light, that is common among people. But I just felt I needed to point out to you, that's not how you are coming across at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s the brick wall of the mind that lies to itself. If people like Hollie, Jake, G.T. and even Q.W., which a lot of people still don't get because he only seems to be more sophisticated, were in charge of things we'd still be living in caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like many angry fundamentalists, you become incensed when your specious claims to magical gods are met with a requirement that you support your claims with evidence. That's why you react in typical fashion with lashing out like a petulant child.
> 
> Otherwise, your "living in caves" comment is drenched in the irony that escaped the religious zealot. You’re hoping not to address the fact that religious institutions have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. You need only review the actions of those good Christian church folk in Medieval Europe who kept knowledge and enlightenment a crime for 800 years.  People are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were under the booth eel of the christian church and that's due in large part because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's certainly easier than admitting you're too befuddled to actually address the salient points.
> 
> You angry, self-hating fundies are entirely predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simmer down, Adorable, before you pop a bra strap.
Click to expand...

You were no doubt more entertaining as a slobbering drunk.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
obviously, Admission to the Everlasting is not for everyone nor is it required as a simple passing seems adequate for many.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that there is a wide range of views about free will.  That's my understanding too.  There's lots of debate.\  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that there's very little if any debate that God is always omniscient and timeless.  I'm not sure I'm saying this right but after that you get a wide range of views from  apparent free will to us with God knowing everything  and true free will with God still knowing everything.  The ideas of complete omniscience and God's timelessness, which is all that's meant by eternal now, where is the debate about that until many centuries later when philosophical ideas outside the Bible try to explain it by limiting God?  That's what I don't like.  You and Foxfrye seem to be saying I'm wrong about what the Bible really says and what the church has always believed about the first things, that I'm limiting God.  That's just not true.  I know I don't have the education you guys have but I'm not dumb.  When I see Foxfrye saying that some people are closed minded or refusing to see things some other way, I know that's being pointed at M.D.R. mostly but it's being pointed at me too because I agree with him.  I admit I don't fully see what he does but I'm getting it as I think about it more.  But I get his premises and what follows generally.  Maybe someone is being condescending.  It's not me who is trying to understand it on non-Bible terms but you guys.  If it's all the same to you guys I think its best to go with what the writers of the Bible say.  I don' think its fair to say I'm being close minded or dogmatic to do that.  If the apostles trusted that God could make both real in his unlimited power to create things that way, that's good enough for me.  That's all I'm saying and I think that's what MD.R. means too it seems.  Also,  the problems or paradoxes are much worse and many more if God is not always fully all knowledge.  Maybe you guys haven't thought that through but I have and after reading  what M.D.R. says I'n now more confident than ever that's right.  I get it now more fully.  The principle of identity rightly understood allows something to coherently be two or more things at the same time.  Looks like God is telling us don't sweat it just trust Him and you're saying toss the logic he gave us to see that out the window because it might all be an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is debate about everything in theology, most people are blissfully ignorant about it.
> 
> St. Anselm defined God as the being of which no greater being can be conceived. That definition has since developed into God knowing everything that has ever or will ever occur. The problem is that that doesn't really make sense when we read the Bible.
> 
> I prefer the version of God where he doesn't know the future.
> 
> Jeremiah 29:11 (ESV) For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.​
> He makes plans for our future, but we make the actual choice about whether to follow Him.
> 
> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​
> Why would God repent if He knew from the time he created the universe what would happen? Omniscience is not a ipso facto step into complete foreknowledge of all future events. Just like there are multiple interpretations of free will, theology has multiple interpretations of omniscience, so does philosophy. Don't assume Anselm was right in his definition of God just because it seems a lot simpler than learning the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And while I appreciate your post very much, it also presents a few problems with pure logic.  MDR accused me of denying God the ability to see the future which I didn't do.  "Back to the Future" offers an interesting speculative plot but it is after all fiction and something like that may or may not be possible.  But the fact is, I don't presume to KNOW what God does or does not do, what he knows or does not know, etc.  I know God is and I know He is infinitely larger and more complex and more limitless than anything we mortals will ever be capable of.  But I don't presume to tell him what he can and cannot do.
> 
> Not did I or do I automatically accept a concept that the future already exists simultaneously with the present and past.  The passages you relate for that argument certainly make a case that the ancients did not see a future that already existed, so making a Biblical argument for the omniscience of God that sees all that is going to be just doesn't hold up.  An argument that God has a master plan does hold up Biblically along with an assurance that God will cause it all to be, but not necessarily according to each person or in every detail.
> 
> It is at least as logical to argue that free will is contingent on a future that does not yet exist as it is to argue that the past/present/future exist simultaneously.  The problem begins when any of us presume to know which argument is right as we are not privy to that Information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just ignore the avalanche of scripture and the overwhelming position of believers for centuries since the Apostolic Fathers for absolute omniscience before  philosophical ideas about free will started creeping in?  The scripture sited by Q.W. who deceitfully implies that I don't believe in or that omniscience doesn't allow for free will is right when the Bible clearly states that God's power is infinite?  Are you not aware of the "before the foundations of the earth" declarations throughout the Bible?  How about the scripture that directly applies to the question sited by M.D.R. in the fact of Q.W.'s ambiguous citations?  Are you even going to bother to ask what the problems are that  arise if God is not completely omniscient?  Do you know what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again Justin, I am not going to fight with anybody about this.  The God I know up close and personal will not be limited in any way by me nor will I accept anybody else's pronouncements that he must be this or he must be that or else I (or anybody else) am unscriptural or unChristian or whatever.  And I am confident that the God I know up close and personal will allow me to question, to ponder, to speculate, and to use the logic he gave me to draw conclusions and, if I am wrong about anything important,  and if I don't forget to pay attention, he will guide me to the truth.   If a concept of a free will and a past, present, and future that exists simultaneously is illogical to me, I will at least be honest about that.  If I see an omniscient God that allows our choices to change our future, I don't think he holds that against me.  I think the Bible supports that concept every bit as much as what you are arguing.
> 
> I'm sorry that you and MDR want to make this something contentious and angry instead of an interesting discussion.    It won't hurt me--I have already weathered those storms and am pretty immune--but I wish you would consider how that might look or sound to the one who is still questioning and seeking.
Click to expand...



I have not been contentious or angry with you at all. You have simply uncharacteristically closed your mind to what I have tried to share with you. I understand what you're saying perfectly. I haven't accused you of anything untoward or misstated what you believe. I have accurately stated that your belief limits absolute omniscience unnecessarily, but you take offense to that, though I politely asked to consider something new. It's in the Bible! You don't think it is, but in truth you don't know what I'm talking about.

I understand that the coexistence of actual free will and absolute omniscience isn't logical to you. I understand that, and, moreover, the construct of timelessness (the eternal now) is _not_ an adequate explanation for free will from your perspective at all. I agree with you too. I absolutely agree with that because I know what your perspective is and what its premised on, and the construct of the eternal now wouldn't resolve the problem from your perspective at all.

*I believe in absolute, actual free will and I can absolutely show how it coexists with absolute omniscience without any conflict whatsoever.
*
Clearly, that would necessarily entail something profoundly new to you.

In the meantime, you're arguing from a premise that is _not_ necessary to presuppose. There exists an alternative _paradigm_ in which the construct of the eternal now is merely the premise. It is this paradigm that you have never recognized, never considered, never thought about it. You don’t know what it is.

I have tried to share it with you after respectfully listening to you and understanding what you believe, but instead of being open to understanding this paradigm, which I assure you solves the problem without all of the new problems your "solution" creates, you just tell me what you believe again and why.

To understand it you have to put a name on your premise and back out of your paradigm and enter into the world of mine, and you cannot understand this new paradigm until you grasp the ramifications of the principle of identity. That's what you're closing your mind to.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It's in the Bible!



*
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *

is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.

as is the presumption of the threads title.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
Click to expand...

Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.
Click to expand...


That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence.  Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about?  Oh, that's right ......  you're an idiot.


----------



## Justin Davis

Henrik said:


> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.



Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
Click to expand...


Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.


----------



## sealybobo

IlarMeilyr said:


> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*



So then the answer is to admit you don't know and keep on looking.  

Just remember, we can't prove the things in the bible didn't happen but really it is on you to convince us if you are "spreading the word".  

It is you telling us the stories.  We just don't believe you.  What do we have to prove?  That you are fos?

Do you believe god told Joseph Smith about magic underwear?  Why aren't you a Mormon?  Don't you believe???  What's wrong with you?

Ok, so you understand the Mormon and Muslim religions are man made, right?  Then why isn't yours?

Logic says your religion is bullshit too.  

And if there were 999 other religions before Christianity, what happened to them?  They were all made up too.  They eventually disappeared as we evolved and got smarter.  Chrstianity, Muslim & Jew religions are going away eventually just like all the ones before them.  What will replace them?  A generic god.

Notice how America has laws and doesn't need religion?  We are a secular society.  In other words an atheist run country with the majority of the members being religious.  It was like when Saddam a Sunni ran Iraq that was mostly Shiite.  LOL.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence.  Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about?  Oh, that's right ......  you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


See, me and Hollie are at a disadvantage.  We have to keep track of what each of you believes because none of you believes exactly the same.  Unless you believe everything the bible says?  But even then you might have a different interpretation of the same verse.

Anyways, point is this.  We can only point to the ridiculous stories of your bibles and korans to show you why your specific god is made up.

Now you want to switch to generic god?  Why?  Are you admitting the bible is man made up?  If so, then now we have to prove to you that the entire concept is made up?  Besides your holy books full of lies, what evidence do you have?

Oh yea, because you can't imagine it any other way.  No shit!  That's why our idiot ancestors came up with god.  No other reason.  Not any that don't come with some fatal flaw.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
Click to expand...


Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?  

Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.

And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, you're clueless. Your pontificating and bible thumping aside, you have never come close to understanding the divide that exists between your pwoofs of the gods and a logical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's about an idea that's in the Bible, not a proof of God's existence.  Why are you always clueless about what people are talking about?  Oh, that's right ......  you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, me and Hollie are at a disadvantage.  We have to keep track of what each of you believes because none of you believes exactly the same.  Unless you believe everything the bible says?  But even then you might have a different interpretation of the same verse.
> 
> Anyways, point is this.  We can only point to the ridiculous stories of your bibles and korans to show you why your specific god is made up.
> 
> Now you want to switch to generic god?  Why?  Are you admitting the bible is man made up?  If so, then now we have to prove to you that the entire concept is made up?  Besides your holy books full of lies, what evidence do you have?
> 
> Oh yea, because you can't imagine it any other way.  No shit!  That's why our idiot ancestors came up with god.  No other reason.  Not any that don't come with some fatal flaw.
Click to expand...


Hollie is at a grave disadvantage because he's an idiot always blurting the same kinds of things regardless of what anyone is talking about.  He's a hateful, ill-mannered barbarian. 

When you "point to ridiculous stories" presumably you're talking about miraculous events attributed to God, right?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
Click to expand...


Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.



I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?
Click to expand...


Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.
Click to expand...


How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".  

The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.

Why did the lightening strike down grampa?  Zeus wanted him.  Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us?  Because we were bad.  The Lion dragged dad off?  That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.
Click to expand...


Right.  But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did?  We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did.  That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
Click to expand...


Give us 3 "proofs" please.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did?  We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did.  That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
Click to expand...


If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine.  We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible.  Does it matter if we believe?  

It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
Click to expand...


The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.



That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".
> 
> The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.
> 
> Why did the lightening strike down grampa?  Zeus wanted him.  Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us?  Because we were bad.  The Lion dragged dad off?  That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.
Click to expand...


sealybobo, why are you afraid to just simply state the facts of existence and origin in an objective way without bias?  A rose is a rose.  Keep it simple and objective.  When you go off on your tangents making subjective, personal opinions about the origin of existence as if they were absolute truths you're essentially claiming to be the origin of the universe.

Did you cause your own existence?  No you didn't.  Do you recognize like everybody else that there must be something uncaused that has always existed either material or immaterial?  Yes you do.  Do you believe this something is material?  Yes you do.  And so you also believe that it could be the other option, immaterial?  Yes you do. 

There you have it.  That's the situation.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
Click to expand...


Science says that it is wishful thinking.  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.  

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?  

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows? 

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
Click to expand...


What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
Click to expand...


So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws. 

Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Why there is no god


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says that it is wishful thinking.  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
Click to expand...


Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
Click to expand...


Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How we were created is exactly the question our ancient ancestors asked and they came up with "must have been a god or creator".
> 
> The other reason it matters is theists have a bogus creation story which leads us to believe that the story was the best they could come up with back at that time when they didn't know about science.
> 
> Why did the lightening strike down grampa?  Zeus wanted him.  Why did the drought or famine kill so many of us?  Because we were bad.  The Lion dragged dad off?  That's ok, he's with the other warriors in the sky and one day we will join him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sealybobo, why are you afraid to just simply state the facts of existence and origin in an objective way without bias?  A rose is a rose.  Keep it simple and objective.  When you go off on your tangents making subjective, personal opinions about the origin of existence as if they were absolute truths you're essentially claiming to be the origin of the universe.
> 
> Did you cause your own existence?  No you didn't.  Do you recognize like everybody else that there must be something uncaused that has always existed either material or immaterial?  Yes you do.  Do you believe this something is material?  Yes you do.  And so you also believe that it could be the other option, immaterial?  Yes you do.
> 
> There you have it.  That's the situation.
Click to expand...


Huh?  

Ok, so my parents had to breed to have me.  Something must have created them and so on.  

So who gave birth to god?  Can't have it both ways.

So you are saying "the creator" is eternal?  Why can't the universe be eternal instead?  In other words, in a trillion years this planet might be turned to dust and our sun will burn out, but everything will be recycled and maybe one day eventually the rock that we call earth will end up on some other planet that is in the goldilock zone away from a sun and life happens again somewhere out there in space or in another universe on the other side of a black hole.  What you see around you might not aways be there but time space and matter have always been and will always be.  

Even though there is very little life in space, I say "life will continue".  But actually, no life will mostly continue.  If you look out in space, you'll see we are all alone.  But there are I"m sure thousands of other planets out there with life on them.  One day they'll die too and somewhere else in another universe or on the other side of a black hole life will start again.  

But you'll be dead just like the frog or fish or turkey you ate.  You are just a human.  Boy do you theists think a lot of yourselves.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science says that it is wishful thinking.  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.
Click to expand...


My grandmothers "self" died about 5 years ago.  Now the worms are eating what's left of her.  I'd love to think there is a heaven where someday I'll join her but I know that's just wishful thinking.  But I'm ok with that.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.
> 
> Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Why there is no god
Click to expand...


What utter nonsense this is.  There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw.  That's gibberish, meaningless.


----------



## sealybobo

What created us?  The universe.  What created the universe or the big bang?  Don't know.  To put GOD in the blank is just ignorant.  Better to admit we don't know and keep looking.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.
> 
> Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter nonsense this is.  There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw.  That's gibberish, meaningless.
Click to expand...


I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it.  I'm talking about the evidence not your god.  Relax.

However, I do agree your god is flawed.

_“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.
> 
> Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter nonsense this is.  There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw.  That's gibberish, meaningless.
Click to expand...


The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo

God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince _any_ atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.
In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince _any_ atheist of said god’s existence.


----------



## sealybobo

_“Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.”_ – Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
Click to expand...


*Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> So who gave birth to god?



You tell me. It's your idea.  Do you or do you not exist? Yes. You exist. Have you always existed? No you haven't. Has something material or immaterial always existed? Yes ….. or are you saying "no, we came from nothing."  Make up your mind.

How do some people manage to tie their shoes is what I'm wondering?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.
> 
> Strange, that.
Click to expand...


What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."

Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).  

That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok.  As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof."  But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
Click to expand...


? what two options?


----------



## Justin Davis

IlarMeilyr said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.
> 
> Strange, that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."
> 
> Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).
> 
> That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok.  As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof."  But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.

These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.

Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? what two options?
Click to expand...


Something has always existed or we came from nothing.  Which is it?  If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent?  Why are you struggling with this?


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
Click to expand...



proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.

.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? what two options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something has always existed or we came from nothing.  Which is it?  If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent?  Why are you struggling with this?
Click to expand...


I'm not 'struggling'. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to in your post. As I said, I don't think the question of creation is the same as the question of the existence of gods. I think they are likely completely unrelated.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I asked you for 3 and you gave me one and that one has flaws.
> 
> Number 26 Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter nonsense this is.  There is no such thing as evidence for God having a fatal flaw.  That's gibberish, meaningless.
Click to expand...

There's lots of evidence to define your gods as incompetent "designers".


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.
> 
> Strange, that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."
> 
> Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).
> 
> That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok.  As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof."  But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.
> 
> These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.
> 
> Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.
Click to expand...

Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
Click to expand...


More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical. 

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates. 

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? what two options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something has always existed or we came from nothing.  Which is it?  If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent?  Why are you struggling with this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not 'struggling'. I just wasn't sure what you were referring to in your post. As I said, I don't think the question of creation is the same as the question of the existence of gods. I think they are likely completely unrelated.
Click to expand...


Well I think I agree with that.  All I'm saying is that existence is the first principle.  And the next question is how do we exist?  That's all.  The idea of creation, which presupposes a Creator, comes in after that as one of the options.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think god is just a name for the creation. The human mind need to specify the creation in the shape of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is right sort of but the thing actually attached to this understanding of a creation is Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the concept of 'god' synonymous with 'creator' for most of you? I don't see any natural reason why the two are treated as the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  I'm not sure what he has in his mind exactly. The word "creation" implies "creator."  The existence of the universe could be material or personal, or the existence of "I" or "myself" is the recognition that "I" or "myself" is not the origin of my existence.  The origin of my existence could be material or personal.  This is the same idea you pointed:  the "I" and "God" are the same idea basically.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
Click to expand...


True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on  inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god.  Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right?  It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't science see what created us?  Why can't we figure it out?  Is this "creator" intelligent?  Do you believe in heaven and hell?
> 
> Without religions, all you are saying is something created all we see and all we are saying is we see no evidence of that.  We understand all the reasons why you feel or want there to be a creator but until we see some evidence we remain skeptical.  Even if we WANT to believe we know as scientists that's probably just wishful thinking.
> 
> And without religion, there is no reason to argue.  Right?  You believe something created all this and needs to be worshipped and we don't.  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did?  We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did.  That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine.  We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible.  Does it matter if we believe?
> 
> It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.
Click to expand...


No evidence for God?  Are you crazy?  If there's no evidence for God then why to you keep talking about God.  You have no idea how silly you are as you tell others to shut up with lies.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> *Prolly not.  But the inability to provide a syllogism of that kind hardly constitutes proof that God does not exist, either.*
> 
> *It really is a matter of faith and belief, rather than one of evidence and science and proof.*
> 
> *Nobody, for that matter, can offer a proof that matter/energy/time/space all came into being without a cause, either.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.
> 
> Strange, that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."
> 
> Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).
> 
> That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok.  As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof."  But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.
> 
> These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.
> 
> Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.
Click to expand...


You lie.  Liars, liars everywhere.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?



I agree.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Prolly not is wrong."  Don't let that guy fool ya.   His claims have been stomped to pieces on this thread.  The objective facts of origin and the arguments for God's existence are very powerful.
> 
> 
> 
> So are the facts and arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, space alien abductions and the zombie apocalypse, at least according to the nutbars who believe in those things. Strange how your claims to magical gods are no more or less absurd than the claims of other nutbars.
> 
> Strange, that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's strange is that you would make THAT absurd and factually false "argument" in support of your "position."
> 
> Whereas there exists NO credible provable (verifiable) "facts" or "evidence" for the existence of a Bigfoot (and zero arguments worthy of the term "logic") for the existence of a Bigfoot or Zombies or alien abductions, there remains one pretty viable argument based on fact in support of the existence of "God" (although it is not a "proof" by any means).
> 
> That you might not find that ultimate factual underpinning supportive of the proposition that 'God exists' is ok.  As I noted, the facts and arguments do not qualify as a "proof."  But they do lead to a conclusion (if you are being honest and open-minded) that the explanation for all of creation absent a God is no stronger than the explanation for all of creation premised on a God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Proofs for God's existence based on the evidence of the existence of the universe itself absolutely do exist and they are absolutely, justifiably true under the rules of organic/classical logic. You don't know what you’re talking about. This fact has already been established on this thread by people who know what they're talking about.
> 
> These proofs are simply not proofs under the rules of science. That’s all, because science can only deal with direct evidence from which only empirical theories can be inferred.
> 
> Why do people keep inserting subjective opinions into the equation and confuse what is an objective and simple matter? You're coming onto this thread late in the game repeating things that have already been falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, sorry, but the universe existing in no way suggests your gods or any other gods are responsible. Cutting and pasting meaningless terms such as "organic logic" makes you appear as be trying way, way to hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lie.  Liars, liars everywhere.
Click to expand...

Yours are the rabid conspiracy theories that afflict religious zealots.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on  inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god.  Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right?  It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.



I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. Existence is the evidence for God. We have logical proofs for God's existence based on that evidence for all over the place. But these proofs are not proofs in the ultimate sense, because their based on  inferential evidence, not direct evidence. That’s all. But there's plenty of reason to believe He exists. But what God? That's the next question. The logically straightforward, simplest solution is that God is the supremely unparalleled being or He's not god.  Where you go from there gets into divine revelation, right?  It seems like God would have to reveal Himself in some direct way after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
Click to expand...


I'm not assuming there's only one God.  I'm saying, objectively, that whoever the ultimate God is, is.  There is no religion in the world that does not place an ultimate universal principle or being at the top.  Why?  Because something has to be ultimate if origin is not material logically.  Divine revelation?  You said people experience divinity.  Is that a form of revelation or are you saying it's just imagined?  There's no reason to believe that a divinity that can make the cosmos directly can't reveal itself directly.  What's an indirect entity?


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.



Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:

I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

1. You've conceded that we exist.

Check.

2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

Check.

3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

Check.

4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

Check.

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

Check.

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that it's presumptive of you to make judgements about what others have not conceded?

Check.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So?  What's your point?  Oh, I see.  While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment."  Great.  What am I supposed to do with that?  How do you know that?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
Click to expand...


Dude.  LOL!  Get 'me!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.... I guess. It's just that I see plenty of proof that gods exist, but not necessarily any reason to believe any of them were responsible for creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
Click to expand...


Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW.  LOL!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> I didn't say there's no evidence.
> 
> You stay owning yourself.
> 
> I said there's no absolute proof.
> 
> Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.



You are one of those people. My apologies for overestimating your intelligence and grasp of the English language.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> The bold portion of your post is another lie.  You're the dogmatist.  Your insinuation that your lies have not been exposed is another lie.  R has completely exposed your crap.  His post on constructive/intuitionistic logic exposes your lies for what they are.  You're the idiot who doesn't even understand something as simple as the law of excluded middle.
> 
> You're a joke, a phony.  And your foul language is just another example of the games you play when you lie.
> 
> I challenge you to stop lying.  I challenge you to admit that you have intentionally lied about R's ideas and arguments and that you don't really understand intuitionistic logic.
> 
> I'm telling the truth about you as a person who has learned intuitionistic logic in order to follow R's arguments, not yours,  that are based on both classical and intuitionistic logic, liar.  You might be fooling others like you fooled me at first.  But you don't fool me anymore.
> 
> You have implied and said things about intuitionistic logic that are false, couldn't be true in a millions years.  I know intuitionistic logic better than you, and the idea that your lying mouth knows more about logic than R is a joke, the biggest lie you've told to date. You are a liar and hypocrite. You're pathetic.   Get off your high horse and admit the truth.



Either link to the lies you claim have been exposed, or shut the fuck up.

Just to point out how absurd your position is, as far as I know Rawlings has no presented any original thoughts. Everything he states has been part of human debate for centuries. I will admit I usually skim his posts because I see no original thought in them, so I might have missed something, but nothing I said about his posts in any way address any of his ideas.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> No one is disputing Q on that.  That is not what the problem is.  It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.
> 
> The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true.   He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic.  The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong.  And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately.  He doesn't really believe what he's saying.  He just won't admit that he's wrong.
> 
> The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms.  He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that  are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else.  If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things?  He's liar, that's why.  He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic.  He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did.  He just thought from something googled that R was wrong.  Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts.  They do not.  If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters.  He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.



Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.

By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say there's no evidence.
> 
> You stay owning yourself.
> 
> I said there's no absolute proof.
> 
> Conflate them as synonymns all you want, troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one of those people. My apologies for overestimating your intelligence and grasp of the English language.
Click to expand...

you didnt overestimate shit

you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa

but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag

congrats


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude.  LOL!  Get 'me!
Click to expand...



Yeah. I know.  I got mad.  But this silliness has got to stop somewhere.  I know you said that Foxfyre is good people and I suppose she is but I'm not putting  up with her nanny lectures or being condescended to about my posts that tell people to stop lying about what I'm saying, attacking my reputation or like how QW attacked your reputation by intentionally pretending that you were wrong when you were obviously right and he's just lying and pretending to know something he doesn't.  Screw that.  That's on the liar, not me.  QW is a liar and she's just turning a blind eye on his disgraceful behavior while nanny-nanny lecturing those whose reputations  are being lied about.   What in the world is wrong with her?  She's a hypocrite and a fool.   

And what's that silliness she wrote about how *"there are logical arguments that are just as logical as yours or others"?* I'm putting that in bold.  Is that an absolute proclamation from her high horse that makes any sense at all?  That's a lie!  How can LOGICAL arguments asserting one thing be just as LOGICAL as other arguments that assert the opposite?  She doesn't really believe that.  That's a lie.  And because I don't buy stupid things like that or some of the other stupid things she said like that, I'm closed minded, I'm dogmatic.  What is she being when she says stupid things like that that she doesn't really believe can be true and closes her mind to a solution for free will that solves the problem, as her supposed solution solves one problem put creates a bunch of other problems that are even worse?  How is that more logical than mine?  What a fraud she is.  The truth is that she got all emotional because I wouldn't accept her stupid idea that's not even logical or biblical.  Boo hoo.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.



Not true, many cultures have a gods that are not eternal. You can get up on a high horse and claim that your god is the only possible god, but that puts you in a pretty tight bind.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that it's presumptive of you to make judgements about what others have not conceded?
> 
> Check.
Click to expand...


Do you exist or not?  Yes you exist.  What's next?  Why do people lie to themselves like this?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW.  LOL!



You might have a point, if I ever said anything you just quoted.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.



That is pretty close to what I think.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that *the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense.  Maybe I didn't say it right.  The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea.  Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did?  We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did.  That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine.  We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible.  Does it matter if we believe?
> 
> It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No evidence for God?  Are you crazy?  If there's no evidence for God then why to you keep talking about God.  You have no idea how silly you are as you tell others to shut up with lies.
Click to expand...


This is the best comeback you have?  I'd think if you had any evidence you would have included it.  

I'm assuming you don't mean the bible or koran.  So besides these books full of lies, what other evidence?  I mean besides you can't imagine or believe otherwise because that aint evidence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing Q on that.  That is not what the problem is.  It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.
> 
> The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true.   He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic.  The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong.  And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately.  He doesn't really believe what he's saying.  He just won't admit that he's wrong.
> 
> The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms.  He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that  are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else.  If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things?  He's liar, that's why.  He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic.  He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did.  He just thought from something googled that R was wrong.  Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts.  They do not.  If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters.  He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.
> 
> By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?
Click to expand...


Lying about what people have said, pretending they have said things they did not as you pretend to know things you do not is not attacking them?  Another lie from you.


----------



## sealybobo

Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened.  Big difference.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it.  I'm talking about the evidence not your god.  Relax.



Evidence does not have flaws, arguments do. You keep conflating evidence with arguments, and dismissing it because you are unwilling to actually consider the possibility that, if you looked at the entire body of evidence, you would understand that proof is actually a word you misunderstood.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Hollie said:


> There's lots of evidence to define your gods as incompetent "designers".



Only if you first assume that the gods actually designed something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> you didnt overestimate shit
> 
> you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa
> 
> but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag
> 
> congrats



I didn't?

Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?

Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? what two options?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Something has always existed or we came from nothing.  Which is it?  If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent?  Why are you struggling with this?
Click to expand...


Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give us 3 "proofs" please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
Click to expand...


Bullshit!  A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too.  Seems to science like wishful thinking.

That's just their current theory.  They are open to being wrong.  It is YOU who is not.


----------



## G.T.

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt overestimate shit
> 
> you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa
> 
> but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag
> 
> congrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't?
> 
> Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?
> 
> Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.
Click to expand...

actually, i asked you your theory on origins and you responded by saying you dont tell the boards that cuz youre afraid that nobody is smart enough to understand it

do i need to quote you?

douchebag


----------



## sealybobo

Cognitive Science.  

5 Ways Science is Studying the Brain Discovery Channel

Atheist Empire God and the Brain

There is so much you don't know.

Through the Wormhole Did We Invent God Videos Science Channel

Science and religion God didn t make man man made gods - Los Angeles Times


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you didnt overestimate shit
> 
> you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa
> 
> but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag
> 
> congrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't?
> 
> Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?
> 
> Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.
Click to expand...


Yea douchbag.  LOL


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is disputing Q on that.  That is not what the problem is.  It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.
> 
> The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true.   He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic.  The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong.  And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately.  He doesn't really believe what he's saying.  He just won't admit that he's wrong.
> 
> The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms.  He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that  are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else.  If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things?  He's liar, that's why.  He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic.  He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did.  He just thought from something googled that R was wrong.  Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts.  They do not.  If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters.  He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.
> 
> By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?
Click to expand...


Let me say this another way.  You attacked him with lies.  You attacked the credibility of what Rawlings said, his reputation when all he was talking about are objective, academic things that anyone can check out.  Foxfrye obviously doesn't bother to do that kind of thing and blames those who do check things ouot for your disgraceful behavior.  She's an idiot.  You presented personal opinions as absolute facts to make yourself look smarter and to sneer. I saw your game. You fooled me at first and fooled gullible nanny Foxfyre, but you don’t fool me anymore.  And it was all lies.  Stupid lies.  Illogical lies.  Factual lies.  I studied up on constructive logic to check you out as you were obviously lying about classical logic as Rawlings clearly showed.  He didn't attack you the way you mean, liar.  He called you out for what you are and proved it every time, liar.

Here’s another stupid thing you said while trying to make Rawlings look like he was wrong on something when he wasn‘t. You said that science, philosophy and logic can’t define dark matter and dark energy. No cokadoodledoodo, retard. These things don’t define anything and never have. But that’s not the way you meant that. You were trying to say that logic doesn’t hold up universally, which is a hogwash lie. You have no proof, that's your opinion. How stupid is that? That’s what happens when liars lie to change what’s true. We define things using these mediums of knowledge and logic is just a tool we use to define things in these mediums. How stupid is it to talk about things as if they were persons. See how liars confuse themselves? No one has to attack you to show what a liar you are, just point out the stupid things you say when you’re lying about what others are saying so  you can look superior.


----------



## sealybobo

Quantum Windbag said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it.  I'm talking about the evidence not your god.  Relax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence does not have flaws, arguments do. You keep conflating evidence with arguments, and dismissing it because you are unwilling to actually consider the possibility that, if you looked at the entire body of evidence, you would understand that proof is actually a word you misunderstood.
Click to expand...


If you show me your bible as evidence, it has flaws.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.


----------



## sealybobo

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham

Why there is no god


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are they?  I'll tell you what they are.  They are variations that all come down to these two options.  There are no other options.  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true, many cultures have a gods that are not eternal. You can get up on a high horse and claim that your god is the only possible god, but that puts you in a pretty tight bind.
Click to expand...


So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense.  Looks like I win.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.
> 
> I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too.  Seems to science like wishful thinking.
> 
> That's just their current theory.  They are open to being wrong.  It is YOU who is not.
Click to expand...


So where is your Lying QW link for this so I can show how you got the science wrong?


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Science says that it is wishful thinking.*  Humans have always looked up and wondered.  That's not proof there is a god.  That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.
> 
> I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists.  Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists.  Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware?  So what?  And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too.  As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?
> 
> And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator.  There might be one, but who knows?
> 
> Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind?  He sure does.  Does that mean god is real?  Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't say anything.  Science doesn't even do anything.  We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical.  sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Creation science* or *scientific creationism* is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.
> 
> The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham
> 
> Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too.  Seems to science like wishful thinking.
> 
> That's just their current theory.  They are open to being wrong.  It is YOU who is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So where is your Lying QW link for this so I can show how you got the science wrong?
Click to expand...


post 1731


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.



Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have a point, if I ever said anything you just quoted.
Click to expand...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960056/

Did you forget my response to your last Lying QW post?  Remember how I mimicked your questions that implied things that weren't in your link at all?


Are you ignorant?

Yes, of course your ignorant.

Yeah. Let's find out.

Yeah. I noticed that you provided a citation.

What is this evidence for?

What's is your position?

What's my alleged dogma?

You don't really tells anything here, do you?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
___________________________________________

Let's review your dogma, which was the notion that the proper term--remember?--for referring to this law is *the law of identity*.

But that's not always true. Why is that I wonder. Well, actually I don't wonder.

What do we see here? Why, what we see is my term that you said was improper: *the principle of identity*.

My term: *the principle of identity.*

Your term: *the law of identity.*

Which one of these is in your citation?

Uh-oh, that would be my term, my term, my term . . . not yours. Oops. Why is that?

And why are the other two expressed as the *law* of contradiction and the *law* of the excluded middle in this case, as juxtaposed against the *principle* of identity?

Why the shift?

In fact, more often than not they will all be referred to as _laws_ on equal terms, as considered separately from the comprehensive principle.

And why are they listed contradiction, excluded middle (laws) and _then_ identity (principle)?

They're normally listed identity, contradiction and excluded middle.

So what is this particular iteration of the three alluding to?

Essentially the comprehensive principle goes to ontological being. _What is it?_ What is it's identity as opposed to the identity of all other things. Identity is the overarching theme!

1. Everything is. . . . (Everything that exists has a specific nature.)
2. Nothing can be. . . .
3. Everything must . . . be.

You see, we don't do two or three, until we one is established. Then we have the complete nature of the thing (with some things being two or more things simultaneously) and the comprehensive principle. Hello!

But then dogmatic thinking is all you've got: copy and paste, regurgitation. You really have no clue. In fact, the discrete law of identity proper and the comprehensive principle of identity are much more complex than you seem to think, dogma man.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?
Click to expand...


We don't know.  Are you saying god planted his seed?  Is that your final answer?  Because that is plain old ignorant.  Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?
Click to expand...

The gawds created meteors to chase away jinn. 

Everyone knows that.


“_And (the Jinn who had listened to the Qur'an said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors._
Koran 72:8

You just need some new gawds.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?
Click to expand...


Number 21

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch).

_“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan

_“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Why there is no god


----------



## Quantum Windbag

G.T. said:


> actually, i asked you your theory on origins and you responded by saying you dont tell the boards that cuz youre afraid that nobody is smart enough to understand it
> 
> do i need to quote you?
> 
> douchebag



What I said is you wouldn't understand the math, and the question you asked was not about origins. Feel free to quote it to prove yourself wrong, if you really feel the need.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> Let me say this another way.  You attacked him with lies.  You attacked the credibility of what Rawlings said, his reputation when all he was talking about are objective, academic things that anyone can check out.  Foxfrye obviously doesn't bother to do that kind of thing and blames those who do check things ouot for your disgraceful behavior.  She's an idiot.  You presented personal opinions as absolute facts to make yourself look smarter and to sneer. I saw your game. You fooled me at first and fooled gullible nanny Foxfyre, but you don’t fool me anymore.  And it was all lies.  Stupid lies.  Illogical lies.  Factual lies.  I studied up on constructive logic to check you out as you were obviously lying about classical logic as Rawlings clearly showed.  He didn't attack you the way you mean, liar.  He called you out for what you are and proved it every time, liar.
> 
> Here’s another stupid thing you said while trying to make Rawlings look like he was wrong on something when he wasn‘t. You said that science, philosophy and logic can’t define dark matter and dark energy. No cokadoodledoodo, retard. These things don’t define anything and never have. But that’s not the way you meant that. You were trying to say that logic doesn’t hold up universally, which is a hogwash lie. You have no proof, that's your opinion. How stupid is that? That’s what happens when liars lie to change what’s true. We define things using these mediums of knowledge and logic is just a tool we use to define things in these mediums. How stupid is it to talk about things as if they were persons. See how liars confuse themselves? No one has to attack you to show what a liar you are, just point out the stupid things you say when you’re lying about what others are saying so  you can look superior.



I did not, but feel free to keep lying to yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> If you show me your bible as evidence, it has flaws.
> 
> There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
> 
> The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.
> 
> The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.



There you go assuming you are intelligent again.

Can you point out to me anywhere in that post where I said the Bible is evidence?

Didn't think so, which makes your entire post a straw man argument.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

sealybobo said:


> There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
> 
> All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
> 
> The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
> 
> The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
> 
> Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.
> 
> The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:
> 
> _“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham
> 
> Why there is no god



Yet there is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Justin Davis said:


> So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense.  Looks like I win.



Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking."  All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion.  Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.
> 
> These scientists are not saying what you said.  It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false.  That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.
> 
> You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything.  We say what science is and what it is not.  We do science, science doesn't do itself.  And we say what science demonstrates.
> 
> You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up.  Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words.  I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds.  Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world.  You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian.  Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause.  You are the one saying something that is false, not me.
> 
> But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true.  Liars.  Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute.  No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny.  I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread *about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude.  LOL!  Get 'me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know.  I got mad.  But this silliness has got to stop somewhere.  I know you said that Foxfyre is good people and I suppose she is but I'm not putting  up with her nanny lectures or being condescended to about my posts that tell people to stop lying about what I'm saying, attacking my reputation or like how QW attacked your reputation by intentionally pretending that you were wrong when you were obviously right and he's just lying and pretending to know something he doesn't.  Screw that.  That's on the liar, not me.  QW is a liar and she's just turning a blind eye on his disgraceful behavior while nanny-nanny lecturing those whose reputations  are being lied about.   What in the world is wrong with her?  She's a hypocrite and a fool.
> 
> And what's that silliness she wrote about how *"there are logical arguments that are just as logical as yours or others"?* I'm putting that in bold.  Is that an absolute proclamation from her high horse that makes any sense at all?  That's a lie!  How can LOGICAL arguments asserting one thing be just as LOGICAL as other arguments that assert the opposite?  She doesn't really believe that.  That's a lie.  And because I don't buy stupid things like that or some of the other stupid things she said like that, I'm closed minded, I'm dogmatic.  What is she being when she says stupid things like that that she doesn't really believe can be true and closes her mind to a solution for free will that solves the problem, as her supposed solution solves one problem put creates a bunch of other problems that are even worse?  How is that more logical than mine?  What a fraud she is.  The truth is that she got all emotional because I wouldn't accept her stupid idea that's not even logical or biblical.  Boo hoo.
Click to expand...


Okay.   It's not my place to tell you what to say.  I'm afraid to cross you.  LOL!  Just kidding.  I just wanted to let you know she means well. She just wasn't thinking things through or realizing what QW was doing. But I take your point. I too was rankled by the notion that defending my posts against his lies constituted a sin on my part when it's he who is intentionally  lying, for we were well past the point of it being mere ignorance.  But just keep in mind that she never really understood what QW was actually doing. If it weren't premeditated I wouldn't be on his case. She was thinking that he might be right, not realizing that he wasn't. You and I know he was lying the whole time.  She just wasn't comparing the things I was actually writing against the things he claimed I was writing because she closed her mind off to my posts.

That's what you get when you only listen to one side of the story.  Junk.  Just like she never bothered with the other side of the story about free will.  She still really has no clue as to the problems you were trying to tell her about.

It just never occurred to QW's arrogant ass that he was dealing with someone who actually knows the various forms of logic for realies, not pretendies, someone who doesn't need links and quotes off the Internet to make his case because it's already in his head, once again, for realies, not pretendies. LOL!


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.





Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
Click to expand...


We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are liars.  It is their lies that stop thought, exploration, and understanding.  Even Q.W. is a liar.  He doesn't even see what constructive logic tells us about God because he understand constructive logic.  The blind leading the mind is really the dull leading the dull.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you o again.
> 
> I challenge you to show me one time that I ever said anything about intuitionistic logic related to god. Just because I have not used intuitionistic logic to discuss god does not mean I don't understand it. If you look back you will see that the only thing I have done is point out to the dogmatists that classical logic is not universal. Since I have done that they have attacked me and accused me of saying things I have not said.
> 
> Get the fuck off your high horse, I have been studying this issue for longer than you and Rawlings combined, I know what I am saying, and am very careful to make sure that nothing I say is open to a challenge form anyone but an unthinking idiot.
Click to expand...


Why are you asking him to show what has already been shown to you?  Here ya go. 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960056/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954159/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954171/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954248/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9954332/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948790/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9948620/


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*On the Universal Principle of Identity I*

This is addressed to Fox, *Justin*, but you might as well read it as it pertains to what ol' QW would have us not think about, and apparently Fox doesn't want to think about it either.  Her post, however, is illustrative.  It's not hard, just requires some background, so I'll break it up into different parts.



Foxfyre said:


> I have only argued that there is more than one way to look at the existence and attributes of God, how he works in the world, free will, and the scriptures that bear testimony to him, and also *that arguments that oppose yours can be just as logical as yours are*.



I don't dispute any of that except what's in bold. That is a bald assertion, an empirically verifiable assertion that you have not demonstrated. And because you can't imagine how that could possibly be false and because I refuse to take your word on it sans any said demonstration, you assume to know something I don't. You assume that I am being closed-minded and dogmatic.

Are you sure that's true, given the fact of the inherent logical problem with your statement pointed out by Justin?

What precisely are these arguments that are just as logically valid as the view of historical orthodoxy?

The fact of the matter is that all of the variously tweaked arguments are variations on three solutions. Two of them are asserted within the realm of _your_ paradigm. Your solution is the diminution of divine omniscience based on the assumption that the coexistence of absolute omniscience and free will is, otherwise, an irresolvable paradox, which merely begs the question as it disregards the ramifications of the principle of identity.

There is no question that QW has mangled the facts of logic on this thread, initially out of ignorance, while setting himself up as one who is an authority on logic. He is no such thing. He's a fraud. And his responses to correction in which he habitually claims that I do not understand or accept the conventions of alternate forms of logic, or that alternate forms of logic overturn anything I've shared on this thread are not only false, but evince that he is consciously lying, deliberatively and shamelessly. Justin understands classical and constructive logic better than he, and Justin is just learning the latter.

You have decided that Justin and I are out of line for calling him out on this, but that is merely you closing your mind to the reality of the situation.

Apparently you missed the several posts written by me wherein I disregarded QW's sneering arrogance and did not respond in kind . . . at first. Apparently you missed Justin's conciliatory note regarding the essence of QW's misapprehension of the law of the excluded middle. Apparently you missed the fact that QW avoided my post on constructive logic and continued to imply that I was ignorant of the facts.

* 
I have been formulating mathematical proofs in constructive logic for years*. No one who understood the conventions of constructive logic, let alone the conventions of logic in general, at the level he implies to operate at, while never once demonstrating anything of the kind, mind you, would spout his sophomorically inane tripe. There's no way in hell his tripe about the principle of identity, for example, could be true.

All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

*Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*​
That does not violate any of the laws of thought! If it did, given the fact that the laws of thought are hardwired and hold universally for all sound, developmentally mature minds, we wouldn't be able to do expressive set logic regarding complex entities of single predicates, including concepts like infinity, eternity, absoluteness, perfection, universality and so on. . . . We obviously do apprehend and define these concepts metaphysically and semantically without breaking a sweat.

And the alternate rules for axioms in artificial, alternate-world forms of logic (which are still contingent on real-world, organic logic) do not undermine this universal principle of identity in any way, shape or form.

* 
Any given A may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously* holds true in constructive logic too: it remains an incontrovertible proposition assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof. The fact of the suspension of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms in construct logic are utterly irrelevant. Those axioms in classical logic are the analytical proofs for the universal principle, and in constructive logic, instances of violations of the excluded middle and double negation elimination can still be demonstrated discretely on a case-by-case basis. This universal principle of identity is analytically affirmed by these in constructive logic too.

QW is an idiot and a liar pretending to understand things he does not.

But allow me to make his error abundantly clear as promised earlier.

Let's take the now proverbial Lying QW example of the Majorana particle, which is a discrete subatomic particle that is both matter and antimatter simultaneously; i.e., the Majorana fermion is it's own matter _and_ antimatter simultaneously.  Now according to Mr. Logic this existent violates the organic/classical law of the excluded middle:  For all A: A OR ~A, which means that any given proposition/entity must be either its positive or negative form, or everything must either be or not be.

To get the gist of this law, we must understand the gist of the others first.  The law of identity states that A = A, which means that whatever a thing is, it is.  The law of contradiction states that NOT (A = NOT-A), which means that any given proposition/entity cannot be what it is and not what it is; in other words, two things that are diametrically opposed by nature or merely different by nature cannot be the same thing at the same time.

Finally, there cannot be an intermediate between contradictions or a third possibility between contradictions.

Mr. Logic's problem is that he imagines that because the Majorana fermion is it's own matter and antimatter simultaneously, it constitutes a third or intermediate form of cosmological material.  But of course we don't cut a dog in half, for example, and say that the original whole was never a dog simply because it's now two parts of a dead dog:  the front half (A) and the back half (B), which, as separated, are two different things, neither of which is a dog.

When we define the metaphysical being of any given _A_ or discrete existent, we don't ask _What are it?_, but _What is it?_ We don't split a single existent into two parts or "split the predicate" and imagine that we're still talking about the same whole.

The Majorana fermion _is_, not_ are_, _it's_ own matter and antimatter simultaneously, or the Majorana fermion _is_, not _are_, both matter and antimatter simultaneously: * A = A = whatever a thing is, it is.*

*Let X = matter; let Y = antimatter; let M = the Majorana fermion.

A: A = A = M = {Y and Y simultaneously}.*​
That _is_ the whole of the The Majorana fermion. The Majorana fermion _is_ never just matter or never just antimatter; _it's_ never just _its_ own matter or just _its_ own antimatter. _ It's_ always _its_ own matter and antimatter simultaneously.


What is infinity in terms of numbers or existents?

*Let I = Infinity.

A: A = A = I = {all the numbers there are simultaneously} or = {all existents or potential existents simultaneously}.*​
The organic/classical laws of logic are not violated by any of these things.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
Click to expand...


I exist.

Cosmological order = The other things that exist.

Transcendent ground of origin  =  The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed  to material origin). 

Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.

Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.


----------



## Justin Davis

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense.  Looks like I win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.
Click to expand...


You lost me on the excluded middle, but if you have something to say, just say it.  I decide if it's worthy of value.  I don't do esoteric, Gnosticism, which is all I've gotten form you so far as you express your opinions as objectively discernible absolutes without the objective part.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know.  Are you saying god planted his seed?  Is that your final answer?  Because that is plain old ignorant.  Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?
Click to expand...



You don't know.  Are you saying you planted His seed?  It that your final answer?  That's plain crazy.  Is Zeus your god?


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.



If that's true then we're in the same boat of "distributed minds" because we all have an idea(s) of God in our minds, especially those who think their God.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I exist.
> 
> Cosmological order = The other things that exist.
> 
> Transcendent ground of origin  =  The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed  to material origin).
> 
> Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.
> 
> Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.
Click to expand...


Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life.  I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from.  Do you?
> 
> The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
> 
> It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
> 
> The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
> 
> In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
> 
> Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't know.  Are you saying god planted his seed?  Is that your final answer?  Because that is plain old ignorant.  Does Zeus still create lightening in your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know.  Are you saying you planted His seed?  It that your final answer?  That's plain crazy.  Is Zeus your god?
Click to expand...


Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo

hu·mil·i·ty a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Quantum Windbag said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bold portion of your post is another lie.  You're the dogmatist.  Your insinuation that your lies have not been exposed is another lie.  R has completely exposed your crap.  His post on constructive/intuitionistic logic exposes your lies for what they are.  You're the idiot who doesn't even understand something as simple as the law of excluded middle.
> 
> You're a joke, a phony.  And your foul language is just another example of the games you play when you lie.
> 
> I challenge you to stop lying.  I challenge you to admit that you have intentionally lied about R's ideas and arguments and that you don't really understand intuitionistic logic.
> 
> I'm telling the truth about you as a person who has learned intuitionistic logic in order to follow R's arguments, not yours,  that are based on both classical and intuitionistic logic, liar.  You might be fooling others like you fooled me at first.  But you don't fool me anymore.
> 
> You have implied and said things about intuitionistic logic that are false, couldn't be true in a millions years.  I know intuitionistic logic better than you, and the idea that your lying mouth knows more about logic than R is a joke, the biggest lie you've told to date. You are a liar and hypocrite. You're pathetic.   Get off your high horse and admit the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either link to the lies you claim have been exposed, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Just to point out how absurd your position is, as far as I know Rawlings has no presented any original thoughts. Everything he states has been part of human debate for centuries. I will admit I usually skim his posts because I see no original thought in them, so I might have missed something, but nothing I said about his posts in any way address any of his ideas.
Click to expand...


And what are your original ideas exactly?

Your more often than not inscrutable or incoherent ideas? Ideas like how logic at the human level defines things as if it were human sentience itself, science precedes philosophy, the Majorana particle violates the law of the excluded middle, the principle of identity, which ultimately encompasses the construct of infinity, is _not_ the comprehensive principle above the three laws of thought, alternate forms of logic or _not _contingent on the organic/classical laws of thought, constructive logic invalidates the principle/law of identity or invalidates the law contradiction, the suspension of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms _means_ that these are invalided by the rules of constructive logic, any number of the things I asserted are invalided by alternate forms of logic?. . . . I could go on.

Yeah. All of those ideas of yours are original alright. They're all wrong as hell and irrational, but they're original. That's for sure.

Tells us Mr. Original Thought, if nothing I've shared here is new to you than how did you manage to mangle the distinction between epistemological subjectivism and the absolute principle of identity from my posts? You know, before you said you didn't when your error finally dawned on you, when the ramifications finally sunk in? You obviously had no clue where that was going at all. LOL!

Remember when you refused to imagine there was anyway in hell absolute omniscience and actual free will could coexist without contradiction? You thought that contention was solely based on the construct of the eternal now. Wrong. LOL!

And remember your error, Mr. Reader of Hebrew, regarding the nature of the conditional and final decrees of the semantic construct of _it repented_ in scripture.

I could go on. . . .

The reason why my ideas alluded you, and not just the ones I listed but several more, are in the cannon of the greatest ideas is because they have withstood the test of time, liar, unlike your ideas that are in fact not origin, but have been repeated by idiots throughout history.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> hu·mil·i·ty a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness



Dude, stop  it.  It's you claiming to know, absolutely, things about ultimate reality that Justin has never dreamed to have demonstrated or know on this thread by any conventional standards of justification.  That's you all day long.  And that's the point behind his counter-interrogatives.  He gets it, you don't. 

That’s QW too. Always pretending to be Mr. Original, Mr. Mentor, Mr. Enlightened. The only problem with him is that his stuff is inscrutably subjective and mysteriously indemonstrable knowledge that we're all just supposed to take his word on as he mangles virtually everything that _is_ objectively demonstrable:  ideas that he may have heard about before but clearly not as one who understands them in his own right at all. He's a head full of unexamined ideas that have in fact been regurgitated over and over again in history and discarded because they don't friggin work in the real word. They're fantasies, delusions, lies, crackpottery, pseudoscience, pseudo-philosophy, been-there-done-that, got the T-shirt, blew our brains and had to start all over again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I exist.
> 
> Cosmological order = The other things that exist.
> 
> Transcendent ground of origin  =  The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed  to material origin).
> 
> Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.
> 
> Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.
Click to expand...


If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas.  It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both.  Number 4 goes to the idea of _ultimacy  _premised on number 3.  Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance.  You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Universal Principle of Identity II - Limiting God*

Continued from http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9972649/


Limiting God's omniscience creates a legion of logical problems and paradoxes that are infinitely more complex and troubling than the one you think your solution eliminates. You're simply not cognizant of these things and have closed your mind to knowing or thinking about these things and so has QW. But then, of course, the problem you imagine to be real is an illusion.

*The majority opinion since the Apostolic Fathers is that absolute omniscience and actual free will coherently coexist.* (1) This was held to be true in scripture. (2) This was also held to be true _because_ of the logical ramifications of the infiniteness of the principle of identity and the construct of the eternal now, which are objectively and universally apparent from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, not just affirmed by scripture.

While you are free to believe whatever you wish about the testimony of scripture, neither you nor anyone else under the Sun can refute the cognitively universal fact of the latter assertion.

The construct of infinitely and the construct of a transcendentally timeless (eternal now) origin objectively hold absolutely and universally true via the principle of identity, whether you believe them to be ultimately true or not in terms of actual substance, whether you believe them to be asserted in scripture or not. These assertions, for example, would be assigned a truth value as inhabited by direct evidentiary proof in both classical and constructive logic! Hence, they are both rationally and empirically true.

Let that sink in.

We are talking about an empirical fact of human cognition! It is universally apparent that the construct of an infinitely perfect and timelessly unlimited, transcendent origin as the ground for all of existence and, therefore, the ground for the existence of the cosmological order is a potentiality that cannot be rationally eliminated. It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be below that absolute range of perfection.  That is the highest conceivable standard.  To assume anything less is to beg the question.  Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.

We are _not_ proposing whether or not there be any actual substance behind that construct. _That_ proposition is something else altogether. In constructive logic that would be assigned a valid, albeit, unproved value. It’s valid because no inherent contradiction can be deduced from it, but it remains unproven because it is based on inferential evidence (the existence of the cosmological order), not on direct evidence.

I have proven that the principle of identity and its ramifications hold true in classical logic, and there can be no such thing as an alternate form of logic without the first law of identity _ever_; for _that_ law is indispensably axiomatic. It is impossible to craft any alternate forms of logic without it, for the very same reason that it is impossible to rationally deny the fact of existence.

It is not my business to tell you what to believe about the testimony of scripture, but you are not free to believe that we don't exist while simultaneously insisting that I take you seriously under any standard of justification, which is the foundational fact of the principle of identity. The principle of identity and its ramifications, the constructs of infinity and timelessness, are, therefore, justifiably established.

The reason that so many, beginning most especially during the humanistic age of the Renaissance, came to question the transcendent ramifications of the principle of identity relative to the problems of origin and free will was due to the emergence of various philosophical arguments that these ramifications violated the construct of an anthropomorphic perspective, albeit, as premised on an existentially one-dimensional apriority, which, of course, begs the question. This apriority came to dominate the way in which the problem was analyzed in the literature, so much so that the transcendent ramifications were lost in the shuffle, even among Christian theologians and laymen who, though they should have known better, attempted to refute this objection on the terms of this secular apriority. 

But as we may clearly see from both classical logic and in the light of constructive logic, there never was any reason whatsoever to accept this apriority in the first place.

Illusion.

The result of this is that the constructs of infinity and timelessness have been decoupled in the minds of many who attempt to account for free will in the face of this apriority by either (1) diminishing God's attributes or by (2) asserting the construct of the eternal now _only_. The new problems created by the former are staggering; the problem with the latter is that it revolves the matter from our immediate perspective of things, but does not resolve the mater from a transcendent perspective of things.

Something’s missing. _What is it?_

Hence, while you guys go on about the fact that the literature regarding the problem of free will is all over the map in both theological and philosophical circles, and as if _I_ didn't know that, you fail to recognize the fact that that's only true in the case of the literature that presupposes this extra-biblical apriority. You guys have unwittingly presupposed this apriority in terms of necessity sans any real justification as you have simultaneously convinced yourselves that the universally apparent ramifications of the principle of identity (existential infiniteness and timelessness) are not supported by scripture.

But what you have absolutely closed your minds to is the fact that the existential infiniteness of the principle of identity resolves the matter absolutely.

No logical problems. No rational paradoxes.

With all due respect, Foxfrye, I don't accept the terms of your apriority. The transcendent resolution as extrapolated from an unobstructed view of the existential infiniteness of the principle of identity readily demonstrates that absolute omniscience and actual free will could coexist without contradiction in an existentially multidimensional reality. The biblical resolution is not subject to the secular philosopher's informal logical error of begging the question.

*Any given A can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction.
*
*Foxfyre:  The only thing I have criticized you for either overtly or by inference is that you have misrepresented my arguments and I think we do the universal Logos of the Gospels and the Epistles, namely, Jesus Christ, no favors when we present him in an angry, insulting, and/or contentious manner. But I rather like you and I won't fight with you, or anybody else, about my faith or beliefs or the questions I still have or the logic I utilize. I will wish you a pleasant evening and a good day tomorrow.  *​
I have not misrepresented your arguments. That is merely your impression from a perspective that is _not_ fully cognizant of the pertinent issues, a perspective that peremptorily assumed things that are not true, including things about my approach, my attitude and my methods.

I know the pertinent metaphysical and logical realities. I know the historical origin and the nature of the respective apriorities. I know the entire slate of the problems and the resolutions.

In summary, you have unwittingly presupposed an existentially one-dimensional apriority, when in fact the principle of identity asserts the perfectly rational potentiality that a transcendent order of being and/or a cosmological order of being could exist as a multidimensional realty in which things like free will and absolute foreknowledge could coexist simultaneously without contradiction.

QW has alleged that rational and material existents that are two or more things simultaneously violate the law of the excluded middle when that is patently false. There is no rational or evidentiary reason whatsoever to believe that we do not live in a multidimensional reality. On the contrary, not only are we able to coherently apprehend rational constructs that are two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction, today we are aware of material existents in this universe that are coherently two or more things simultaneously.

As for this notion of yours that I have been inordinately "*angry, insulting, and/or contentious": QW is an idiot, a liar and a fraud. The only reason you don't know who the apostate is and who is defending the truth of the Logos in the face of sociopathic duplicity is because you bought in to his pontifications from on high and his pretensions of academic authority and open-mindedness.*

*The only person on this thread who has consistently and dogmatically been a prick to everyone who has disagreed with him is QW.
*
Your assessment of the situation is not rational, but emotional. I was initially civil with him, until his responses became increasingly insulting, patronizing, full of sneer and arrogance, whilst all the time he lied through his teeth about virtually everything, especially about his laughable pretensions of expertise in the field of logic.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logical necessity in any of your assumptions here. First of all, you seem to be assuming there is only one god, why? And why must a god be 'supremely unparalleled'? Also, what does 'divine revelation' mean? Maybe gods can't reveal themselves more directly because they are, by nature, indirect entities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I exist.
> 
> Cosmological order = The other things that exist.
> 
> Transcendent ground of origin  =  The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed  to material origin).
> 
> Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.
> 
> Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas.  It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both.  Number 4 goes to the idea of _ultimacy  _premised on number 3.  Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance.  You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).
Click to expand...


"Cosmological order" still sounds more loaded than "all of material existence" - but if that's all it is, I can buy into that. And if "supernatural" just means "nonmaterial substance" then I can accept that as well. But, to be clear, a software algorithm, or abstract concepts like freedom and justice, are by your definition, supernatural. But you must recognize that this is a 'naturalist' conception. My own understanding of naturalism doesn't preclude non-material substance, but neither does it allow for magic   - ie a computer algorithm that isn't represented physically has no temporal existence.

My conception of gods is still, I think, radically different than yours. I don't see gods as 'uncaused cause', any more than I see human minds as such. In my view, gods are a kind of 'group awareness' present in human communities. It seem plausible that this kind of god predates individual self-awareness, and is probably closer to what other communal mammals experience.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically these are the objective facts of existence and origin.  Most of the rest, though not all, is guesswork without direct revelation, whether divinity does or doesn't, can or can't reveal, itself, from Rawlings' post:
> 
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that (1) we exist, (2) the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, (3) a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and (4) it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> Check.
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?​
> G.T. to whom this was addressed was forced to go back and admit that he had forgotten what he had already conceded.  Hollie would have to concede these things.  So would sealybobo.  So does everybody.  Once you admit you exist and that the cosmos exists, these things necessarily follow. This is all that Rawlings has been talking about, among others things like this, while others just lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'd have to agree on some intelligible definition of terms before I could concede or deny most of the claims on your list. Can you clarify what the following terms mean?: Cosmological order, transcendent ground of origin, absolutely unparalleled state of perfection. If I can make sense of those, maybe I can decide whether "it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I exist.
> 
> Cosmological order = The other things that exist.
> 
> Transcendent ground of origin  =  The idea of God exists (immaterial origin as opposed  to material origin).
> 
> Absolutely unparalleled state of perfection = God by the definition, the greatest thing that exists.
> 
> Same ideas you have, whether you believe them to be imaginary or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they're not. It sounds like, if I may infer, that when you say 'transcendent ground of origin', what you really mean is the suggestion that a god created the universe - which really isn't the same thing as "the idea of God exists". Anyway, transcendent doesn't mean much to me, other than an oblique reference to supernatural, which I've never been able to make any sense of. A thing is either real, or it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I may, as, otherwise, it appears you guys will go in circles forever, transcendent ground (ultimate) of origin (creator) includes both ideas.  It's a construct in philosophy and theology that means both.  Number 4 goes to the idea of _ultimacy  _premised on number 3.  Natural-supernatural do correspond with real-unreal, but with material substance or nonmaterial substance.  You have the idea of the cosmological order (all of material existence) and the idea of God (eternally self-subsistent, uncaused cause of first cause of an immaterial substance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Cosmological order" still sounds more loaded than [1] "*all of material existence*" - but if that's all it is, I can buy into that. And if "supernatural" just means "nonmaterial substance" then I can accept that as well. [2] *But, to be clear, a software algorithm, or abstract concepts like freedom and justice, are by your definition, supernatural.* But [3] *you must recognize that this is a 'naturalist' conception. My own understanding of naturalism doesn't preclude non-material substance, but neither does it allow for magic   - ie a computer algorithm that isn't represented physically has no temporal existence*.
> 
> *My conception of gods is still, I think, radically different than yours. I don't see gods as 'uncaused cause', any more than I see human minds as such. In my view, gods are a kind of 'group awareness' present in human communities.* It seem plausible that this kind of god predates individual self-awareness, and is probably closer to what other communal mammals experience.
Click to expand...


(1) That's cool with me too.  But the reason I write _cosmological order_ goes to the potentiality of a multiverse that might contain universes comprised of substances that are not what we ordinarily think of as material in terms of our universe, however weird that might seem, and, _cosmological order_ in philosophy and theology in terms of ontology means whatever is not spiritual.  But you're term is fine with me.  (2) Fair enough on the other point too.  So we would have to tighten _nonmaterial substance_ up a bit.  Any suggestions?  (3)  I agree.  (4)  That's fine too, but just bear in mind that I can always define it in terms of the greatest conceivable state and assert that the universal idea we have of an immaterial/spiritual origin is higher than yours, i.e., a potentiality that cannot be denied out of hand logically.  Someone has suggested that at the very least the agnostic position is rational, though not the unqualified  atheist position for this reason.  But to understand better my objective proof for what we may all know to be the highest standard upon reflection, see my posts on the Universal Principle of Identity.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont argue against God, I argue against persons with the hubris to believe that they have proof of him/she/it.
> 
> That's where simple minds get confused.
> 
> Arguing against unsound reasons for god =/= arguing that god doesnt exist. That's easy enough to follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
Click to expand...


*Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*

Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith. 

I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have. 

Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity? 

From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life. 

Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.


----------



## amrchaos

"All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:

*Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.


A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*

That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"

Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!

You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.

However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.

Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.

OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?





M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  Oh, I see.  While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment."  Great.  What am I supposed to do with that?  How do you know that?
Click to expand...





> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?



............



> No one comes to the Father except through me.




the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.

the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Bible!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  Oh, I see.  While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment."  Great.  What am I supposed to do with that?  How do you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.
> 
> the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Why is the first a fallacy, though?  I don't understand.  The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting.  What is that, please?


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> is that the chris*tian / bible or a different one ?* - because after 21 centuries if you still can not decisively point to your proof through that religion for the existence of the Almighty as has not been done and the question is again asked, maybe you might consider a different angle than the one you have chosen if indeed it is your true intent to find the answer.
> 
> as is the presumption of the threads title.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  After all this time on this thread, you still don't know what a logical proof is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> proof of the existence of the Almighty does not verify your bible as a meaningful document for the understanding of life or as a means for Admission to the Everlasting and to the contrary has over time been the obstacle for enlightenment.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  What's your point?  Oh, I see.  While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment."  Great.  What am I supposed to do with that?  How do you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? What's your point? Oh, I see. While claiming that the Bible is not necessarily the revealed word of God, you imply that you have a revelation from God that the Bible is an "obstacle for enlightenment." Great. What am I supposed to do with that? How do you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the above ( scripture ) alone makes a fallacy of the bible.
> 
> the parable of Noah is the cursory, true discernible religion of that book and the path to the Everlasting.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the first a fallacy, though?  I don't understand.  The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting.  What is that, please?
Click to expand...






> Why is the first a fallacy, though?  I don't understand.  The idea about the parable of Noah sounds interesting.  What is that, please?





> "No one comes to the Father except through me"




can you verify its origin ? - 

that would be conclusive enough to the extent of its intent per the depths of the depravity it illicits, deriving from your book.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.



*"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "


*
They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.

You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.


----------



## JohnA

asaratis said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is exactly what I am saying.  There is only belief, conjecture and unsupported assumption.  I would love for someone to prove me wrong, but so far no one has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you've been proven wrong, alright. You just haven't gotten beyond the slogans of brain freeze and properly beheld the obvious. The existence of the universe and sentience is the evidence, and the inherent, readily self-evident implications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness which compel the theist conclusion are not the stuff mere conjecture, let alone the stuff of unsupported assumptions. Indeed, calling the evidence and the impressions of first principles _unsupported assumptions_ is ridiculous. You're unwitting imposition of materialism on the facts of existence on which theism is predicated is obscuring the actuality of the issue.
> 
> Notwithstanding, I have no power to convince anyone that God exists. My only interest here is setting the record straight as to what theism is actually based on.  It's not based on the ethereal mumbo jumbo alleged by those who are simply not cognizant of the pertinent facts of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of God.  You fail to connect the two things together, just insist that I accept it on faith.  This is not evidence, just belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMHO, the connection involves going back to the beginning of time.
> 
> That I am a Christian that believes in evolution rather than a 6 day creation is another subject.
> 
> My current conception regarding the universe is that prior to the big bang, all matter and energy that exists today was confined to a relatively miniscule volume...likely spherical.   Outside of that collection of all matter and energy must have existed a supernatural being that caused the big bang which created the space-time continuum. That something was God...the giver of life and all that is around us.
> 
> Ridiculously simplistic, but a start.  Shoot me down with your version.  What caused the big bang?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what caused it.  I have no information upon which to base a conclusion.  However, my ignorance is not a demonstration of your knowledge.  You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and your beliefs.  But that does not make them anything more than belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite so.  As I stated, my "theory" is just my opinion.  I think that there had to be something outside of the collapsed universe that set off the big bang and caused the infinite energy to expand, cool, form molecules of the elements (hydrogen first) and develop into clusters that developed into masses with gravitational forces that interacted with each other and developed into what we now see thru the Hubbell telescope.
> 
> All I'm saying is that there was an outside cause to the expansion of the universe from a condensed starting point.
> 
> Again, this is conjecture on my part....not to be taken as positing that you are wrong if you don't agree.
> 
> God existed before time started.  God set off the big bang.
Click to expand...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> You lost me on the excluded middle, but if you have something to say, just say it.  I decide if it's worthy of value.  I don't do esoteric, Gnosticism, which is all I've gotten form you so far as you express your opinions as objectively discernible absolutes without the objective part.



Hey, Justin.  I'm going to make another suggestion that will tighten things up for you:  connectors. 

Connectors (coordinating conjunctions):  _and, or, but, for, yet, nor, so_.  Use a comma in front of them:

You've got a great sense for subject-predicate-object units (main clauses, which can stand alone as sentences)*,* _but_ you're running these units together without breaks.​
Connectors (conjunctive adverbs):  therefore, nevertheless, otherwise, moreover, nonetheless, howbeit, albeit, hence, thus, also, conversely, besides, however. . .  Use a semicolon in front of them. 

Used within subject-predicate-object units (main clauses):  This is the way we do it*,* albeit*, *with lots of enthusiasm.

To join subject-predicate-object units (main clauses):  Pigs have wings; therefore*,* pigs can fly. 

Or you can just use a semicolon and skip the connector:  This is true; that is true.  (Stylistically, you could just go with a comma here as these are short clauses_*,* but_ practice with semicolons.)


Think of them as plus signs: 

*________________________ , + ______________________ .

________________________ ; +, ______________________ .

________________________ ;  _______________________ .*


Get that down*,* _and_ you'll be batting 500.  (Also, you could go without the comma here stylistically*,* _but_ that's the gist of it.)


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me on the excluded middle, but if you have something to say, just say it.  I decide if it's worthy of value.  I don't do esoteric, Gnosticism, which is all I've gotten form you so far as you express your opinions as objectively discernible absolutes without the objective part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Justin.  I'm going to make another suggestion that will tighten things up for you:  connectors.
> 
> Connectors (coordinating conjunctions):  _and, or, but, for, yet, nor, so_.  Use a comma in front of them:
> 
> You've got a great sense for subject-predicate-object units (main clauses, which can stand alone as sentences)*,* _but_ you're running these units together without breaks.​
> Connectors (conjunctive adverbs):  therefore, nevertheless, otherwise, moreover, nonetheless, howbeit, albeit, hence, thus, also, conversely, besides, however. . .  Use a semicolon in front of them.
> 
> Used within subject-predicate-object units (main clauses):  This is the way we do it*,* albeit*, *with lots of enthusiasm.
> 
> To join subject-predicate-object units (main clauses):  Pigs have wings; therefore*,* pigs can fly.
> 
> Or you can just use a semicolon and skip the connector:  This is true; that is true.  (Stylistically, you could just go with a comma here as these are short clauses_*,* but_ practice with semicolons.)
> 
> 
> Think of them as plus signs:
> 
> *________________________ , + ______________________ .
> 
> ________________________ ; +, ______________________ .
> 
> ________________________ ;  _______________________ .*
> 
> 
> Get that down*,* _and_ you'll be batting 500.  (Also, you could go without the comma here stylistically*,* _but_ that's the gist of it.)
Click to expand...


Cool.  I think I get this, and I will practice it.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I've never claimed I could prove God to you. In fact, I have explained specifically why I can never do that. However, "evidence" is not proof. It may be, it depends on how it is valued and what is truth. But evidence is subjective and is evaluated differently by different people. There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.
> 
> What's "unsound reason?" Isn't that simply you stating an opinion that you think a reason is not sound? Everything I have ever presented comports with logic and reason, can be supported by science and observation or rational thought. You don't have to agree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*
> 
> Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.
> 
> I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.
> 
> Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?
> 
> From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.
> 
> Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective.  Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it.  The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.  It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms.   What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective.  The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective.  Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe.  Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The  *a-theist* sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*
> 
> Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.
> 
> I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.
> 
> Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?
> 
> From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.
> 
> Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective.  Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it.  The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.  It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms.   What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective.  The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective.  Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe.  Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The  *a-theist* sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.
Click to expand...

The universe in no way can be viewed as objective evidence for the existence of your various gods or anyone else's gods.

You fundies have a difficult association with facts, evidence and simple concepts of honesty and integrity.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> That is universally accepted evidence.
> 
> The onus is now on Boss to prove that it is "subject to evaluation of the individual". Of course he won't because he can't. He just throws out total BS allegations trying to pretend that "all evidence" is subjective when it isn't. Fingerprints and DNA are evidence that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. There is nothing subjective about that evidence itself.
> 
> Since Boss can't refute that his allegation about "evidence" has been proven to be utterly bogus he will throw another hissyfit or just ignore the fact that he has been b/slapped by the facts yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*
> 
> Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.
> 
> I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.
> 
> Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?
> 
> From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.
> 
> Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective.  Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it.  The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.  It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms.   What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective.  The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective.  Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe.  Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The  *a-theist* sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.
Click to expand...


*The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.*
No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true. 

What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this. 

Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*
> 
> Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.
> 
> I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.
> 
> Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?
> 
> From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.
> 
> Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective.  Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it.  The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.  It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms.   What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective.  The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective.  Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe.  Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The  *a-theist* sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.*
> No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true.
> 
> What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this.
> 
> Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.
Click to expand...

There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.



There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
Click to expand...


This is kind of self contradictory. 

If god is real, it's not supernatural.

If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
Click to expand...


If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
Click to expand...

spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven

they may be natural, they may not

same with something coming from nothing

just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.

if its possible, it is natural


----------



## hobelim

G.T. said:


> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural




The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.

In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.

There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.

In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..

In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture,  using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of  a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
Click to expand...

You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened.  Big difference.



In one of G.T.'s posts he implied that I just go with whatever Rawlings says like I just blindly believe whatever he says and don't think for myself. He says this even though I questioned something Rawlings said that was a contradiction.  Rawlings acknowledged that I was right but as he explained, he doesn't really  believe what he seemed to be saying.  He admitted that he wrote something in a bad way that meant something he didn't mean to imply.  That was an honest error.  In other words, Rawlings can admit when he makes an error, and he listens to people and tries to understand them, just like the way he listens to dblack and tries to understand him and is open to dblack's suggestions.  Rawlings doesn't just blow people off like the silly nanny Foxfyre who got all huffy says.

Also, I know that what Rawlings has been saying all along about the classical laws of thought and the principle of identity is right and that QW is wrong because I know about these things on my own from my own studies before I came to this forum. I've leaned a lot more about it from Rawlings though. And I didn't just take Rawlings word on constructive logic but took the time to study up on it so that I could understand what QW and him were talking about.
Anyone can understand the basic rules and terms of constructive logic without all the technical language of logic and stuff. That's why I've had it with QW. I can clearly see that what Rawlings is saying about classical and constructive logic is right and everything QW is saying is a lie. Everything QW said is wrong; even the things he said that are true about constructive logic are really lies because he implies these things mean things they don't. That's the game he's playing when he says to show him where he's wrong about constructive logic not using all the axioms that classical logic uses. That's not the point and that liar QW knows that's not the point.  Rawlings knows that better than QW and that doesn't make anything Rawlings has said wrong.

QW reminds me of how the devil uses the truth as a lie by twisting it.  (And this something that I also leaned from Rawlings, how to use one sentence as a paragraph to make a point of fact stand out.)

What G.T. doesn't understand about me is that I trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin _*is*_ objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin all the way up to what the universal principle of identity tells us about God and what He can do.  That is all Rawlings has been talking about on this thread.  I agree with Rawlings because I have the same belief based on what the Bible shows to be true about these things from Romans 1:18 and other places in the Bible.  That same idea and all of the objective facts that are in our minds are listed in the Bible.  That is my foundational belief, the same belief Rawlings has, and it always has been. I had that understanding of things before I came to this forum.

I don't believe what I do because Rawlings believes it. That's just silly. I already believed these things from the Bible before I ever met him on this forum. I've been thinking about the details of the same idea for months on my own and with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The basic idea is not new to me. Rawlings is just more advanced than me in this knowledge, and from him I now know a lot more about it all. That's all. What he says logically and objectively follows. He has never given me any reason to think that he is not being honest and objective.

The objective facts about the issue of origin are the only things that Rawlings and I are talking about. They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.

Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.


----------



## Justin Davis

hobelim said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.
> 
> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.
> 
> In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..
> 
> In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture,  using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of  a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
Click to expand...


That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
Click to expand...


I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A=A the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.
> 
> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.
> 
> In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..
> 
> In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture,  using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of  a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.
Click to expand...

That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
Click to expand...


Actually, either way is fine.  The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless.  Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability.  In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically.  That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions:  the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization. 

Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom _a set is not an element of itself_ for much the same reason that the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic:  to amplify and explore new possibilities.

But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken.  But the only _*real*_ concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory.  Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there's no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise that might get in the way.  I just never thought about that particular wrinkle before.  LOL!  Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> *They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.*
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.



You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, either way is fine.  The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless.  Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability.  In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically.  That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions:  the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
> 
> Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom _a set is not an element of itself_ for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic:  to amplify and explore new possibilities.
> 
> But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken.  But the only _*real*_ concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory.  Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise.  I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before.  Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
Click to expand...


I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)

So whether or not
A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
C. there is no such anything of any sort

Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.

We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.

The point is really do we agree how to act
and work together; what laws or language do we  use
to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.



Hollie, if you would only be objective for once: put a name on your premise and back out of your paradigm long enough to enter into the OBJECTIVE world of first principles, which are apparent to us all regarding the problem of origin, you would see amazing things.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.*
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.
Click to expand...

Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.*
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."
Click to expand...

"or prove it to be true by saying its not true"

The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural



"Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true. 

Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.
> 
> Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.
Click to expand...

My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I see it, the entire debate, on both sides, is based on the misinterpretation of archaic terms.
> 
> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain. Knowing this, it can be understood that whenever scripture speaks about what goes on in the heart they meant to convey what is going on in the mind.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.
> 
> In the same way spirit was their word for consciousness. A person possessed by an unclean spirit was a person possessed by a filthy mind. When Jesus healed someone possessed by an unclean spirit it had nothing whatsoever to do with an invisible entity that inhabits people and makes them do naughty things, except if the cause of the defilement of the person's mind was contracted by being deliberately infected by someone elses filthy mind which would amount to demonic possession, their term for what we now would see as a victim of mind control..
> 
> In this way the subjects of spirits, unclean or holy, angels, demons, the heart, demonic possession, etc., as documented in scripture,  using the minimal amount of intelligence required to add A+B, can easily be understood as not having anything whatever to do with a belief in the supernatural anymore than the psychiatric community is promoting a belief in the supernatural or referring to invisible entities when describing the disturbing symptoms of  a person suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That last sentence defines the entirety of Christian apologetics.
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie: If you are saying the principles in Christianity cannot be proven,
I disagree
1. studies on forgiveness show the correlation with better mental and physical health
while unforgiveness either causes or correlates with an estimated 80-90% of ills
This can be proven, and doesn't take a rocket scientist like you,
though I would ask for professional statisticians to set up studies to document the correlations

2. cases of using Christian spiritual healing to 
cure Schizophrenic patients of demonic voices and obsessions
HAS been observed and many people can testify.

Again, maybe Rocket Scientists like you will apply your scientific brains
to set up formal research studies to document these cases
to show the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of quantifiable stages
of sickness and cure can be spelled out and followed using the scientific method.

This can be proven,
and NO I DON'T expect you to take it on faith.

I EXPECT to "prove it can be proven" by PROVING it.

So unlike you Hollie, the Christians CAN use science to prove that
their teachings on forgiveness and spiritual healing work naturally 
and consistently with science and medicine to cure and prevent ills of the mind body and social relations with others.

While you can never prove that there is no God.

You can prove people don't believe in God,
and others can prove people do believe.

We can prove that much.

As for spiritual healing and reconciliation,
we can prove that this relies on FORGIVENESS
while unforgiveness and rejection leaves conflicts unresolved.
Like DUH!

Does that really take a rocket scientist to prove?
It seems obvious, but it can be proven by statistics if you want to go there.

Sounds like you do or you won't believe
that the teachings in Christianity run parallel with
natural science and human nature, health and healing.

It's a natural process so of course it can be demonstrated
by science to work consistently, for people of all races, nationalities, religious and political affilations:
* Forgiveness correlates with ability to reconcile conflicts, and better health of mind body and relationships
* Unforgiveness correlates with inability to resolve conflicts, and more stress on mind and body and relations
including all abuses and crimes can be linked to unforgiven unresolved conflicts in the past projected outward.

We can go the Rocket Science path
and prove this so you can see proof that this can be proven,
using the traditional scientific way. That's fine, Hollie, and I believe the world will benefit.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.
Click to expand...


Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.
> 
> Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.
Click to expand...


You can have whatever definition cranks your tractor, that's what 'proven' is.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> spirits are not proven, so they cannot be considered real or natural until theyre proven
> 
> they may be natural, they may not
> 
> same with something coming from nothing
> 
> just because we havent observed it, doesnt mean its impossible.
> 
> if its possible, it is natural
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Proven" simply means that which you find evidence to believe true.
> 
> Something doesn't come from nothing in nature. But you are correct, just because we haven't observed something, doesn't mean it's impossible. God, for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My definition of proven is a little deeper than that, but to each his/her own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can have whatever definition cranks your tractor, that's what 'proven' is.
Click to expand...

kay


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.*
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."
Click to expand...


Well I don't say that Hollie.
See other post where I state that the
Christian message of forgiveness and the healing impact on humanity
CAN be proven scientifically.

And I don't expect you to believe that without proof,
so yes I ask to prove it first.

So you cannot keep making this argument
that Christianity has to be accepted without proof.

That's not true, it can be explained, proven
and accepted based on Scientific Method to include secular gentiles
under natural laws.

This is a Perfectly Valid path to the same understanding as taught in Christianity.
Nothing wrong with using the Scientific Method.

With secular gentiles, it is necessary.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "spiritual evidence", whatever that means, to prove your gods, spirit realms or other absurd claims to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.
Click to expand...

Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."

There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.

So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all  I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.*
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting pretty good at this apologetics thing. That was masterful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The apologetics thing is typically replete with bluster and such pompous absolutes as: "Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
Click to expand...


But you do know "the five things," and you do know they can't be logically eliminated.  That has been proven.  In fact, because of the title Justin gave those things, which never occurred me, I'm going to repost them under that title. 

Look, I know a number of atheists who are friends of mine.  The same folks I knew when I was an atheist, however, in truth, an atheist with a head full of unexamined ideas.  I have shown some of them the same things I'm talking about on this thread.  Probably because we have a history of friendship I was able to say to them:  "I'm your friend.  I love you.  I'm not going to tell something I don't believe is true or anything that is inscrutable, subjective mush.  You know that.  What can it hurt to take a look at this stuff?"

(When QW tried to tell you that nonsense about the all-knowing-not-all-knowing computer, you knew that was gibberish. I'm not asking you to see or accept anything like that. I have never pretended to be able to prove subjective crap like that.)  

The friends of mine who took a look, that were willing to back out of their paradigm and enter the world of first principles regarding the problems of existence and origin, honesty and objectively, are not atheists anymore.  Three of them are theist-leaning agnostics reading the Bible to see if the same things I showed them to be in everybody's mind are also listed as such in the Bible.  The other gave his life to Christ and is reading those very same things as such in the Bible.  I'm not telling you I can prove these things in terms of direct evidence.  That would be a lie.  QW is always hinting at knowing things that the rest us can't see or understand.  It's all subjective mush.  I'd like to see the mathematics he's talking about. 

But _you_ know the things I'm talking about are universally apparent, based on inferential evidence that is not subjective, but objective in nature.  I'm also telling you that they are listed in the Bible as being the things that are in our minds, everybody's minds. 

God is talking to you.  "I AM.  I'm here."  There's no good reason to assume that such objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature is not backed, as Justin puts it,  by actual substance.  You're only real objection is that the things you know to be in your head just so (objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature) are not based on direct evidence in the scientific sense.  Okay.  But you forget the fact that scientific theory, in and of itself, is inferential in nature, and that science is _limited_ to only dealing with direct physical evidence about material things.  That means science is necessarily premised on a metaphysical apriority of one kind or another, yet you inferentially presuppose your metaphysical apriority for science without any qualms.  That's curious.  I don't do that blindly, "gluckly."  Do you even know what your metaphysical apriority for science is?  If your apriority is wrong, you're going to get much of your soft science, as opposed to the hard, mathematical sciences of physics and cosmology, wrong, which is something QW doesn't really understand either.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical or supernatural about God or spiritual nature. Magic Supernaturalism is belief that something came from nothing... just because it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."
> 
> There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.
> 
> So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all  I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.
Click to expand...


No, it's real and natural because it is real and natural. No outrageous claim has been made. My communication with the spiritual realm is true and I am neither delusional or schizo. 

I've not required you to do anything. The truth is not dependent upon whether Hollie accepts it. I don't know anything about supernatural realms crowded with angry gods, but spiritual nature created physical because there is no other logical explanation. 

You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.











some would disagree with your interpenetration for the residence of the living Spirit - certainly Flora, as having no "brain" but does have a heart ...

at any rate prove the Spirit resides in any particular organ or that the heart is not commiserate with emotions, when "racing". 

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with Boss that all evidence is subjective because not all evidence it subjective.  Also it's not right to say that evidence may be proof either.  That is wrong because evidence is never proof, not even sometimes. Evidence is something that we use to support logical proofs or scientific theories. That's why like he says, "there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence, all evidence is subject to evaluation of the individual." This is mostly right, but not exactly right.  It's the part that he does get right that some of you don't see.
> 
> Here's what I've learned on this thread from my greater understanding of logic from my own research, from M.D.R. and from his posts on logic. He's the one who knows logic better than any of us, not Q.W.  because he's an idiot.   Most of Boss's statements are right, but just a little off sometimes but he mostly gets what few others get on this thread.
> 
> We have universally accepted evidence for God's existence everywhere. You just gave an example of another.   That's why Boss shouldn’t say that there is no such thing as universally accepted evidence but what a lot of atheists don't get is why that’s true for God even as the meaning of their belief proves that’s true.
> Ultimately, what Boss really means though is true. Individuals can choose not to the see the truth of that, which means they're just lying to themselves.  This is what I'm trying to get Boss to see.  He's so close. What closes people's minds are their lies.  Once Boss sees that he'll see where he's just a little off and he can make things right with everything he does get right. Boss is wise but just a little off. His wisdom is that he doesn't lie to himself and has an open mind that can correct where he's off unlike so many others on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I am off or that I have it wrong with regard to universally accepted evidence. If there was universally accepted evidence that God exists, then everyone would agree that God does exist. Atheists do not view theistic evidence for God as evidence of any kind. Spiritual evidence is anecdotal to them because they don't acknowledge spiritual nature.
> 
> Now people DO close their minds and not see truths. But this happens with all people, not just Atheists. In fact, many religions are very closed-minded... take Muslim extremists for example. What causes people to be closed-minded is belief their evidence is proof or belief that no evidence is proof. The reality is, nothing is ever "proven" not even reality itself. Proof is merely what you recognize as truth. It does not mean everyone else has to agree or see your proof or recognize what you believe to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not follow that evidence for God's existence that everyone would believe.  Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?  The answer to that question shows why what you're saying isn't true. Read this post:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 76 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The universe is the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evidence and proof are  not the same thing accept in constructive logic but the way it does that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.  Why do we have the idea of God?  Why does the atheist have  the idea of God?*
> 
> Evidence and proof are not the same thing even in constructive logic because we know logic can be invalid and evidence is always subjective. The only way to verify truth is faith. At the very nucleus, even believing reality and the universe exists requires faith.
> 
> I understand the principle you are explaining as to why humans have the idea of God. I don't believe you are wrong about that. Remember the preschool 'tests' we were all given as children... name the thing that doesn't belong in the group? Well, okay... If we put human beings along with other assorted animals and life forms on the planet, most everyone would pick humans to be the life form that didn't belong with the others because humans are unique. I mean, even the most devout Atheist has to agree, humans have something going that other forms of life simply don't have.
> 
> Now, we can all debate over the particulars of what exactly that "thing" is which humans have, but they certainly DO have it. Let us define that as "humanity." Humans have humanity, a unique set of attributes distinguishing them from all the other life forms. As impressive as other species of life are, none can match humanity in humans. So now the question becomes, why do humans have this humanity?
> 
> From the very first darkened caves of human civilization we know that one thing stands out as unique above everything else our species has going for it. Humans have always intrinsically believed in some power greater than self. True, not true, does not matter... what matters is, humans have always had this inclination to believe that, and it is inherent. This attribute of spirituality is directly related to the attribute of humanity. Now, whether one has supported the other or one has prompted the other, again... does not matter. What matters is, they work in conjunction with each other to make us very special and unique forms of carbon-based life.
> 
> Some Atheists like to take our "humanity" and use this to explain why we have spirituality. But the problem is, science cannot support them on this because we've never witnessed such a phenomenon in any other life form. In fact, if you go by the theories of Darwin and other evolutionists, it would indicate the two distinctly human attributes of humanity and spirituality have to be related and vital to the species. Unless you believe in magic or supernatural things, that appears to be the reality of the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with most of this; however, evidence is sometimes subjective and sometimes objective.  Objective evidence is something tha t can be observed or demonstrated in a way that all can see it.  The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.  It is also inferred evidence of His existence rather than direct in scientific terms.   What you're saying is that the decision of belief based on this evidence is subjective.  The evidence is objective, the evaluation of it in terms of the decision of belief or the response is subjective.  Agnostics take the position they do because of the objective evidence of the existence of the universe.  Atheists take the position they do for the same reason, not because they're indifferent to the objective evidence, just in spit of the evidence. The  *a-theist* sees the God idea because of the objective evidence too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The universe is objective evidence of God's existence.*
> No... The universe is only objective evidence the universe appears to exist to those who have seen it and believe it to be true.
> 
> What I am talking about is not subjective evidence vs. objective evidence in a courtroom. All evidence is evaluated by a human who forms an opinion. That opinion may be formed on the basis of all kinds of perspectives and views, prejudices, preconceptions and bias. All evidence of any kind is subject to this.
> 
> Atheists reject the spiritual evidence that overwhelmingly proves God. In fact, they don't even consider it evidence, they don't believe in spiritual nature. They demand physical evidence of something that isn't physical, but physical is the only "exist" they comprehend.
Click to expand...


Boss, this is bilge.  There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers.  Are you a Christian?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.



You just made the cosmological argument. That argument is based on the PHYSICAL evidence of the fact of the universe's existence and the subsequent, rational imperatives of existence and origin, only your argument is unconvincing because you keep alluding to the PHYSICAL evidence for God's existence (the cosmos), fly right past the imperatives, and then say the existence of the cosmos its not evidence, but that there's some mysterious, spiritual evidence.   The latter is not the evidence; it's the inference based on the evidence.  That's why these guys are running circles around you.  You're not making any sense, but you're close to the truth.  Go back to the imperatives.  Stop talking nonsense about evidence.  You are clueless as to what evidence and proofs are.  You're confusing the difference between direct and inferential evidence, either of which can be subjective or objective.  Dude.  The atheist has objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature:  he knows these things.  Stop telling him he doesn't.  That is false.

When the atheist denies that God exists is he denying the existence of the idea of God?  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  He's necessarily acknowledging the existence of the idea of God in his very denial.  DUDE!

And what is his understanding of the potentially of God's existence based on?  The fact of the PHYSICAL cosmos's existence!  DUDE!

You're not building a coherent ground for belief, but destroying it.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss, this is bilge.  There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers.  Are you a Christian?



Well hey, you seem like a pretty smart fella... why don't you elaborate on what exactly was bilge and why? Then we can discuss that. 

*There is no such thing as any spiritual evidence for nonbelievers.*
There is no such thing as EVIDENCE until someone believes it is evidence. I never said there was spiritual evidence for nonbelievers, a non-believer wouldn't even accept physical evidence for that which they didn't believe in. I said that non-believers do not acknowledge spiritual evidence because they do not acknowledge spiritual nature and do not comprehend spiritual existence. 

And no, I am not a Christian or follower of any organized religion. I am a Spiritualist.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of self contradictory.
> 
> If god is real, it's not supernatural.
> 
> If something actually DID come from nothing, that is also not supernatural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If something came from nothing it defies nature. God is spiritually real and spiritually natural. Spirituality is not supernatural. This is a word applied to spirituality by people who reject spiritual nature and don't accept spiritual reality. What they believe in is magic... that physical nature defied logic and created itself from nothing. Magical Supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hear voices and you claim to have ongoing communications with your asserted spirit realms. As long as you and you spirit realms don' pose a danger to yourself or others, have at it. Have all the communications, long walks in the park, whatever. However, you should be aware that your spiritual nature thing, whatever you believe it to be, is no more real or extant than other claims to supernatural objects de' art that people have invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh but it IS real, and it's natural. That's the part you can't refute. You keep posting your opinion as if it's fact. Your mind has closed itself to possibilities for faith in disbelief. I don't need your permission to be spiritual, whether you think I am dangerous or not. In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh but it IS real, and it's natural...."because I say so."
> 
> There's really nothing to refute. You make outrageous claims. You have convinced yourself that your claims are true. You offer no support for those claims. Yet, you insist your communications with spirit realms are true. Whether you're delusional or schizophrenic is open for interpretation.
> 
> So is that it? Someone tells me “Yeah – the gods have spoken to me” is all  I'm required to hear so as to “believe”? That sounds like a simple Santa Clause (purposeful misspelling) model that “less than critically thinking” people who are not particularly discriminating, can embrace without the burdensome task of actually examining the statements. There is no valid reason to presume that supernaturalism / spirit realms crowded with angry gods are the cause of existence. I make no claims about our existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, "naturalism" relies on rationality and reason to uphold itself. You spirit realm'ists require that rationality and reason are broken and only through belief in magic and supernaturalism can we access your silly spirit realms of gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's real and natural because it is real and natural. No outrageous claim has been made. My communication with the spiritual realm is true and I am neither delusional or schizo.
> 
> I've not required you to do anything. The truth is not dependent upon whether Hollie accepts it. I don't know anything about supernatural realms crowded with angry gods, but spiritual nature created physical because there is no other logical explanation.
> 
> You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.
Click to expand...

Sheesh. It's as though you're being paid by the fundamentalist Christian ministries to press the fundie agenda.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do indeed make claims about our existence, you claim that there is no God or spiritual nature and that physical nature created itself from nothingness. You've not supported your claim with any evidence, if that's what you meant. You are the one who believes in magic and supernaturalism. Rationality and reason say that the physical couldn't have created itself if it didn't exist. The only rational argument is that spiritual nature created the physical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just made the cosmological argument. That argument is based on the PHYSICAL evidence of the fact of the universe's existence and the subsequent, rational imperatives of existence and origin, only your argument is unconvincing because you keep alluding to the PHYSICAL evidence for God's existence (the cosmos), fly right past the imperatives, and then say the existence of the cosmos its not evidence, but that there's some mysterious, spiritual evidence.
Click to expand...


There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works... 

I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread. My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. People value and evaluate evidence differently. Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc. 

Now, maybe this all ties back in with your conversations on logic and whatnot, but people do value evidence differently, and evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such. That's really been my only argument there, and I don't know what your complaint would be or why you think it's bilge. 



> The latter is not the evidence; it's the inference based on the evidence.  That's why these guys are running circles around you.  You're not making any sense, but you're close to the truth.  Go back to the imperatives.  Stop talking nonsense about evidence.  You are clueless as to what evidence and proofs are.  You're confusing the difference between direct and inferential evidence, either of which can be subjective or objective.  Dude.  The atheist has objectively and universally apparent proofs based on inferential evidence that is both rational and empirical in nature:  he knows these things.  Stop telling him he doesn't.  That is false.



DUDE... chill out! Man, dude... like.... totally man... just chill! 

I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters. 



> When the atheist denies that God exists is he denying the existence of the idea of God?  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  He's necessarily acknowledging the existence of the idea of God in his very denial.  DUDE!
> 
> And what is his understanding of the potentially of God's existence based on?  The fact of the PHYSICAL cosmos's existence!  DUDE!
> 
> You're not building a coherent ground for belief, but destroying it.



DuDE!!1! Really man... like, go toke on the bong again or something dude... you were being brilliant last night with all the logic talk, I enjoyed that stuff... but today you want to hassle me man, and like...DUDE!  Fo' real? 

I honestly don't know why "the atheist" thinks the way he/she does, I don't lose much sleep over it. I think about half the atheists I meet are just angry at religion for whatever reason. Like I said earlier, it's fascinating how many of my atheist god-bashing facebook friends will jump on to ask everyone to pray for their neighbor's child who is missing, or uncle in the hospital, daughter in a car wreck.... oh, pray for the family... now, it's not all of them, but it happens. It just blows my mind sometimes. 

Spiritual nature logically created physical nature and the physical universe, time, space, energy, etc. Why? A logical paradox, a thing cannot create itself if it doesn't exist.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Sheesh. It's as though you're being paid by the fundamentalist Christian ministries to press the fundie agenda.



Yeah... I wish one of them fat and happy Jerry Falwell types would hurry up and send me my check! I want to go blow it on whiskey and whores!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, either way is fine.  The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless.  Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability.  In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically.  That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions:  the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
> 
> Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom _a set is not an element of itself_ for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic:  to amplify and explore new possibilities.
> 
> But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken.  But the only _*real*_ concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory.  Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise.  I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before.  Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)
> 
> So whether or not
> A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
> B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
> singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
> C. there is no such anything of any sort
> 
> Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.
> 
> We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.
> 
> The point is really do we agree how to act
> and work together; what laws or language do we  use
> to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
> and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
> how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.
Click to expand...


God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.

What you're saying is false.

God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things _only_. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is _not _subjective.

What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.

Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin.  You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence.  Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is _not_ scientifically falsifiable! 

We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.

Science doesn't do us; we do science.  The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that.  Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents.  We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> *In fact, it is that kind of closed minded intolerant thinking that I fear for my country*. If you were given unfettered power, no telling at the heinous atrocities you'd commit against the religious.




against the religious, that's funny, a persecution complex from a spiritualist ... history is no barrier for the innocent whether it speaks for them or _not_.

.


> Female human rights activist killed by ISIS Fox News
> 
> *Female human rights activist killed by ISIS*
> 
> BAGHDAD –  Militants with the Islamic State group tortured and then publicly killed a human rights lawyer in the Iraqi city of Mosul after their self-proclaimed religious court ruled that she had abandoned Islam, the U.N. mission in Iraq said Thursday.




there's nothing to worry about concerning the biblicists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...



Now that I have your attention. . . .

I never said there was anything mysterious about spiritual nature. I never said is doesn't exist. There's plenty of evidence, as you say, that humans are, ultimately and uniquely, spiritual beings.

Recall. I directed your attention to a post in which I named you and pointed out the cogency of your observations in this regard.

But the evidence for this, which you keep pointing at and which I reasonably hold to be objectively admissible, worthy of consideration, is _not_ of a spiritual substance. It's historically and anthropologically empirical!

You are confused, and the atheists on this thread are right when they tell you that you are confused.



> I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread.



Cosmos = universe.



> *(1)* My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. *(2)* People value and evaluate evidence differently. *(3)* Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. *(4)* You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc.



Statement one is true, but immaterial.  Statement two is true.  Statement three is false, indeed, the essence of your confusion.  Statement four is true and demonstrates why statement three is false.

Your paragraph is about number two and number four; it's not about number three.

_Evidence_ is _a visible, apprehensible and presentable sign of something_; it’s _a substantive indication that provides proof for something_. _How_ evidence for something might subjectively be viewed by any given person is not the same thing as _what_ evidence is. As you pointed out in statement number four, any given item(s) of evidence that is a substantive indication providing proof for something _exists_ whether one clearly sees it for what it actually is or not.

Human consciousness does not have primacy over the facts of existence; the facts of existence have primacy over human consciousness. Any given thing is what it is regardless of what we might think it is or is not.

Hence, when you write that "evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such", you write something that is false. Any given thing, including an item/sign of evidence, does not in actuality become something it's not, as if its nature were subject to mere opinion. It's our evaluation of the nature of any given thing that is subject to error or to revision, not the nature of the thing apprehended.

In a court of law, the issue is objective relevancy. The arguments and the artifacts that are allowed by the rulings of the court, constitute items of evidentiary relevance to be weighed. The issue is whether or not they actually prove the actuality or the perceived actuality of their object. The object is known.  The goal is objectivity, not subjectivity, however imperfectly that goal may or may not be achieved in any given case.

In any event, the issues before us on this thread go to metaphysical objectivity.



> I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters.



No, you don't, because you’re still confusing _what_ evidence and proofs _are_ with _how_ one might view evidence and proofs. According to you nothing could be held to be objectively true.  All is subjective.  But all I need to do in order to show why that’s false is to write *2 + 2 = 4*. That is a logical-mathematical axiom which is an objective item of evidence providing proof that the comprehensive principle of identity is at the very least a universally hardwired, organic fact of human cognition. *2 + 2 ≠ 7 or 13 or 21* just because some lunatic thinks or says it is.

Finally, you _do_ know what the *atheist *knows about *the idea of God*. He knows the same thing about *the idea of God* that we all know about *the idea of God* in terms of the problems of existence and origin.

What the *atheist* knows about *the idea of God* is no less objectively self-evident than the logical-mathematical axiom of *2 = 2 = 4!* I'm not upset with you or going off on you. I don't need to chill out. I'm trying to get your attention. You need to open up your eyes and see what is right in front of you!

Every *atheist* on this thread has told you what he knows about *the idea of God*, yet you're still saying you don't know what he knows about *the idea of God*.

Every friggin' time an *atheist* opens his mouth to deny their be any actual substance behind *the idea of God* he is telling what he knows about *the idea of God* and what it means!

Come on, Boss!

The *atheist* is telling you that he is aware of the fact that *the idea of God *is in his head as the ultimate potentially of origin. The *atheist* knows this about *the idea of God*!

Why have I put the term *atheist* in bold? What does the term *atheist* mean?

Boss!

Everybody knows that one of the potentialities of ultimate origin is God, because everybody knows what *the idea of God* means, including the *atheist*.

Whaaaaa? You think the *atheist* is saying he doesn't believe in something that he doesn't understand or doesn't believe in something that is not in his head as one of the potentialities of ultimate origin?

Boss!

And what is the thing that God is potentially the origin of in the *atheist's* mind every friggin' time he opens his mouth to deny there be any actual substance behind this conceptual potentiality?

THE UNIVERSE, BOSS! THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT, INCLUDING THE *ATHEIST*!

The universe and everything that's in it is the evidence for God's existence; the universe and everything that's in it is the evidentiary substance of *the idea of God* that's in the *atheist's* head.

When idiots like Hollie tell you that there is no evidence for *the existence of God*, as if they didn't know what *the idea of God* means and what it is based on, which is obviously in their heads _because_ of the evidence of the universe and everything that's in it, they're lying to themselves and to you.

There's your psychology, Boss.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...



Boss, how have you managed to get this so backwards?  Rawlings and I are not arguing with you over this.  But what you're calling the evidence is not the evidence.  It's the logical conclusion, the thing being proved.  That's the spiritual thing.  It's the spiritual being proven or pointed at by the evidence.  The evidence for this is physical or empirical.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.



So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.


----------



## Boss

Guys, I don't know why your minds can imagine all sorts of complexity in concepts like logic, but you aren't following what I am saying. To put it simply, evidence is only evidence when someone acknowledges it is evidence. Let's say I live in a hut in Africa, I've never heard of science, don't comprehend the concept at all...  I believe the rains are controlled by the great sky spirit. You come along and show me what you consider to be the physical evidence of how rain happens. You understand it as evidence, to you it is valid, legitimate evidence. To me it means absolutely nothing because I don't believe in science. What you are presenting is not evidence to me, I don't believe in the concept the evidence is for, therefore it isn't evidence from my perspective. I am not saying the evidence is not evidence or isn't valid or true. Evidence can only be evidence when someone accepts it is evidence. Evidence is subjective and what constitutes evidence is also subjective. 

What you guys are arguing is, once someone determines something is evidence, it can't ever be questioned as evidence, for it has been proclaimed evidence. I know people who think they have evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure their evidence is valid and legitimate to them, from their perspective. To me, their evidence is NOT evidence. It is circumstantial coincidence. But my mind is biased to the fact that I don't believe the premise the evidence is for, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. So what is evidence? Is is what someone proclaims is evidence or what someone accepts as evidence? 

I understand the universe is evidence of God. I go that even further, time itself is evidence for God. However, those of us who believe this as evidence also believe in God. So now we have what is called confirmation bias. Atheists reject God, they don't believe God exists, they don't believe in the spiritual, so they do not consider the universe or time as evidence for God. So is the evidence what someone claims it is, or what someone accepts it is? 

It's important to remember, whenever a human being comprehends something as a truth, something that is proven to them, they literally always have "evidence" to support their belief. So whenever we hear people argue something is true and here is the evidence... this is normal. It is the default human position to have evidence to support your beliefs. This does not make your evidence empirical or validate your beliefs in any way, other than to yourself.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, how have you managed to get this so backwards?  Rawlings and I are not arguing with you over this.  But what you're calling the evidence is not the evidence.  It's the logical conclusion, the thing being proved.  That's the spiritual thing.  It's the spiritual being proven or pointed at by the evidence.  The evidence for this is physical or empirical.
Click to expand...


I don't think I have gotten anything backwards. I'm a bit puzzled as to why it seems we are on the same side, yet you are disagreeing with me. The things I've said are not contradictory to things you've said, just a different perspective. I am approaching this from a psychological and semantics direction because that's what I am most familiar with. We have words, we've applied definition to those words. It's very important to note that Atheists and Theists have differing understandings when it comes to those word definitions. When it is asked, "Does God Exist?" you have to evaluate what does "exist" mean? To an Atheist, it can only mean one thing, to physically exist. Then you have to define "God" and what is meant there. 

Atheists are unable to comprehend a spiritual existence. This is why they make these threads and seem so frustrated that no one can ever show them "proof of God" here. Since God is not a physical entity, God simply can't be proven to be a physical entity. Even to someone who is willing to accept that God could be a physical entity. By definition, God has to be spiritual, which is not physical. So we can say we have to prove spiritual nature exists, but then, what does "exist" mean to an Atheist?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing mysterious about spiritual nature. I didn't just come up with the concept of human spirituality during this thread and it's some kind of mystery you've never heard about. So why would you infer this is a mysterious thing? Is the reason it is a mystery because we can't measure it or test it with physical sciences designed for physical nature? Yeah, odd how that works...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I have your attention. . . .
> 
> I never said there was anything mysterious about spiritual nature. I never said is doesn't exist. There's plenty of evidence, as you say, that humans are, ultimately and uniquely, spiritual beings.
> 
> Recall. I directed your attention to a post in which I named you and pointed out the cogency of your observations in this regard.
> 
> But the evidence for this, which you keep pointing at and which I reasonably hold to be objectively admissible, worthy of consideration, is _not_ of a spiritual substance. It's historically and anthropologically empirical!
> 
> You are confused, and the atheists on this thread are right when they tell you that you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're on about with the cosmos, I don't think I've even used the word 'cosmos' in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cosmos = universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(1)* My point is philosophical, not intended to be a "science" argument. *(2)* People value and evaluate evidence differently. *(3)* Evidence is what you perceive evidence to be. *(4)* You may not see evidence while others see it clearly. You may think it's strong evidence, weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, tainted evidence, empirical evidence, irrefutable evidence, unquestionable evidence, or no evidence at all. Depends on your perspective, your judgment, your biases, your objectivity, your preconceptions, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Statement one is true, but immaterial.  Statement two is true.  Statement three is false, indeed, the essence of your confusion.  Statement four is true and demonstrates why statement three is false.
> 
> Your paragraph is about number two and number four; it's not about number three.
> 
> _Evidence_ is _a visible, apprehensible and presentable sign of something_; it’s _a substantive indication that provides proof for something_. _How_ evidence for something might subjectively be viewed by any given person is not the same thing as _what_ evidence is. As you pointed out in statement number four, any given item(s) of evidence that is a substantive indication providing proof for something _exists_ whether one clearly sees it for what it actually is or not.
> 
> Human consciousness does not have primacy over the facts of existence; the facts of existence have primacy over human consciousness. Any given thing is what it is regardless of what we might think it is or is not.
> 
> Hence, when you write that "evidence is subject to individual evaluation as such", you write something that is false. Any given thing, including an item/sign of evidence, does not in actuality become something it's not, as if its nature were subject to mere opinion. It's our evaluation of the nature of any given thing that is subject to error or to revision, not the nature of the thing apprehended.
> 
> In a court of law, the issue is objective relevancy. The arguments and the artifacts that are allowed by the rulings of the court, constitute items of evidentiary relevance to be weighed. The issue is whether or not they actually prove the actuality or the perceived actuality of their object. The object is known.  The goal is objectivity, not subjectivity, however imperfectly that goal may or may not be achieved in any given case.
> 
> In any event, the issues before us on this thread go to metaphysical objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do know what evidence and proof are. I am intellectually informing you about them, in case you had never ventured to explore in more psychological detail. Regardless of what type of evidence, it is only "evidence" to an individual who accepts it as evidence. Proof is when you believe (have faith in) the evidence to support something as truth. This is the only 'imperative' that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't, because you’re still confusing _what_ evidence and proofs _are_ with _how_ one might view evidence and proofs. According to you nothing could be held to be objectively true.  All is subjective.  But all I need to do in order to show why that’s false is to write *2 + 2 = 4*. That is a logical-mathematical axiom which is an objective item of evidence providing proof that the comprehensive principle of identity is at the very least a universally hardwired, organic fact of human cognition. *2 + 2 ≠ 7 or 13 or 21* just because some lunatic thinks or says it is.
> 
> Finally, you _do_ know what the *atheist *knows about *the idea of God*. He knows the same thing about *the idea of God* that we all know about *the idea of God* in terms of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> What the *atheist* knows about *the idea of God* is no less objectively self-evident than the logical-mathematical axiom of *2 = 2 = 4!* I'm not upset with you or going off on you. I don't need to chill out. I'm trying to get your attention. You need to open up your eyes and see what is right in front of you!
> 
> Every *atheist* on this thread has told you what he knows about *the idea of God*, yet you're still saying you don't know what he knows about *the idea of God*.
> 
> Every friggin' time an *atheist* opens his mouth to deny their be any actual substance behind *the idea of God* he is telling what he knows about *the idea of God* and what it means!
> 
> Come on, Boss!
> 
> The *atheist* is telling you that he is aware of the fact that *the idea of God *is in his head as the ultimate potentially of origin. The *atheist* knows this about *the idea of God*!
> 
> Why have I put the term *atheist* in bold? What does the term *atheist* mean?
> 
> Boss!
> 
> Everybody knows that one of the potentialities of ultimate origin is God, because everybody knows what *the idea of God* means, including the *atheist*.
> 
> Whaaaaa? You think the *atheist* is saying he doesn't believe in something that he doesn't understand or doesn't believe in something that is not in his head as one of the potentialities of ultimate origin?
> 
> Boss!
> 
> And what is the thing that God is potentially the origin of in the *atheist's* mind every friggin' time he opens his mouth to deny there be any actual substance behind this conceptual potentiality?
> 
> THE UNIVERSE, BOSS! THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT, INCLUDING THE *ATHEIST*!
> 
> The universe and everything that's in it is the evidence for God's existence; the universe and everything that's in it is the evidentiary substance of *the idea of God* that's in the *atheist's* head.
> 
> When idiots like Hollie tell you that there is no evidence for *the existence of God*, as if they didn't know what *the idea of God* means and what it is based on, which is obviously in their heads _because_ of the evidence of the universe and everything that's in it, they're lying to themselves and to you.
> 
> There's your psychology, Boss.
Click to expand...

I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.


----------



## Boss

And for the record here... I am not on this to convert or attack Atheists. My dog isn't in that hunt, I don't get reward bonuses for souls anymore from PTL or discounts on my NRA membership. I don't care what Atheists want to believe. My own flesh and blood sister, calls ME an Atheist! She is a Christian. Her argument is, I am an atheist because I am a-theistic. I do not belong to or follow organized religions. At first she just said I had a lot in common with "those atheists you argue with online." It has evolved into her just calling me her Atheist Brother. 

So I guess I am an Atheist who believes in a Spiritual God.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.



Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth.... 



Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?


----------



## G.T.

"the five things the five things"




The five things don't prove god.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
> 
> 
> 
> Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
Click to expand...

Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been. 

But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
> 
> 
> 
> Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.
> 
> But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.
Click to expand...


Hey, what can I say, I try!  Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me. 
Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> ​


​
Finally found this stupid assed list of five, so I'll go through them one by one.

1. *We exist*, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

2. *The cosmos exist,* is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.

3. *Atheism is not rational*, CURRENTLY. Same with theism. I've said BOTH. Neither are rational, until there's considerable proof of one or the other - of which I have yet to see any.

4. *An all knowing knower would necessarily know that they're all knowing* is simply an axiom, and it's an axiom BECAUSE OF ITS DEFINITION, and THAT'S IT! This does not speak to w_hether or not AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER EVEN EXISTS_. And the point was, A non all knowing knower NECESSARILY knows THAT THEY DON'T know everything, as well - - - - - meaning that the tag question "what do you know, and how do you know it?" is answered, you can ground all of your knowledge from THAT starting point: "I know I'm not all knowing." This is an axiom because of its definitions. This does not speak to whether or not a god exists, and does not prove that it's required, the baseless tag premise, that objective knowledge has its basis in a "mind" holding it together, necessarily. "It just is" is still just as plausible, in current human knowledge, and so the TAG cannot be used as PROOF of anything because EXISTS  ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. You're taking LIBERTIES by ascribing it as you have in the TAG when OTHER (non disproven!!!!!!!!) EXPLANATIONS *DO* EXIST. Taking said liberties is dishonest, or misguided, or shortsighted, or LYING, or a combination of all of them.

5. I dont even know what the fuck this means, its bad english.










So, the more you bring up "but but but but but you agreed with the FIVE THINGS!!!! THE FIVE THINGS!!!!!!!!!" the more you waste my time and fail. They don't advance the proof for god, they dont advance the rationale for god. They're a meaningless numbered list that don't lead one one way or another if they're being _*absolutely*_ (hee hee) objective.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
> 
> 
> 
> Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.
> 
> But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, what can I say, I try!  Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
> Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, the some others isn't referring to me homey.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "All I should need to do is present the logically symbolic expression of the construct of the Triune God to demonstrate that:
> 
> *Let F = Father; S = Son; H = Holy Spirit; G = God.
> 
> 
> A: A = A = G = {F, S, H simultaneously}. Any given A = A, in this case God, is two or more things simultaneously.*
> 
> That does not violate any of the laws of thought!"
> 
> Actually, it does.  *A set is not an element of itself.* (See Set Theory, which follows from logic). You just defined God as the set containing Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therefore none of them individually is God!!
> 
> You have to describe the Father, Son and Holy Ghosts as _aspects_ of god to make sense of what you mean. For instance, one could associate the father to the face of god.  Calling the Father "God" would then be similiar to referring to the face of a person as that person.  In this sense it is understandable, but the method you are using is incorrect and can lead to some troubling paradoxes in your model of God.
> 
> However, some Catholics do not approve of this approach to the trinity, and have offered other ways to view it. This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder.  In the end, you may wish to explore Catholic interpretations of the trinity to approach the so called " 3 is 1" dilemma.
> 
> Another problem of defining god as a set is that there exist the possibility of other aspects that no human knows that can be referred to as god(or, in your case, belonging to god). Then your set cannot possibly represent  god because it is a subset of the set you wish to use.
> 
> OK--that is all I wanted to say, please carry on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, either way is fine.  The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless.  Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability.  In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically.  That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions:  the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
> 
> Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom _a set is not an element of itself_ for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic:  to amplify and explore new possibilities.
> 
> But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken.  But the only _*real*_ concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory.  Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise.  I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before.  Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)
> 
> So whether or not
> A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
> B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
> singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
> C. there is no such anything of any sort
> 
> Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.
> 
> We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.
> 
> The point is really do we agree how to act
> and work together; what laws or language do we  use
> to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
> and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
> how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> What you're saying is false.
> 
> God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things _only_. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is _not _subjective.
> 
> What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.
> 
> Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin.  You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence.  Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is _not_ scientifically falsifiable!
> 
> We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.
> 
> Science doesn't do us; we do science.  The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that.  Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents.  We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
> 
> 
> 
> Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.
> 
> But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, what can I say, I try!  Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
> Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.
Click to expand...

Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.



Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out. 

Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.
> 
> Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!
Click to expand...

I think he leaves the angry and jealous but loving impression in the religious texts of new and old. 

To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either. 

I have a child. 

Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth. 

Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also. 


Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.
> 
> Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!
Click to expand...

As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.
> 
> Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.
Click to expand...


*You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.*
 Moi? LMAO!!

I have always believed God is an energy form we can't comprehend. It doesn't have or need human attributes. It does not care if you worship it any more than electricity cares if you worship it. We have the free will as humans to do as we please, we don't have to worship a God/Deity/Whatever. Religions are built upon the foundation of worshiping God. I'm not here to defend that, it doesn't matter to me what people do or how they spiritually connect. As long as they aren't killing other innocent people, I'm tolerant. 

Now, God the Energy Form, is still there and is real. It's part of nature itself and the evidence is everything. Down to your ability to even realize a reality in a physical place where time is enabled. There is no other explanation for existence of the physical, no other explanation has logic.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me and some friends once talked about forming the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. We were going to have communion with shots of whiskey and shrooms, then find the path to eternal truth and meaning by exploring the music of the Allman Brothers. It never panned out.
> 
> Why would God be angry? I mean, He's God, right? What do you have to be angry about if you are God? I have NEVER understood that. I'd be happy as fuck if I were God! Hellz Yeah! Let me ZAP a few fucktards! Oh hell no, I'll just poof your ass straight to hell! Angry? Pft.. No way man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you offer the same canards in connection with defining your gods and magical spirit realms that spill out of every fundamentalist creation ministry. You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You personalize your gods, you slather them with human attributes, you make them emotive and you simply mold them into a paternal image that calms your emotional requirement to have a daddy who will make everything all right.*
> Moi? LMAO!!
> 
> I have always believed God is an energy form we can't comprehend. It doesn't have or need human attributes. It does not care if you worship it any more than electricity cares if you worship it. We have the free will as humans to do as we please, we don't have to worship a God/Deity/Whatever. Religions are built upon the foundation of worshiping God. I'm not here to defend that, it doesn't matter to me what people do or how they spiritually connect. As long as they aren't killing other innocent people, I'm tolerant.
> 
> Now, God the Energy Form, is still there and is real. It's part of nature itself and the evidence is everything. Down to your ability to even realize a reality in a physical place where time is enabled. There is no other explanation for existence of the physical, no other explanation has logic.
Click to expand...

Of course, the gods inhabiting your spirit realms are now an "energy". This same "energy" to which you attach human attributes. That's no different from the core elements of most religions where gods are simply extensions of human fears and superstitions. How strange that your gods evolve from post to post as you struggle to redefine them.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.
> 
> I have a child.
> 
> Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.
> 
> Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.
> 
> 
> Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.



*...I'd rather not have existed ever at all ...*
Are you sure about this? While you can say a lot of bad things on old religion, you can't say what might have taken it's place in establishing our social morals as a species if they hadn't existed. 

For instance, let's consider if humans had naturally evolved to behave like animals in the wild... Would your daughter be safe from say, other males in the species? Would your property be safe? More importantly, could you defend it? You see, you would need to because the law of the jungle would prevail and you'd have to in order to survive. 

*It's my nature to be good...*
Yes, it is everyone's nature to be good. However, even Hitler thought he was good. The problem with man is hubris. We all rationalize our behaviors and justify our actions as "good" because we view ourselves as good people. Very few people will admit they are a total butt maggot with no redeeming qualities. 

*...I'm not necessarily going to worship...*
I don't worship either. I don't have anything against it, I just don't see the need to do it. I do understand it though, the concept of worshiping God. I can respect that some people are compelled to do it and think they must, and I am fine with that... again, so long as heads aren't being decapitated and planes flown into buildings and such.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Of course, the gods inhabiting your spirit realms are now an "energy". This same "energy" to which you attach human attributes. That's no different from the core elements of most religions where gods are simply extensions of human fears and superstitions. How strange that your gods evolve from post to post as you struggle to redefine them.



You'll never find a post from me which assigns any human attribute to God.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.
> 
> I have a child.
> 
> Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.
> 
> Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.
> 
> 
> Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...I'd rather not have existed ever at all ...*
> Are you sure about this? While you can say a lot of bad things on old religion, you can't say what might have taken it's place in establishing our social morals as a species if they hadn't existed.
> 
> For instance, let's consider if humans had naturally evolved to behave like animals in the wild... Would your daughter be safe from say, other males in the species? Would your property be safe? More importantly, could you defend it? You see, you would need to because the law of the jungle would prevail and you'd have to in order to survive.
> 
> *It's my nature to be good...*
> Yes, it is everyone's nature to be good. However, even Hitler thought he was good. The problem with man is hubris. We all rationalize our behaviors and justify our actions as "good" because we view ourselves as good people. Very few people will admit they are a total butt maggot with no redeeming qualities.
> 
> *...I'm not necessarily going to worship...*
> I don't worship either. I don't have anything against it, I just don't see the need to do it. I do understand it though, the concept of worshiping God. I can respect that some people are compelled to do it and think they must, and I am fine with that... again, so long as heads aren't being decapitated and planes flown into buildings and such.
Click to expand...



The origin of morals in my view is our sentience. 

Not religion. 

I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.



I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
Click to expand...

It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened.  Big difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In one of G.T.'s posts he implied that I just go with whatever Rawlings says like I just blindly believe whatever he says and don't think for myself. He says this even though I questioned something Rawlings said that was a contradiction.  Rawlings acknowledged that I was right but as he explained, he doesn't really  believe what he seemed to be saying.  He admitted that he wrote something in a bad way that meant something he didn't mean to imply.  That was an honest error.  In other words, Rawlings can admit when he makes an error, and he listens to people and tries to understand them, just like the way he listens to dblack and tries to understand him and is open to dblack's suggestions.  Rawlings doesn't just blow people off like the silly nanny Foxfyre who got all huffy says.
> 
> Also, I know that what Rawlings has been saying all along about the classical laws of thought and the principle of identity is right and that QW is wrong because I know about these things on my own from my own studies before I came to this forum. I've leaned a lot more about it from Rawlings though. And I didn't just take Rawlings word on constructive logic but took the time to study up on it so that I could understand what QW and him were talking about.
> Anyone can understand the basic rules and terms of constructive logic without all the technical language of logic and stuff. That's why I've had it with QW. I can clearly see that what Rawlings is saying about classical and constructive logic is right and everything QW is saying is a lie. Everything QW said is wrong; even the things he said that are true about constructive logic are really lies because he implies these things mean things they don't. That's the game he's playing when he says to show him where he's wrong about constructive logic not using all the axioms that classical logic uses. That's not the point and that liar QW knows that's not the point.  Rawlings knows that better than QW and that doesn't make anything Rawlings has said wrong.
> 
> QW reminds me of how the devil uses the truth as a lie by twisting it.  (And this something that I also leaned from Rawlings, how to use one sentence as a paragraph to make a point of fact stand out.)
> 
> What G.T. doesn't understand about me is that I trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin _*is*_ objectively apparent to everyone about the issue of origin all the way up to what the universal principle of identity tells us about God and what He can do.  That is all Rawlings has been talking about on this thread.  I agree with Rawlings because I have the same belief based on what the Bible shows to be true about these things from Romans 1:18 and other places in the Bible.  That same idea and all of the objective facts that are in our minds are listed in the Bible.  That is my foundational belief, the same belief Rawlings has, and it always has been. I had that understanding of things before I came to this forum.
> 
> I don't believe what I do because Rawlings believes it. That's just silly. I already believed these things from the Bible before I ever met him on this forum. I've been thinking about the details of the same idea for months on my own and with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The basic idea is not new to me. Rawlings is just more advanced than me in this knowledge, and from him I now know a lot more about it all. That's all. What he says logically and objectively follows. He has never given me any reason to think that he is not being honest and objective.
> 
> The objective facts about the issue of origin are the only things that Rawlings and I are talking about. They are in your mind just like they're in everybody else's mind. Every person on this thread has admitted, directly or indirectly, that the Five Things and the understanding of the other things that follow are in their minds. Even their denials of theses things proves they're in their minds. These ideas are not subjective. Just like Rawlings has said over and over again, everybody knows that these possibilities have plenty of rational and empirical evidence to back them. The possibility of their ultimate reality cannot be logically eliminated because the evidence for them is objectively inferential, not subjectively inferential.
> 
> Those who say this is not true are either not thinking clearly or are lying to themselves.
Click to expand...


I don't get it.  Give me your elevator pitch not 10 paragraphs.

Otherwise, here is my thoughts as I was reading your reply.

I think every theist who comes to this site, if they were being honest, isn’t 100% sure there is a god.  If they were they wouldn’t be here.  My brother wouldn’t even entertain this debate.  It’s why I don’t have it with him.  He also doesn’t try to “convert” me.  And I might even believe that deep down he knows it doesn’t logically make sense.  I’m pretty sure he knows the Adam and Noah stories are allegories but probably hasn’t put it together that so is the Jesus story.  But he believes it is good for him and his family so I don't say anything negative.  But that’s beside the point.  Point is, he’s not coming on USMB to argue with theists.  Either you are a bible thumper who can’t do enough converting in your real life so you come here to try to do more, or you want to “save” us atheists, or you aren’t sure.  Why else would a theist be on USMB arguing with atheists?  Most theists, agnostics and atheists “aren’t sure”.  The ones who are are nuts.  Agreed? 

The Devil doesn’t do anything silly.  Man uses the truth as a lie by twisting it. Will you get that through your thick skull?  Man does that.  Man man man.  Man wrote the bible about evil MAN.  The devil is another allegory.  

You said you” trust what God's word says because everything it says that is objectively apparent to everyone”  First of all, no it is not apparent to everyone and secondly, if it is so great, how come we don’t use it and instead we are a secular society that has laws instead?


----------



## hobelim

Justin Davis said:


> That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.



You are wrong. every Biblical reference to Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer, a demon or a devil is a figurative depiction of a human being, a deceitful sub human low life,  and is not and never was about any invisible order of fallen preternatural beings.

Jesus himself called Peter Satan, he identified Judas as a devil, and he called the pharisees serpents. 

not one of then was an invisible disembodied entity.


BTW how do you resolve the fact that Lucifer is identified as "the morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, and in revelation 22:16 Jesus specifically identifies himself as "the morning star"?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.



This is where I believe there is a flaw in your view. There are other sentient creatures in nature. Their morality is centered on animalistic instinct and what's best for the tribe. Yes, you can do all the rationalization, imagining and justification for how you think humans derived particular moralistic views not found anywhere else in nature, but you can't explain why we don't find these anywhere else in nature.

The human construct of morality is very much tied to our intrinsic awareness of a power greater than self. It is through this we became inspired creatures with the ability to conceive civilization. It also inspired us to create Religion. 

Okay, harken ourselves back to caveman days, and you come to me with this idea that we should all get along and not kill each other because that's the least amount of suffering and is best for us... If I am the stronger dominate male cave man, you know what I am going to do with your idea? I am going to kill you and use your skull for a crapper. Why? Nature.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I believe there is a flaw in your view. There are other sentient creatures in nature. Their morality is centered on animalistic instinct and what's best for the tribe. Yes, you can do all the rationalization, imagining and justification for how you think humans derived particular moralistic views not found anywhere else in nature, but you can't explain why we don't find these anywhere else in nature.
> 
> The human construct of morality is very much tied to our intrinsic awareness of a power greater than self. It is through this we became inspired creatures with the ability to conceive civilization. It also inspired us to create Religion.
> 
> Okay, harken ourselves back to caveman days, and you come to me with this idea that we should all get along and not kill each other because that's the least amount of suffering and is best for us... If I am the stronger dominate male cave man, you know what I am going to do with your idea? I am going to kill you and use your skull for a crapper. Why? Nature.
Click to expand...

I CAN explain why we don't find them anywhere else in nature. 

Because other creatures in nature are not as smart as humans are. 

Same with cavemen. Humans were not at that point of intelligent reasoning yet. Pretty easy to explain.

That's it! very simple.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
Click to expand...


Religion, sure. But what you are calling "sentience" is directly from spiritual nature, enabled by spiritual energy. Religions are simply a byproduct of human spirituality. 

But the real hangup here is what we respectively define as "sentience" ...you seem to act as though this is something exclusive only to humans. Self-awareness? Identity? My dog has that. The little monkeys at the zoo have that. A horse or goat has that. I caught a fish the other day, it seemed to be aware it existed and had a big ol' hook in it's mouth. I see lots of living things which have sentience. 

Now, if you mean self-aware of humanity and all that entails, you are correct. Our humanity is spiritually inspired and we are intrinsically hard wired to know that and be aware of it.


----------



## hobelim

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some would disagree with your interpenetration for the residence of the living Spirit - certainly Flora, as having no "brain" but does have a heart ...
> 
> at any rate prove the Spirit resides in any particular organ or that the heart is not commiserate with emotions, when "racing".
Click to expand...


I don't know where you come from but in my world flora do not have either a heart or a brain or consciousness.

And I have no need to prove that consciousness resides in the brain as there already exists overwhelming evidence that brain activity is directly connected to consciousness where even emotions are perceived and any racing of the heart as a result of emotional distress is preceded by thoughts in the brain.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion, sure. But what you are calling "sentience" is directly from spiritual nature, enabled by spiritual energy. Religions are simply a byproduct of human spirituality.
> 
> But the real hangup here is what we respectively define as "sentience" ...you seem to act as though this is something exclusive only to humans. Self-awareness? Identity? My dog has that. The little monkeys at the zoo have that. A horse or goat has that. I caught a fish the other day, it seemed to be aware it existed and had a big ol' hook in it's mouth. I see lots of living things which have sentience.
> 
> Now, if you mean self-aware of humanity and all that entails, you are correct. Our humanity is spiritually inspired and we are intrinsically hard wired to know that and be aware of it.
Click to expand...

Do I need to piece by piece go into every sentence of yours here that I disagree with?

You make WAY too many assertions for one post. 

Starting with the spirituality is what somehow separates us from animals, and not simply our advanced intelligence. We highly disagree with one another there, and its the premise of your entire post.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I CAN explain why we don't find them anywhere else in nature.
> 
> Because other creatures in nature are not as smart as humans are.
> 
> Same with cavemen. Humans were not at that point of intelligent reasoning yet. Pretty easy to explain.
> 
> That's it! very simple.



Some creatures are smarter than humans. Do you know which flowers to pollinate when? An American crow has no problem communicating details to a Chinese crow. Ants can build efficient low income housing for millions in a matter of a few days. Birds can return to the very tree they were born in years later and with no GPS. Ask anyone with a seeing-eye dog if animals are as smart as humans. 

Now you mentioned another interesting thing... "point of intelligent reasoning" and that's interesting to me. So, you have no real explanation for how we managed to develop this, or even what it means? Crows are very good at intelligent reasoning. There is a video you can look up, they had this crow who had to figure out a series of problems to get a food reward, and the crow repeatedly showed it was making reasoned thoughts and figuring out the problem and how to resolve it. They've done similar intelligence tests on dolphins as well. 

Oh crap... did that completely torch your argument? You need to understand something, you're not going to find another better reasoned explanation for human morality than our spirituality.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I CAN explain why we don't find them anywhere else in nature.
> 
> Because other creatures in nature are not as smart as humans are.
> 
> Same with cavemen. Humans were not at that point of intelligent reasoning yet. Pretty easy to explain.
> 
> That's it! very simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some creatures are smarter than humans. Do you know which flowers to pollinate when? An American crow has no problem communicating details to a Chinese crow. Ants can build efficient low income housing for millions in a matter of a few days. Birds can return to the very tree they were born in years later and with no GPS. Ask anyone with a seeing-eye dog if animals are as smart as humans.
> 
> Now you mentioned another interesting thing... "point of intelligent reasoning" and that's interesting to me. So, you have no real explanation for how we managed to develop this, or even what it means? Crows are very good at intelligent reasoning. There is a video you can look up, they had this crow who had to figure out a series of problems to get a food reward, and the crow repeatedly showed it was making reasoned thoughts and figuring out the problem and how to resolve it. They've done similar intelligence tests on dolphins as well.
> 
> Oh crap... did that completely torch your argument? You need to understand something, you're not going to find another better reasoned explanation for human morality than our spirituality.
Click to expand...



I dont think we have the same idea of smarts. 

You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability. 

Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring. 

I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> Some creatures are smarter than humans. Do you know which flowers to pollinate when? An American crow has no problem communicating details to a Chinese crow. Ants can build efficient low income housing for millions in a matter of a few days. Birds can return to the very tree they were born in years later and with no GPS. Ask anyone with a seeing-eye dog if animals are as smart as humans.
> 
> Now you mentioned another interesting thing... "point of intelligent reasoning" and that's interesting to me. So, you have no real explanation for how we managed to develop this, or even what it means? Crows are very good at intelligent reasoning. There is a video you can look up, they had this crow who had to figure out a series of problems to get a food reward, and the crow repeatedly showed it was making reasoned thoughts and figuring out the problem and how to resolve it. They've done similar intelligence tests on dolphins as well.
> 
> Oh crap... did that completely torch your argument? You need to understand something, you're not going to find another better reasoned explanation for human morality than our spirituality.




Hmmm. I suppose the answer must be that humans are less intelligent than every other species.

You will never see another species pray to a block of wood for help during a crisis.

How stupid is that?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.
> 
> You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.
> 
> Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.



All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.

You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special were naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Hmmm. I suppose the answer must be that humans are less intelligent than every other species.
> 
> You will never see another species pray to a block of wood for help during a crisis.
> 
> How stupid is that?



yeah, it doesn't even make sense that this isn't fundamentally important, does it?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.
> 
> You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.
> 
> Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.
> 
> You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special in naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.
Click to expand...

No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us. 

I'm not going to sit here and argue with something I find so epically stupid, it's inarguable. 


Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that. 

Put any animal versus a human being in a warehouse with tools and materials and tell one to survive. My $ is on the human every single time. Not because of spirituality, and same for our morals. 

Spirituality did not create our morals. Spirituality once DEEMED it moral, to make HUMAN SACRIFICES to the gods. What changed? Our ability to reason increased. 

Reason, brought upon us by evolution, is what separates us and where we got our morals. Not religion, not spirituality.


----------



## dblack

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion, sure. But what you are calling "sentience" is directly from spiritual nature, enabled by spiritual energy. Religions are simply a byproduct of human spirituality.
> 
> But the real hangup here is what we respectively define as "sentience" ...you seem to act as though this is something exclusive only to humans. Self-awareness? Identity? My dog has that. The little monkeys at the zoo have that. A horse or goat has that. I caught a fish the other day, it seemed to be aware it existed and had a big ol' hook in it's mouth. I see lots of living things which have sentience.
> 
> Now, if you mean self-aware of humanity and all that entails, you are correct. Our humanity is spiritually inspired and we are intrinsically hard wired to know that and be aware of it.
Click to expand...


I get nervous when people use the word "spirituality", but I'm pretty much in agreement with what you're saying here. The most compelling theories I've read on the evolution of consciousness posit that it was spawned from increasingly sophisticated communication between "pack" or "community" members. And it seems to me that some awareness of the group identity must have been there before this happened. This group awareness is what I'm seeing as a sort of primordial religion. It kept everyone "on the same page", and instilled "morals" to ensure group survival. As communication grew in sophistication, and became internalized (we essentially learned to "talk to ourselves"), a sense of individual identity, a "self", developed.

That's a lot of conjecture, of course, but it makes a lot of sense from a naturalist perspective. I never really got how the whole 'supernatural' thing makes any sense, so most conceptions of "spirituality" leave me cold.


----------



## hobelim

Boss said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I suppose the answer must be that humans are less intelligent than every other species.
> 
> You will never see another species pray to a block of wood for help during a crisis.
> 
> How stupid is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, it doesn't even make sense that this isn't fundamentally important, does it?
Click to expand...



It makes perfect sense. Its a simple matter of monkey see monkey do, except, historically, it has been under penalty of death for failure to comply with whatever irrational religious belief or practice was being done at the time. The instinct to survive IS fundamentally important.

I heard it is still happening in certain places where if you do not profess a belief in a so called god named alla whose prophet was a psychotic homicidal pedophile when even the least moral human being wouldn't choose such a perverse person for anything, much less God, you will be summarily executed..

Is the "spirituality" of people living under such conditions really that deep and mysterious to you?

Perhaps every civilization ever founded on false beliefs crumbled because believing in what does not exist creates confusion that can only increase exponentially by praying to what does not exist for guidance and help.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> *(1) *What you guys are arguing is, once someone determines something is evidence, *it can't ever be questioned* as evidence, for it has been proclaimed evidence*.* I know people who think they have evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure their evidence is valid and legitimate to them, from their perspective. *(2)* *To me, their evidence is NOT evidence. It is circumstantial coincidence*. But my mind is biased to the fact that I don't believe the premise the evidence is for, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. So what is evidence? Is is what someone proclaims is evidence or what someone accepts as evidence?
> 
> I understand the universe is evidence of God. I go that even further, time itself is evidence for God. However, those of us who believe this as evidence also believe in God. So now we have what is called confirmation bias. Atheists reject God, they don't believe God exists, they don't believe in the spiritual, so *(3)* *they do not consider the universe or time as evidence for God.* *(4)* *So is the evidence what someone claims it is, or what someone accepts it is?*



Boss, I understand the dynamics of the psychology you're talking about.  It's not rocket science.  It has a name.  It's called epistemological subjectivism/relativism, essentially, irrationalism.  What you're really saying in the rest of the post outside the portion I quoted in the above to save space, is that human consciousness has primacy over the actual nature of any given thing all the way up to the cosmological order itself. Worse, according to your logic, human consciousness has primacy over ultimate existence itself, namely, over divine consciousness.

You don't really believe that.  You just fail to connect the dots out of sheer contrariness, more at, out of sheer pride, the refusal to concede the silliness of your unexamined ideas, though you be so close to the truth.

I am _not_ arguing *number 1*, not now, not ever, because I am not an irrationalist.

I do not hold, for obvious reasons, that human consciousness has primacy over existence as if a toad, for example, would suddenly turn into a bird because I decided in my head that the toad were a bird. Your failure to understand what I'm arguing, just as you somehow got it into your head that I was arguing spirituality to be something contrary or mysterious, is a symptom of your _refusal_ to be objectively unbiased about anything. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, as *number 1* is what _you're_ arguing, not I.

Hence, in *number 2 *and *number 4*, you essentially argue that evidence is whatever one believes it to be. There is truth in that, but, of course, that’s not the point and never has been, and only an irrationalist would habitually fail to get the point or grasp the ultimately pertinent fact of reality about any given thing. The irrationalist is the most gullible of persons in the world, a danger to himself and everyone else.

Of course the veracity of evidence _can_ be and is questioned all the time. How did you come to attribute the stupidity of the contrary to me? The issue is not what any given person accepts to be evidence, but whether or not any given person's alleged evidence for something *actually proves the object*!

*The object! The object! The object!
*
And once again, you incessantly confuse yourself with your irrationalism: if one claims something to be evidence, they obviously accept it to be evidence.  You’re not making a distinction in *number 4*. They're the same thing.  From there we weigh the veracity of said evidence relative to the object.

Finally, Boss, the *atheist* _does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence.  Your allegation to the contrary has been incontrovertibly falsified by the only justifiable and universally objective standard, namely, the principle of identity.  The judge, i.e., the unassailable principle of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, has ruled your lunacy inadmissible evidence.  In this case, the one before the court, your evidence has no relevancy, as it does not and cannot prove your object.

Once again, the court's finds that the *atheist* _does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence, regardless of what any given nitwit says, whether that nitwit be an *atheist* or not. It is also the court's finding that the latter suffer from or form of cognitive psychosis or cognitive sociopathy. They are pathologically deluded, or they are pathological liars.  Intellectually honest atheists concede this axiomatic, tautological fact of human cognition regarding this imperative of the  problem of origin, for their concession inhabits the term *atheist*. They know and believe that!

What they do not believe is that the evidence for the existence of God, namely, the existence of the universe, _proves the fact of the object_ or _the fact of the substance_ of the idea of God that’s in their heads due to the evidence for God’s existence, namely, the existence of the universe.

Boss! Are you always so gullible or deluded, always so easily deceived, or are you a sociopath?  In any event, you are duly ordered to pay a troll penalty of _mea culpa_ and to cease and desist with this lunacy.  The court also recommends no less than 90 days of rehab in a substance abuse program of your choice.


----------



## BreezeWood

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> In ancient times it was the belief that consciousness was seated in the organ of the heart. We now know that consciousness is seated in the organ of the brain.
> 
> There is no such thing as a heart where any thoughts are perceived. Everything is perceived in the brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some would disagree with your interpenetration for the residence of the living Spirit - certainly Flora, as having no "brain" but does have a heart ...
> 
> at any rate prove the Spirit resides in any particular organ or that the heart is not commiserate with emotions, when "racing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you come from but in my world flora do not have either a heart or a brain or consciousness.
> 
> And I have no need to prove that consciousness resides in the brain as there already exists overwhelming evidence that brain activity is directly connected to consciousness where even emotions are perceived and any racing of the heart as a result of emotional distress is preceded by thoughts in the brain.
Click to expand...





> I don't know where you come from but in my world flora do not have either a heart or a brain or consciousness.









is life in the brain ? -

half the living creatures on earth can not be dismissed when discussing the origins of creation relative to their existence nor all fauna but humanity as is the error of biblicists / spiritualists that define themselves by the constraint of selectivity, they are doomed.

The Spirit is not in the brain but a captive of its physiology, for Flora their circulatory is their cognizance without which their production of oxygen there would be no humanity ...

forget the bible hobelim you dwell to much on nothing.


----------



## hobelim

BreezeWood said:


> is life in the brain ? -
> 
> half the living creatures on earth can not be dismissed when discussing the origins of creation relative to their existence nor all fauna but humanity as is the error of biblicists / spiritualists that define themselves by the constraint of selectivity, they are doomed.
> 
> The Spirit is not in the brain but a captive of its physiology, for Flora their circulatory is their cognizance without which their production of oxygen there would be no humanity ...
> 
> forget the bible hobelim you dwell to much on nothing.





Cut the crap. No one was talking about life. Plants turn towards the sun. They are a form of life. So what. Consciousness and intelligence was being discussed as compared to fauna, not flora, humans vs other intelligent forms of life.

The bible has nothing to do with it except as it applies to humans being not so intelligent.

If you use the term spirit, you are using a term that is rooted in the bible, a term that is no more mysterious than what is now known as consciousness which is a product of the mind.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"This is probably due to the fact that the three aspects have different personalities and act independently, suggesting that God may have a split personality disorder. "
> 
> 
> *
> They are different persons, but, scripturally, they don't act independently, but in concerted agreement.  It's not a dilemma for me.  It works fine conceptually.  The details are beyond us.
> 
> You're forgetting, the Triune set of God in this case is not being defined as a detached element of itself, but rather within the framework of  the universal principle of identity.  Hence,  *G = {F, S, H simultaneously} *is preceded by *A: A = A =.   *Also, for good reason, this is a variant, non-standard expression of axiomatic set theory, which permits the qualifier _simultaneously_, wherein each element is a divine person.  Now could the definitions of terms in the assignations of value be tightened up to satisfy bijection emphatically?  Yes.  God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The other option, of course, is to skip the variant axioms of implied negation of non-well-foundedness altogether and just use parenthesis as I did earlier in a wholly expressive fashion.  But the only thing being demonstrated, ultimately, is the infiniteness of the universal principle of identity.  Complex-compound existents of a single predicate do not violate either the comprehensive principle of identity or any one of the organic/classical laws of thought, and this holds under constructive logic as well.  But thanks for tip on definition, for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I don't understand a lot about set theory.  I do understand the difference between standard and non-standard theory and the difference between well-founded axioms and the more informal non-well-founded axioms.  If you use "God the Father . . ."  on the basis of A:A=A= the set is not hanging in the air by itself, but because you have to do it expressively I like using parenthesis better, which is the way Henry does it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, either way is fine.  The infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless.  Non-standard set theory uses the axioms of implied negation instead, while just like standard theory it employs bijection, injection, surjection and cardinality for stability.  In other words, my example is stable when conceptually anchored to the principle of identity semantically.  That's why I kept using A: A = A = G (or whatever) in these expressions:  the stability of bijection, in this case, via conceptualization.
> 
> Essentially, non-standard set theory merely suspends the axiom _a set is not an element of itself_ for much the same reason that the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination are suspended as axioms in constructive logic:  to amplify and explore new possibilities.
> 
> But both amrchaos' point regarding the shortcoming in my definitional assignations and your point about uniformity are well taken.  But the only _*real*_ concern here is one of convincing apologetics, i.e., avoiding the controversy between the traditionalists of standard theory and the proponents of the extrapolations that can be derived under the alternate axioms of non-standard theory.  Like I said, the infiniteness of the principle of identity holds regardless, so there no need to cause any irrelevant objections to arise.  I jusnever thought about that wrinkle before.  Hence, from here on out I will use parenthesis in a wholly expressive fashion as anchored to the principle of identity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I basically agree that it is better to be unconditional (since God can neither be proven or disproven given that God represents something infinite eternal behind man's finite and limited scope of perception information and communcation)
> 
> So whether or not
> A. there IS a central universal Source of all life and laws in existence
> B. All things naturally exist and were always in effect as self-existent, or had a start or process that doesn't involve a
> singular intelligent force in charge, or have no beginning or no end that we can know for sure without conjecturing
> C. there is no such anything of any sort
> 
> Our decisions shouldn't depend on ASSUMING one way or the other or REJECTING one way or the other, but should work REGARDLESS which of these ways it is. Especially when dealing with people who live under these different ways, so we can respect each other's boundaries.
> 
> We should be able to interact in harmony REGARDLESS of these different ways, so no matter what we do, we still get along, cause no harm, correct errors when made, and help each other make the most of life, relations and knowledge/resources we have available to share.
> 
> The point is really do we agree how to act
> and work together; what laws or language do we  use
> to describe the relations we agree to follow between us;
> and if we have different or conflicting laws religions beliefs or values,
> how do we communicate and manage to reach agreement anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence can be proven and is proven under the conventional standards of justification of organic/classical logic, ultimately premised on the universally self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity as derived from the contemplation of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> What you're saying is false.
> 
> God’s existence simply cannot be proven in scientific terms because science if LIMITED to dealing with direct evidence about material things _only_. It's limitations have no bearing on the rational-empirical, evidentiary proofs for God's existence. What any given person decides to do with these proofs is subjective, but the substance of these proofs is _not _subjective.
> 
> What you're talking about is merely the distinction, in terms of ultimacy, between scientific theory, which is based on inferences derived from direct material evidence, and the logical proofs, which evince the cogency of an immaterial origin based on the same.
> 
> Science does not precede or have primacy over the rational and empirical facts of human cognition regarding the universally self-evident imperatives of existence and origin.  You do not adequately understand what evidence and proofs are, what the difference is between subjective evidence and objective evidence, and what the difference is between direct evidence and indirect evidence.  Also, you do not adequately understand the nature of scientific theories, which are inferred from direct physical evidence, albeit, as premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, which in and of itself is _not_ scientifically falsifiable!
> 
> We define, we determine, we infer, we interpret, we decide.
> 
> Science doesn't do us; we do science.  The limited utility of science doesn't dictate anything to anybody, but the thoughtless, the ignorant or the closed-minded. It is a tool used by us to deal with the material realm of being and nothing else but that.  Philosophy deals with the definitions and delineations of metaphysics, and theology, the queen of the sciences, directly deals with the details of ultimate reality, the transcendent realm of being, the ground of all other existents.  We need all three, ultimately premised on the affirmations of revealed religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it interesting how you sloppy, angry drunkards rattle on with your supposed pwoofs of gods, yet, your pwoofs are never more than some twisted, confused and convoluted series of bad analogies, false comparisons and bluster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dang Hollie... sounds like you might still have something in your mouth....
> 
> 
> 
> Today is October 16, 2014.... and just like it was in August, May, January and last October, I still cannot prove God to you. I suspect, if you and I are still living in 2016, I won't be able to prove God to you. What I wonder about is, why do you keep asking for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dang, boss. You're just as crude and as much of a lowlife as you have ever been.
> 
> But yeah, it is interesting that you continue to press your "spirit realms of supermagical gods" agenda that is utterly absent any support. Somehow, your "..... because I say so" argument is as bankrupt now as it was before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, what can I say, I try!  Yes, it's bad when I've got the logical existentialists turning on me.
> Hmm... "spirit realms of supermagical gods?" Doesn't ring a bell as coming from me. I know that you and some others seem to think that the universe created itself from nothing, that sounds pretty 'supermagical' to me. I do talk about spiritual nature, but it's not magical or full of imagined incarnations of various human-like deities. But you see, I understand what you are saying, if I didn't comprehend spiritual nature, I'd probably make the same dumb assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just try to be honest. Your magical spirit realms inhabited by angry gawds is simply an analog of Christian fundamentalism. It's ok that you have invented yet another subdivision of Christianity. Your "flavor of the month" religious sect gives you the option of making your designer religion whatever you want it to be.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.

This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.

As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.

Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.

Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.

That has always been the most effective remedy.

So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.

And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
that are used to correct the abuses of that system.

Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.

In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
to establish truth between them as fellow believers 
Matthew 18:15-20

So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.

And for you and other secular gentiles
let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
to prove our points to each other.

If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
see that the Scientific Method could be used to 
prove how these things work!

That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
minds who understand scientific proof.

Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
more effective, productive and beneficial.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> To me, if god is real, I'd rather not be with or honor him or her if it's the god of any of our current religious texts. In fact, if it's one of those gods, I'd rather not have existed ever at all and so I'm not seeing too good a reason to be grateful either.
> 
> I have a child.
> 
> Every first born son of egypt being killed? I oughta slap that bitch in his mouth.
> 
> Humans are born bad? No, fuck that. I don't have to "try" to be good. It's my nature to be good, and not the opposite. Fuck that, also.
> 
> 
> Even if god DOES exist, I'm not necessarily going to worship him/her/it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...I'd rather not have existed ever at all ...*
> Are you sure about this? While you can say a lot of bad things on old religion, you can't say what might have taken it's place in establishing our social morals as a species if they hadn't existed.
> 
> For instance, let's consider if humans had naturally evolved to behave like animals in the wild... Would your daughter be safe from say, other males in the species? Would your property be safe? More importantly, could you defend it? You see, you would need to because the law of the jungle would prevail and you'd have to in order to survive.
> 
> *It's my nature to be good...*
> Yes, it is everyone's nature to be good. However, even Hitler thought he was good. The problem with man is hubris. We all rationalize our behaviors and justify our actions as "good" because we view ourselves as good people. Very few people will admit they are a total butt maggot with no redeeming qualities.
> 
> *...I'm not necessarily going to worship...*
> I don't worship either. I don't have anything against it, I just don't see the need to do it. I do understand it though, the concept of worshiping God. I can respect that some people are compelled to do it and think they must, and I am fine with that... again, so long as heads aren't being decapitated and planes flown into buildings and such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
Click to expand...


religion is merely a tool, a language for expression what we experience as sentient beings in relations with others.

you're right it's not the religion itself, like a magic word or ritual that holds power.

But it is the expression of the spiritual connection.
so that when we reach an agreed understanding, a meeting of the heart and mind by conscience,
then that connection in our sentient or conscious levels
allows energy to amass into actions both individual and collective.

Our perceptions change, and so we grow as people and interact more harmoniously in the world
the more aware we are of our interconnected lives and purpose.

The religion helps organize people, share ideas and connect,
and mobilize the whole of humanity by family, tribes, nations and groups.
So we can better use all our resources and diverse talents to help each other as a whole.

We use religion as our identity and to communicate like principles and concepts
as we grow and work together. it's a tool, and unfortunately it can be abused as a weapon,
but the point is to use it correctly where it benefits us and humanity and is not abused to manipulate or destroy.

The same hammer that can be used to smash your hand or someone's head in,
can be used to build a house or remove a loose nail that is dangerous.

We don't ban hammers or say we don't need them because we can use anything else that works.
We use the hammer when it works to get the job done.

We use the saw, the screwdriver, the wrench and pliers the same way.
So all groups, all religions are like tools in the toolbox we can use for specific jobs.


----------



## emilynghiem

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> is life in the brain ? -
> 
> half the living creatures on earth can not be dismissed when discussing the origins of creation relative to their existence nor all fauna but humanity as is the error of biblicists / spiritualists that define themselves by the constraint of selectivity, they are doomed.
> 
> The Spirit is not in the brain but a captive of its physiology, for Flora their circulatory is their cognizance without which their production of oxygen there would be no humanity ...
> 
> forget the bible hobelim you dwell to much on nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the crap. No one was talking about life. Plants turn towards the sun. They are a form of life. So what. Consciousness and intelligence was being discussed as compared to fauna, not flora, humans vs other intelligent forms of life.
> 
> The bible has nothing to do with it except as it applies to humans being not so intelligent.
> 
> If you use the term spirit, you are using a term that is rooted in the bible, a term that is no more mysterious than what is now known as consciousness which is a product of the mind.
Click to expand...


OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.

Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
(and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)

what is your take on  the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
is it EGO?  ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
is it related to sex and gender?
is it class and economic or political dominance?

2. What do you see as the process of Equal Justice being restored?
That is what I argue Jesus represents in the Bible
the process of moving from the retributive cycle of past sin or karma repeating and entrapping humanity
in the same cycles of poverty, suffering, war, abuse, death and destruction from repeating the past.

And moving toward Restorative Justice and Peace with Mercy for all people
as one collective humanity or family
So this is what the Kingdom of God represents or Heaven on EArth
Salvation for all humanity from the cycles of suffering we  inherited from the past

We break this cycle with divine gifts of forgiveness and healing
which is what Grace represents.

So the point in the Bible is to receive this saving Grace
and forgive one another for past trespasses so we receive healing justice and peace.
We correct all wrongs and heal all wounds in the spirit of forgiveness so truth and corrections
even restitution can be established and worked out together, restoring good will and good faith relations.

How is that NOT about the consciousness of humanity reaching critical mass?
where each of us makes peace with each other locally
and collectively all people, all nations and tribes, all humanity realize the same spiritual peace?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
Click to expand...


Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.

Initially, Dawkins' book (_The God Delusion_) got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.

Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.

As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").

So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition! 
And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*

Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"

Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(1) *What you guys are arguing is, once someone determines something is evidence, *it can't ever be questioned* as evidence, for it has been proclaimed evidence*.* I know people who think they have evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sure their evidence is valid and legitimate to them, from their perspective. *(2)* *To me, their evidence is NOT evidence. It is circumstantial coincidence*. But my mind is biased to the fact that I don't believe the premise the evidence is for, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. So what is evidence? Is is what someone proclaims is evidence or what someone accepts as evidence?
> 
> I understand the universe is evidence of God. I go that even further, time itself is evidence for God. However, those of us who believe this as evidence also believe in God. So now we have what is called confirmation bias. Atheists reject God, they don't believe God exists, they don't believe in the spiritual, so *(3)* *they do not consider the universe or time as evidence for God.* *(4)* *So is the evidence what someone claims it is, or what someone accepts it is?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I understand the dynamics of the psychology you're talking about.  It's not rocket science.  It has a name.  It's called epistemological subjectivism/relativism, essentially, irrationalism.  What you're really saying in the rest of the post outside the portion I quoted in the above to save space, is that human consciousness has primacy over the actual nature of any given thing all the way up to the cosmological order itself. Worse, according to your logic, human consciousness has primacy over ultimate existence itself, namely, over divine consciousness.
> 
> You don't really believe that.  You just fail to connect the dots out of sheer contrariness, more at, out of sheer pride, the refusal to concede the silliness of your unexamined ideas, though you be so close to the truth.
> 
> I am _not_ arguing *number 1*, not now, not ever, because I am not an irrationalist.
> 
> I do not hold, for obvious reasons, that human consciousness has primacy over existence as if a toad, for example, would suddenly turn into a bird because I decided in my head that the toad were a bird. Your failure to understand what I'm arguing, just as you somehow got it into your head that I was arguing spirituality to be something contrary or mysterious, is a symptom of your _refusal_ to be objectively unbiased about anything. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, as *number 1* is what _you're_ arguing, not I.
> 
> Hence, in *number 2 *and *number 4*, you essentially argue that evidence is whatever one believes it to be. There is truth in that, but, of course, that’s not the point and never has been, and only an irrationalist would habitually fail to get the point or grasp the ultimately pertinent fact of reality about any given thing. The irrationalist is the most gullible of persons in the world, a danger to himself and everyone else.
> 
> Of course the veracity of evidence _can_ be and is questioned all the time. How did you come to attribute the stupidity of the contrary to me? The issue is not what any given person accepts to be evidence, but whether or not any given person's alleged evidence for something *actually proves the object*!
> 
> *The object! The object! The object!
> *
> And once again, you incessantly confuse yourself with your irrationalism: if one claims something to be evidence, they obviously accept it to be evidence.  You’re not making a distinction in *number 4*. They're the same thing.  From there we weigh the veracity of said evidence relative to the object.
> 
> Finally, Boss, the *atheist* _does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence.  Your allegation to the contrary has been incontrovertibly falsified by the only justifiable and universally objective standard, namely, the principle of identity.  The judge, i.e., the unassailable principle of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, has ruled your lunacy inadmissible evidence.  In this case, the one before the court, your evidence has no relevancy, as it does not and cannot prove your object.
> 
> Once again, the court's finds that the *atheist* _does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence, regardless of what any given nitwit says, whether that nitwit be an *atheist* or not. It is also the court's finding that the latter suffer from or form of cognitive psychosis or cognitive sociopathy. They are pathologically deluded, or they are pathological liars.  Intellectually honest atheists concede this axiomatic, tautological fact of human cognition regarding this imperative of the  problem of origin, for their concession inhabits the term *atheist*. They know and believe that!
> 
> What they do not believe is that the evidence for the existence of God, namely, the existence of the universe, _proves the fact of the object_ or _the fact of the substance_ of the idea of God that’s in their heads due to the evidence for God’s existence, namely, the existence of the universe.
> 
> Boss! Are you always so gullible or deluded, always so easily deceived, or are you a sociopath?  In any event, you are duly ordered to pay a troll penalty of _mea culpa_ and to cease and desist with this lunacy.  The court also recommends no less than 90 days of rehab in a substance abuse program of your choice.
Click to expand...


It's all those shrooms and the whiskey.   I like Boss and lots of the stuff he says is really good, I just don't know why he lets the atheists fool him or lie to him.  "Atheism" means that the atheist sees the universe as the evidence for God's existence, but just rejects this evidence as proof for God's existence.  That's the definition of the word.  It blows my mind that some people will trick themselves into believing the opposite of the obvious.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
> whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
> is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.
> 
> This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
> and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.
> 
> As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
> find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.
> 
> Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
> Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.
> 
> Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.
> 
> That has always been the most effective remedy.
> 
> So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
> You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.
> 
> And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
> that are used to correct the abuses of that system.
> 
> Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
> were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.
> 
> In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
> to establish truth between them as fellow believers
> Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.
> 
> And for you and other secular gentiles
> let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
> to prove our points to each other.
> 
> If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
> Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
> see that the Scientific Method could be used to
> prove how these things work!
> 
> That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
> minds who understand scientific proof.
> 
> Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
> There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
> more effective, productive and beneficial.




But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs.   She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
Click to expand...

Wow. Your usual pointless pontification wherein you rattle on with bellicose claims to self importance. 

Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?

Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## Justin Davis

hobelim said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. every Biblical reference to Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer, a demon or a devil is a figurative depiction of a human being, a deceitful sub human low life,  and is not and never was about any invisible order of fallen preternatural beings.
> 
> Jesus himself called Peter Satan, he identified Judas as a devil, and he called the pharisees serpents.
> 
> not one of then was an invisible disembodied entity.
> 
> 
> BTW how do you resolve the fact that Lucifer is identified as "the morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, and in revelation 22:16 Jesus specifically identifies himself as "the morning star"?
Click to expand...


I explain it by saying that your wrong.  I really have no interest in this because you've made up your mind.  I on the other hand no better.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
> whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
> is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.
> 
> This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
> and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.
> 
> As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
> find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.
> 
> Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
> Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.
> 
> Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.
> 
> That has always been the most effective remedy.
> 
> So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
> You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.
> 
> And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
> that are used to correct the abuses of that system.
> 
> Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
> were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.
> 
> In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
> to establish truth between them as fellow believers
> Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.
> 
> And for you and other secular gentiles
> let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
> to prove our points to each other.
> 
> If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
> Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
> see that the Scientific Method could be used to
> prove how these things work!
> 
> That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
> minds who understand scientific proof.
> 
> Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
> There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
> more effective, productive and beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs.   She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.
Click to expand...

I understand science well enough to know that you angry, self-hating Christian extremists are the ones most often science illiterate.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
Click to expand...


The philosophy of science precedes science.  dblack is talking about something else.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one way of looking at it, but the whole of scripture doesn't back the view that fallen spirits of the angelic order don't exist. So there goes your theory, file 13, and you're just claiming to know something absolutely that no one could know absolutely without divine revelation. You’re asserting something subjective, mere personal opinion, as if it were objectively or universally apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. every Biblical reference to Satan, the Serpent, Lucifer, a demon or a devil is a figurative depiction of a human being, a deceitful sub human low life,  and is not and never was about any invisible order of fallen preternatural beings.
> 
> Jesus himself called Peter Satan, he identified Judas as a devil, and he called the pharisees serpents.
> 
> not one of then was an invisible disembodied entity.
> 
> 
> BTW how do you resolve the fact that Lucifer is identified as "the morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, and in revelation 22:16 Jesus specifically identifies himself as "the morning star"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explain it by saying that your wrong.  I really have no interest in this because you've made up your mind.  I on the other hand no better.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't. You don't know enough to even string words into coherent sentences. "Your" too slow to "no" that.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The philosophy of science precedes science.  dblack is talking about something else.
Click to expand...


And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
Click to expand...


I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley.  I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket.  During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later.  I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering.  I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts.  But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did.  I assume you mean  "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.



Oh?

*The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes*​
I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that *(1)* we exist, *(2)* the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, *(3)* a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and *(4)* it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.

You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
______________________________________

Which one of these have you changed your mind about?

*1*. You've conceded that we exist.

*Check.*

*2.* You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.

*Check.*

*3.* You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind the  idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?

*Check.*

*4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!

*Check.*

And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .

*5.* You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.

*Check.*

Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?

But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."

Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?

But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!

Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Your usual pointless pontification wherein you rattle on with bellicose claims to self importance.
> 
> Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
Click to expand...


Bra strap.[/QUOTE]
Is that the whiskey talkin'

Pathetic drunkard.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
Click to expand...


I think you owe me an apology. 

I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.

#2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Finally found this stupid assed list of five, so I'll go through them one by one.
> 
> 1. *We exist*, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.
> 
> 2. *The cosmos exist,* is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.
> 
> 3. *Atheism is not rational*, CURRENTLY. Same with theism. I've said BOTH. Neither are rational, until there's considerable proof of one or the other - of which I have yet to see any.
> 
> 4. *An all knowing knower would necessarily know that they're all knowing* is simply an axiom, and it's an axiom BECAUSE OF ITS DEFINITION, and THAT'S IT! This does not speak to w_hether or not AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER EVEN EXISTS_. And the point was, A non all knowing knower NECESSARILY knows THAT THEY DON'T know everything, as well - - - - - meaning that the tag question "what do you know, and how do you know it?" is answered, you can ground all of your knowledge from THAT starting point: "I know I'm not all knowing." This is an axiom because of its definitions. This does not speak to whether or not a god exists, and does not prove that it's required, the baseless tag premise, that objective knowledge has its basis in a "mind" holding it together, necessarily. "It just is" is still just as plausible, in current human knowledge, and so the TAG cannot be used as PROOF of anything because EXISTS  ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. You're taking LIBERTIES by ascribing it as you have in the TAG when OTHER (non disproven!!!!!!!!) EXPLANATIONS *DO* EXIST. Taking said liberties is dishonest, or misguided, or shortsighted, or LYING, or a combination of all of them.
> 
> 5. I dont even know what the fuck this means, its bad english.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the more you bring up "but but but but but you agreed with the FIVE THINGS!!!! THE FIVE THINGS!!!!!!!!!" the more you waste my time and fail. They don't advance the proof for god, they dont advance the rationale for god. They're a meaningless numbered list that don't lead one one way or another if they're being _*absolutely*_ (hee hee) objective.
Click to expand...



Quoting myself as a bump for the people who somehow saw otherwise.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> ...
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").



Hold on there, bucko. If you don't mind, I'll write my own concession speeches. I found your 'five things' argument largely inscrutable, full of suspicious equivocations and - to my ears - empty sophistry. If you want to accuse me of not being intelligent enough to follow your construction, be my guest. But it didn't make any sense to me, so don't go advertising that I 'conceded' to it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley.  I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket.  During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later.  I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering.  I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts.  But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did.  I assume you mean  "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Sorry, I am talking about _The God Delusion_.  I edited that post to make it clear.  Good eye.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on there, bucko. If you don't mind, I'll write my own concession speeches. I found your 'five things' argument largely inscrutable, full of suspicious equivocations and - to my ears - empty sophistry. If you want to accuse me of not being intelligent enough to follow your construction, be my guest. But it didn't make any sense to me, so don't go advertising that I 'conceded' to it.
Click to expand...


Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things.  The fourth and fifth necessarily follow.  You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred.  I told you I was okay with your alternate terms.  You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow.  Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?

You do exist, right?
You do believe that the universe exists, right?
You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right?  And if that's not true, why isn't true?

Four and Five follow. . . .


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?
> 
> *The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes*​
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that *(1)* we exist, *(2)* the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, *(3)* a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and *(4)* it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> *1*. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *2.* You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *3.* You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind the  idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> *5.* You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?
> 
> But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!
> 
> Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.
Click to expand...

Oh?

You're confused and befuddled regarding who and what you're responding to.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you owe me an apology.
> 
> I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.
> 
> #2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.
Click to expand...


I don't owe you an apology.  You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism.  I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way.  If you don't, fine.  That has no bearing on the matter.   You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things.  So what's your beef?  Did you change your mind again about these things _again_.  Sheesh.  LOL!


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things.  The fourth and fifth necessarily follow.  You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred.  I told you I was okay with your alternate terms.  You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow.  Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?



Sure, I'll play.



> You do exist, right?


As far as I know, yeah.


> You do believe that the universe exists, right?


Yes.


> You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right?



I suppose, though i reject this as the definition of atheism. Not sure how that affects your machinery...



> Four and Five follow. . . .



Yeah, well, that's definitely where you lost me. I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to mean, how they were connected, or even what point the whole mess was supposed to prove. Can you rephrase it in the common tongue? I'm running low on tylenol.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?
> 
> *The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes*​
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that *(1)* we exist, *(2)* the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, *(3)* a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and *(4)* it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> *1*. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *2.* You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *3.* You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind the  idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> *5.* You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?
> 
> But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!
> 
> Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?
> 
> You're confused and befuddled regarding who and what you're responding to.
Click to expand...


Some people are befuddled for sure.  Speak the word atheist and then define it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we we're in the process of narrowing down mutual terms, which established the first three things.  The fourth and fifth necessarily follow.  You simply weren't aware that the terms you objected to were technical and encompassed the terms you preferred.  I told you I was okay with your alternate terms.  You just haven't thought 4 and 5 through yet to see why they necessarily follow.  Would you care to continue the process and find out why that's true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I'll play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do exist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as I know, yeah.
> 
> 
> 
> You do believe that the universe exists, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> You do acknowledge the fact that the potentiality of God's existence as the origin of material existence cannot be flatly denied logically, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose, though i reject this as the definition of atheism. Not sure how that affects your machinery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four and Five follow. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, that's definitely where you lost me. I couldn't figure out what they were supposed to mean, how they were connected, or even what point the whole mess was supposed to prove. Can you rephrase it in the common tongue? I'm running low on tylenol.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean any offense, dblack.  It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  And I've just proven beyond any doubt that _atheism_ necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley.  I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket.  During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later.  I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering.  I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts.  But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did.  I assume you mean  "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Sorry, I am talking about _The God Delusion_.  I edited that post to make it clear.  Good eye.
Click to expand...


I just realized a problem though I think.  Is inferential evidence the right term as opposed to direct evidence?  That's what you wrote in your post about constructive logic and I repeated those terms in one of mine.  But isn't all evidence inferred?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?



Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3): 





> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.



The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.

Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe. Is that what you're looking for?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you owe me an apology.
> 
> I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.
> 
> #2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't owe you an apology.  You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism.  I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way.  If you don't, fine.  That has no bearing on the matter.   You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things.  So what's your beef?  Did you change your mind again about these things _again_.  Sheesh.  LOL!
Click to expand...


You do owe the apology.

& the fact of what I said about an all knowing knower is not the same as what YOU glean from it. 

We don't agree on what it implies. 

Sorry, but I never backed away from it, only what YOU feel it amounts to. 

You continuously misrepresent me, my intent, and what I've actually said. 

So, you can apologize or I'll just ignore you, pretty much.

Not cuz it matters, but just b/c it's annoying as fuck.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> .


See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.

You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."

You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."

First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS. 

You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.


----------



## G.T.

As an aside, I'm working on a track and it's only a chorus at this point. I am looking for opinions from you great philosophers, on how to do the *verse* parts. Shouyd I rap, or sing, or a mix of both?

Here it is, only the chorus is done, first one comes at about 0:40


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I think you owe me an apology.
> 
> I don't "concede" the five things. *I know them, they're not up for debate*. "conceding" implies I contended with them.
> 
> #2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.



Now let me address the problem with the emboldened.  You did in fact contend with the essence of *number four* at one point when you were sure that you could refute it under the terms of justification of organic/classical logic in spite of the well-established fact in academia, as I warned you, that it cannot be falsified under those terms.  Screw the dimwits on the Internet.  This is a well-established, centuries-old fact of human cognitive in the literature.  On the contrary, any argument launched against it under those terms is in reality a premise for an argument that will logically prove the MPTA due to the universal fact of the principle of identity in terms of human cognition at the organic level of being.

After that finally sunk in with you, you defaulted to the position of ultimacy, which I've never disputed and was in fact the first person on this thread to make the nature of that objection abundantly clear to all, long before QW got it into his head to imply that I believed otherwise.  But then QW is an utter fraud who got busted by an expert in constructive logic who not only understands it, but has to his credit, as one who has formulated, several original, conceptual-mathematical proofs in constructive logic long before this discussion ever started.

We were talking in terms of constructive logic all along with regard to the issue of ultimacy.  Constructive logic was primarily developed to be used for science.  That's all. So when one says that not all of the axioms or postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic about metaphysical propositions, especially, are presupposed to be true in constructive logic, all one is really saying is that in constructive logic such propositions are assigned a valid, albeit, unproven value . . . but only because of the LIMITS of scientific inquiry, which can only deal with the inferences derived from direct physical evidence about material things.  Further, the universal principle of identity remains the foundation for all forms of logic, which is the only thing I was ever talking about in terms of universality in the first place.  It cannot be otherwise, in spite of what QW stupidly implied, for how exactly are we supposed to do any work in logic, regardless of the form, if we essentially say we and the universe don't exist, for that is the first principle of identity?

Do we all understand now just how much of a fraud QW is and just how foolish Fox was to go along with that liar?  It's not my intent to gratuitously rub QW's nose in this; rather, it’s my intent to once and for all put that dog down that we might see without dispute that The Five Things necessarily stand without all the bullshit in the way.

*GT:  "I know them, they're not up for debate."*

Good.  So is this you're final answer?

Does this mean that you're going to finally stop implying that I have argued anything more than the Five Things, which you yourself have agreed are necessarily true axiomatically, and their ramifications on this thread, that in fact the things I have argued are not "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda"?

Good.  I take it we finally have all that "pseudointellectual psychobabble" of yours out of the way now, eh?
*

*


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie: From asking and checking around,
> whatever "anger"' and fundamentalism that you blame on Christianity
> is a flaw in human nature that Christianity brings out to be healed.
> 
> This is not unique to Christianity, though Christianity offers unique cures
> and that is why it keeps coming up in that context.
> 
> As I posted to guno, most of the cases of religious abuse and trauma
> find true healing and recovery with the help of the RIGHT support and practice these methods have to offer.
> 
> Just like bad math is fixed with correct math.
> Bad science is corrected with accurate consistent science using the scientific method.
> 
> Whatever is wrong in religion is best fixed by fellow people within that sect that can correct their fellow peers.
> 
> That has always been the most effective remedy.
> 
> So you don't throw out the good science that is needed to fix the bad science.
> You don't throw out the right math that is used to fix the wrong math.
> 
> And you don't throw out the good and right teachings in any religion
> that are used to correct the abuses of that system.
> 
> Hollie the only people I've ever seen come to terms with their religious abuse or conflicts
> were corrected by people practicing it correctly who could relate and speak to that person.
> 
> In Christianity, followers are called to rebuke one another in the spirit of the laws
> to establish truth between them as fellow believers
> Matthew 18:15-20
> 
> So leave the Christians and believers to rebuke each other by the laws we follow.
> 
> And for you and other secular gentiles
> let's use natural laws and Scientific Methods
> to prove our points to each other.
> 
> If you don't relate to Christian laws then don't use them.
> Let's focus on the ones like Scott Peck who DID
> see that the Scientific Method could be used to
> prove how these things work!
> 
> That would make more sense to secular nontheistic
> minds who understand scientific proof.
> 
> Let's stick to that the people who respond to science.
> There is plenty to do that way, and it will be much
> more effective, productive and beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Hollie doesn't understand scientific proofs.   She doesn't understand much of anything and won't be taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand science well enough to know that you angry, self-hating Christian extremists are the ones most often science illiterate.
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie
And show me where being angry back has ever done anything
but made the situation worse.

And I'll show you where forgiveness has turned people around
to stop the anger on both sides.

Why be part of the same problem you are so against?

The approach you take has never ever worked.
Can you show me ONE person that has changed
their minds by INSULTING their views?

Do YOU even respond to this tactic?

So if you had any respect for Science you would use
the Scientific Method, study approaches that HAVE
stopped religious abuse and anger and applied those instead.

Sorry Hollie

Maybe you are no different from the religious types
who just have to keep venting and pushing their beliefs this way in defense,
instead of using science to prove it.

The people who ARE addressing the divide between religion and science,
HAVE used science to demonstrate the universality of prayer
and the effect of forgiveness on healing the body mind and relations
of not just the subject person, but people around them as well.

One woman prayed for her own forgiveness and healing
and her daughter was healed of disease as a result of the surge
in natural healing energy that connected them.

You could be focusing on how to use science to show how this works.

You are right, that religion has been falsely separated from science.
So why not work with doctors and researchers who have discovered
we CAN bridge this gap, using science, and quit fighting about it.
This CAN be proven how the spiritual healing process works,
and it is perfectly consistent with natural science.

When we're ready to forgive, maybe we'll come to our senses.

Maybe people like you need to vent
as much as the religious types harping equally at each other.

If that is some phase you have to go through
I cannot speed up that process for you.

Only you can decide if there is a better way
to stop the false rejection of science by religion
and religion by science. There are many people
who HAVE discovered this and would LOVE
to have more support of the public and of colleagues
on further research and development.

I guess, when everyone's come to an end
with the fighting and agrees that doesn't go anywhere but in circles.

Thanks Hollie
When this gets old,
I look forward to starting anew!

We need more people like you who are committed to truth, 
as others on here, and would be more effective by getting the
same page instead of ripping each other apart.

Whatever it takes to get to the truth, I support you and 
everyone in getting there together to reach an agreed understanding.

I'm sure it will be as wonderful as you are,
and I am thankful for what you have to contribute
in the process of resolving these issues.

Yours truly,
Emily

=================================================================
Below is the msg I posted on a site today on outreach to address the fear of pain and suffering
associated with terminal illness, and hope more people look into the research to see what I'm talking about:

"These are the people I would recommend for changing the whole approach to this issue of incureable conditions:
* Dr. Phillip Goldfedder, Neurosurgeon turned therapist and counselor in spiritual healing he has used to more effectively treat more people than using surgery
http://www.healingisyours.com
* Drs, Francis and Judith MacNutt, Christian Healing Ministries, FL
http://www.christianhealingmin.org
Dr. MacNutt is the author of HEALING which along with Agnes Sanford's book The Healing Light would restore the natural connection between spiritual healing with science and medicine as God and Nature intended
* Olivia Reiner 24-hour free helpline 713-829-0899 as shared freely
through nonprofit volunteers with http://www.listentothecriesofthechildren.org

Even if the gift of healing prayer cannot cure all cases of cancer, it has helped remove the pain where medications failed, and has cured schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases that medicine alone could not. Spiritual healing through forgiveness and breaking free from generational curses or karma should only be used in conjunction with medicine and never rejecting treatment that is applied at the same time. Christian deliverance is the only cure I know for occult-related demonic sickness and voices that psychiatric medications only suppress, and has saved lives from suicide, addiction and the after-effects of abuses of all kinds. 

Please share these links with anyone else who wants to end their suffering and be free to feel peace."


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you owe me an apology.
> 
> I don't "concede" the five things. *I know them, they're not up for debate*. "conceding" implies I contended with them.
> 
> #2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Now let me address the problem with the emboldened.  You did in fact contend with the essence of *number four* at one point when you were sure that you could refute it under the terms of justification of organic/classical logic in spite of the well-established fact in academia, as I warned you, that it cannot be falsified under those terms.  Screw the dimwits on the Internet.  This is a well-established, centuries-old fact of human cognitive in the literature.  On the contrary, any argument launched against it under those terms is in reality necessarily a premise for an argument that will logically prove the MPTA due to the universal fact of the principle of identity in terms of human cognition at the very least at the organic level of being.
> 
> After that finally sunk in with you, you defaulted to the position of ultimacy, which I've never disputed and was in fact the first person on this thread to make that the nature of that objection abundantly clear to all, long before QW got it into his head to imply I believed otherwise.  But then QW is an utter fraud who got busted by an expert in constructive logic who not only understands it, but has to his credit, as one who has formulated, several original, conceptual-mathematical proofs in cognitive logic long before this discussion ever started.
> 
> We were talking in terms of constructive logic all along with regard to the issue of ultimacy.  Constructive logic was primarily developed to be used for science.  That's all. So when one says that not all of the axioms or postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic about metaphysical propositions, especially, are presupposed to be true in constructive logic, all one is really saying is that in constructive logic such propositions are assigned a valid, albeit, unproven value . . . but only because of the LIMITS of scientific inquiry, which can only deal with the inferences derived from direct physical evidence about material things.  Further, the universal principle of identity remains the foundation for all forms of logic, which is the only thing I was ever talking about in terms of universality in the first place.  It cannot be otherwise, in spite of what QW stupidly implied, for how exactly are we supposed to do any work in logic, regardless of the form, if we essentially say we and the universe don't exist, for that is the first principle of identity?
> 
> Do we all understand now just how much of a fraud QW is and just how foolish Fox was to go along with that liar?  It's not my intent to gratuitously rub QW's nose in this; rather, it’s my intent to once and for all put that dog down that we might see without dispute that The Five Things necessarily stand without all the bullshit in the way.
> 
> *GT:  "I know them, they're not up for debate."*
> 
> Good.  So is this you're final answer?
> 
> Does this mean that you're going to finally stop implying that I have argued anything more than the very same Five Things, which you yourself have agreed are necessarily true axiomatically, and their ramifications on this thread, that in fact the things I have argued are not "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda"?
> 
> Good.  I take it we finally have all that "pseudointellectual psychobabble" of yours out of the way now, eh?
> *
> *




No, the problem is that we conclude very different things from "the five things," and I still have a huge problem with the MPTA, HUGE HUGE PROBLEM.

I DONT AGREE that logic needs a mind to ground it.

I DONT KNOW if an all knowing knower exists.

I DONT agree that arguing against MPTA affirms MPTA, I don't see any basis for that and also think it's an ass holish position.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The origin of morals in my view is our sentience.
> 
> Not religion.
> 
> I think that as a whole we realized that actions which cause the least suffering were best, i.e. moral. It's not that hard to imagine each and every moral's human justification absent religion. I can do each and every moral that way, one by one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea the religion may have preceded the modern version of sentience. Which would fall in line with it's central role of managing morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's impossible for religion to precede sentience, there is no such thing as "modern sentience." Modern knowledge, sure. Modern morals, sure. Modern sentience is not a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The philosophy of science precedes science.  dblack is talking about something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to 
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you owe me an apology.
> 
> I don't "concede" the five things. I know them, they're not up for debate. "conceding" implies I contended with them.
> 
> #2, I never called myself an agnostic atheist. That was someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't owe you an apology.  You said that the agnostic position is the only rational position, though the bulk of the evidence supports theism, not agnosticism and certainly not atheism.  I put in agnostic-atheist just in case you leaned that way.  If you don't, fine.  That has no bearing on the matter.   You also acknowledge that an all-knowing knower would necessarily know all things including the fact that it knew all things.  So what's your beef?  Did you change your mind again about these things _again_.  Sheesh.  LOL!
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. Rawlings:
Regarding theism or nontheism, agnosticism or atheism,
what I have found causes conflicts between these is people rejecting each other.

Whatever "ism" that is.

No matter where you or I are with our beliefs, or others,
as long as we are OPEN to resolving conflict and picking out points where we agree as true and consistent,
THAT is the "ism" that works, regardless of our labels that may remain conflicting.

We may never agree what to call these things, some people use these words loosely
or in conflicting ways with someone else. Why argue unless it's to correct things together,
to make things right between us, not prove something or someone wrong.

What matters is what you and dblack, Hollie and G.T. are doing here
which is identifying what points we agree on and which ones we get hung up on and why.

As long as we map out where our lines cross or intersect,
we can align. We can work out our language and perceptual differences.
And it doesn't matter so much what our views are,
because those can change over time, and defy definitions we try to pin them down to.

It's best to keep doing what you are doing here,
and work out the linguistics and logistics of what we do or do not follow.

MD that's good enough!

None of us is perfectly forgiving or free from bias, so we are going to run into conflicts.
It's not just atheists who are going to, but everyone from all sides
are going to have to rethink some of our ways that don't apply to the next guy who's an exception to that rule or label.

This is great exploration, MD, so thanks for helping to map out some points.
Please do not get hung up on little labels or issues,
let's stick to the principles and connect the dots.

Thanks everyone for playing along, too.
I think this is super and so are you! ;-)

The greatest thing is discovering we will not convert each other's views
but learn how to talk about and around them, even where we have conflicts.
So what. Those are going to come up anyway. How do we get past
that and get to the good stuff!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you not realized that your silly, philosophical musings as cover for your bible thumping is as pompous as it is an embarassment?
> 
> Yes ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?
> 
> *The Five Things Everybody Necessarily Knows/Concedes*​
> I haven't unreasonably asserted anything _but_ the seemingly inescapable presuppositions that *(1)* we exist, *(2)* the cosmological order beyond our minds exists, *(3)* a transcendental ground of origin _may_ exist and *(4)* it seems that anything less than an absolutely unparalleled state of perfection for the latter potentiality would suggest something that could not be the supreme entity of origination.
> 
> You've conceded everyone of these seemingly necessary presuppositions on this thread, including the only apparently rational option: the supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist.
> ______________________________________
> 
> Which one of these have you changed your mind about?
> 
> *1*. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *2.* You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *3.* You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind the  idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> *5.* You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> 
> *Check.*
> 
> Well, looky here. You and I agree on all five of these things! Amazing! It's like magic. Only, of course, it's not magic. These are among the things that *everybody knows* to be true about the issue of origin! See how that works?
> 
> But, now, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, you claim that all of *your* presuppositions about the realities of the problem of origin are "fffffucking stupid . . . pseudointellectual psychobabble . . . naked assertion . . . wishful thinking at best . . . childish tag argument" having no sound basis for belief—"nine, zip, zilch, nadda."
> 
> Are you having a psychotic break? Did someone hack your account? Do you suffer from dissociative identity disorder? Do you sometimes lose time and find yourself somewhere without knowing how you got there?
> 
> But looky here. We have a clue as to which personality is currently at the helm. It appears to be the personality that believes itself to be God: "Absolute truth doesn't require a transcendent law keeper"!
> 
> Amazing! This personality claims to known something about absolute ultimacy, just like Q.W. does all the time, that no finite mind could possibly assert under organic/classical logic or under alternate-world forms of logic.
Click to expand...


Hi MD About your five points.
1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.

So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.

Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
So what prevents us from being like that?
What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us" 
like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.

Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.

2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.

We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.  

 4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.

Can we get over this already?

3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.

(On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
as to when someone refers to God?
Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
"What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."

What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)

5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway

I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.

this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.

How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I just realized a problem though I think.  Is inferential evidence the right term as opposed to direct evidence?  That's what you wrote in your post about constructive logic and I repeated those terms in one of mine.  But isn't all evidence inferred?



I didn't mentioned it because I knew what you meant. 

That's a good observation though.  It's cool that you came to it on your own.  

Be careful with the term _inferential evidence_ . . . outside the terminological box of constructive logic, precisely because all theories, working hypotheses, and mathematical or linguistic propositions _are_ inferred from or premised on some form of evidence. Technically, evidence is not inferred; rather, working propositions/hypotheses are intuited from data, tested and verified against the evidence (reproducible results via repetitious experimentation) toward establishing proofs (axioms, postulates or theorems).  (Of course some propositions are simply true, initiatively or tautologically.)

The term _inferential evidence_ has a specific meaning of correlation in constructive logic, which goes to _the construct of inhabited proof_.

In other words, the _*metaphysical*_ axioms, postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic, for example, which are regarded to be evidence in their own right as they are duly established, are _inferential evidence_ in constructive logic, not direct evidence.

Note, when I'm _*not*_ speaking in terms of constructive logic, I always write things like "theories or proofs inferred from evidence, not _inferential evidence_ as that term correlated with _metaphysical_ axioms . . . in organic/classical logic _only_.

On the other hand, though I don't think I have, if I have ever bungled that correlation in anything I've written, just disregard it and think of it in the right way, as that would have been a  brain fart. I have been known to have them from time to time, like the one you pointed about free will, wherein I poorly expressed an idea that as written actually meant something I didn’t mean to imply.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I didn't mentioned it because I knew what you meant.
> 
> That's a good observation though.  It's cool that you came to it on your own.
> 
> Be careful with the term _inferential evidence_ . . . outside the terminological box of constructive logic, precisely because all theories, working hypotheses, and mathematical or linguistic propositions _are_ inferred from or premised on some form of evidence. Technically, evidence is not inferred; rather, working propositions/hypotheses are intuited from data, tested and verified against the evidence (reproducible results via repetitious experimentation) toward establishing proofs (axioms, postulates or theorems).  (Of course some propositions are simply true, initiatively or tautologically.)
> 
> The term _inferential evidence_ has a specific meaning of correlation in constructive logic, which goes to _the construct of inhabited proof_.
> 
> In other words, the _*metaphysical*_ axioms, postulates or theorems of organic/classical logic, for example, which are regarded to be evidence in their own right as they are duly established, are _inferential evidence_ in constructive logic, not direct evidence.
> 
> Note, when I'm _*not*_ speaking in terms of constructive logic, I always write things like "theories or proofs inferred from evidence, not _inferential evidence_ as that term correlated with _metaphysical_ axioms . . . in organic/classical logic _only_.
> 
> On the other hand, though I don't think I have, if I have ever bungled that correlation in anything I've written, just disregard it and think of it in the right way, as that would have been a  brain fart. I have been known to have them from time to time, like the one you pointed about free will, wherein I poorly expressed an idea that as written actually meant something I didn’t mean to imply.



Okay, so I did say it wrong.  I'm glad because when I thought about it more it didn't make sense.  As far as I know you've never done that; I just got the wrong idea from your post on constructive logic but now I get it.  It just applies to metaphysical proofs that can't be assumed in science. or some types of logic.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> The philosophy of science precedes science.  dblack is talking about something else.



And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.[/QUOTE]

Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?[/QUOTE]

But what Hollie just said is not right.  "My philosophy of science."  It has nothing to do with me.  It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science.  That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed.  She doesn't know what she's talking about.  She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself.  We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science.  People who don't understand that don't really understand science.


----------



## westwall

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.






Nope.  Not one.  On the other hand is there one for the denial of a God?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hi MD About your five points.
> 1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
> can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
> none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
> like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.
> 
> So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
> thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.
> 
> Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
> So what prevents us from being like that?
> What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
> like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.
> 
> Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
> what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.
> 
> 2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
> If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
> why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.
> 
> We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
> deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
> to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.
> 
> 4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
> then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.
> 
> Can we get over this already?
> 
> 3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
> And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.
> 
> (On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
> do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
> as to when someone refers to God?
> Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
> "What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."
> 
> What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
> HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)
> 
> 5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway
> 
> I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
> that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
> interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
> of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.
> 
> this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
> and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.
> 
> How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
> and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.



On *1 *and* 2*:  I already pointed out that folks can argue anti-realism or irrationalism if they want, but I don't have to take then seriously regardless of what the actual nature of these existents might be.  As I said the idea that we exist and the universe exists is something we do as a matter of practicality.  That's just the way it is.  Anyone one who agrees with that is bound to accept the other three things and their ramifications.  I've written enough on this thread showing why all of that's true.  It just needs to be rightly understood. 

As for *3*, I do leave that open.  The potentiality of God's existence as the origin of the universe simply can't be logically eliminated.  That's all.  Folks are going to believe what they want, but they're not going fool with the lie that their denial there be any substance behind the idea of God means they're not aware of the fact that their knowledge about the idea of God in their heads is not there because of the evidence of the existence of the universe.  That lie doesn't fly.  That's all.

*4* is also left open.  The highest conceivable state of divinity simply avoids begging the question.

As far as proving God's existence (*5*), in organic/classical logic, the necessity of God's existence is an axiom.  In science its an unknown/unprovable potentiality.

Simple.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophy of science precedes science.  dblack is talking about something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your "philosophy of science" has been supplanted by the discipline of the scientific method. The Age of Enlightenment began the evisceration of metaphysics and the shroud of fear and superstition the was the province of the church. Philosophy and theology were relegated to their place at the back of the line as science carried exploration and knowledge to the scientific arena where physical truths must be accounted for. It is undeniable that the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Wow Hollie Thanks for this wonderful statement!

Unlike you I read it as hope that we can continue on this trend and finish using science to prove
what is going on with things like mental and physical illness and natural healing, and also how
the same process of healing can totally change relationships that are divided over religious and political conflicts.

All this can be proven by demonstrating and measuring the before/after effects of forgiveness
on people, not just their mental and physical health, but relationships with others, so it is sociological in impact as well.

Hollie when you talk about science forming a consensus
MAKE SURE you don't leave out the studies on things like
prayer and spiritual healing that can form a consensus between science and religion.

I believe that is where all this is heading.
And I hope it is people like you that are on the forefront,
pushing for consensus using science to resolve the issues in religion.

Thanks so much
and I hope you see the positive side
that science has to offer religion.

If science is seen or used as a "threat" of course it's going to be rejected.

When more people can understand that science is a friend
and can be used to establish and explain truth to more people,
why would anyone reject science?

Maybe we've been presenting it wrong.
I used to tutor students who were scared of math, and had to
teach them math was their friend and would help them get and
check the right answers every time.

Maybe if we use science to help study and correct problems,
it won't be so demonized as something to be abused for political propaganda.

How can we get on the same page?[/QUOTE]



> But what Hollie just said is not right.  "My philosophy of science."  It has nothing to do with me.  It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science.  That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed.  She doesn't know what she's talking about.  She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself.  We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science.  People who don't understand that don't really understand science.


What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy. 

What religious extremists such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> But what Hollie just said is not right.  "My philosophy of science."  It has nothing to do with me.  It is a fact that philosophy science necessarily precedes science.  That's a fact of reality, nothing has changed.  She doesn't know what she's talking about.  She doesn't know what dblack or I are talking about at all.Data doesn't interpret itself.  We do that using the scientific method defined by philosophy or based on some naturalistic theory for science.  People who don't understand that don't really understand science.



Hi Justin Davis
Can we start with what people DO know and DO want to use as their default starting point.
And work from there anyway?
Nobody has perfectly objective, all inclusive starting point.
We all start with what we know and then grow from there.

Why not be okay with where we are coming from.
And see how we can work WITH those parameters
and sort out things that will help us identify key points or factors in common,
that serve a meaningful purpose to us all regardless of our ways and means, 
not nitpick or get stuck on things that drive us farther apart.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi MD About your five points.
> 1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
> can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
> none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
> like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.
> 
> So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
> thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.
> 
> Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
> So what prevents us from being like that?
> What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
> like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.
> 
> Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
> what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.
> 
> 2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
> If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
> why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.
> 
> We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
> deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
> to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.
> 
> 4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
> then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.
> 
> Can we get over this already?
> 
> 3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
> And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.
> 
> (On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
> do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
> as to when someone refers to God?
> Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
> "What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."
> 
> What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
> HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)
> 
> 5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway
> 
> I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
> that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
> interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
> of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.
> 
> this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
> and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.
> 
> How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
> and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On *1 *and* 2*:  I already pointed out that folks can argue anti-realism or irrationalism if they want, but I don't have to take then seriously regardless of what the actual nature of these existents might be.  As I said the idea that we exist and the universe exists is something we do as a matter of practicality.  That's just the way it is.  Anyone one who agrees with that is bound to accept the other three things and their ramifications.  I've written enough on this thread showing why all of that's true.  It just needs to be rightly understood.
> 
> As for *3*, I do leave that open.  The potentiality of God's existence as the origin of the universe simply can't be logically eliminated.  That's all.  Folks are going to believe what they want, but they're not going fool with the lie that their denial there be any substance behind the idea of God means they're not aware of the fact that their knowledge about the idea of God in their heads is not there because of the evidence of the existence of the universe.  That lie doesn't fly.  That's all.
> 
> *4* is also left open.  The highest conceivable state of divinity simply avoids begging the question.
> 
> As far as proving God's existence (*5*), in organic/classical logic, the necessity of God's existence is an axiom.  In science its an unknown/unprovable potentiality.
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...

Simple for you simpletons.

For all your time spent pontificating and appealing to magic and supernatural realms, we know with certainty that every discovery about the natural world had been absent any of your alleged gods, intervention by magical spirits or supernatural forces. Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of your alleged gods, spirits, spirit realms and super-magical forces are nothing more than relics of ancient tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know that your particular, sectarian version of gods / supernatural agents could be responsible for creation, your appeals to magical gods are futile send time wasting. .


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> RE: "What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy."
> 
> What religious extremists such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet.



Sorry if I lost "who said what" from previous copies.

1. RE: What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
1. I also felt this way when I read Hollie's (?) statement about angry fundamental Christians rejecting science, basically.
Because that is ALSO made "irrelevant" by applying science to spiritual healing and studies of prayer and the effects of deliverance/exorcism on curing people made sick or addicted/delusional with voices after playing with occult or cult practices.

2. Hollie there ARE doctors who have been studying the effects of the DARK types of magic (voodoo, the Hawaiian death curse spell, etc.) and the process of freeing people from the effects of these by using spiritual healing prayer and deliverance/exorcism methods of focusing on FORGIVING the bad karma or curses from the past that keep people stuck in negative victimhood and addictive/self-destructive cycles of behavior.

This IS a relevant way to show BOTH the patterns of the dark spiritual energy like the harmful practices of witchcraft, sorcery etc based on ill will.
VERSUS
the positive LIGHT life-giving energy that is naturally existent
and which spiritual healing in Christianity is used to free up and circulate stronger
so people's minds and bodies can heal themselves easier as they are designed.

This isn't an either/or mutually exclusive diametric relationship.

Science doesn't have to negate religion if both are taught consistently with natural universal laws.

This can be proven consistent with each other.

But neither side can start with presuming the conclusion that one rejects the other.
You still would have to conduct an actual proof,
like a contrapositive proof of starting with the OPPOSITE assumption
and then working through the steps to show the contradiction.

Scott Peck did not believe this "garbage" of demonic voices was real and could be cast out with exorcism.
As a professional practicing doctor of psychiatry, he was convinced such cases of schizophrenia were delusions
in the minds of the patients (focusing on the physical neural disorder or chemical reactions) and needed medication.

But at least he set up a proof, even though he INTENDED to prove his friend wrong,
He thought he could show that all the "demonic voice" could be debunked using science.

Instead, he proved himself wrong, and found that the voices and personalities
knew things beyond his patients' conscious AND unconscious knowledge
that only a spiritual being or connection could have come up with to get into his head and
speak his worst fears and shortcomings back to him, as the priest had told them these "demons" will do.

So it proved to Peck that something spiritual was going on,
and that in applying the methods of exorcism, sure enough,
all the spiritual patterns and stages that were predicted to follow in order,
were observable and Peck recognized this as something quantifiable, measurable and predictable by science.

So he concluded the scientific method and process used in medicine
of identifying causes of sickness, applying the treatment and monitoring the progress
DID apply to exorcism and deliverance therapy as a valid form of treating such patients.

in addition to changing his mind
 he concluded that the greatest barrier was this false division between science and religion.

And he urged fellow professionals to follow up with formal research and development
in this field, to study the spiritual diagnoses, stages and treatment/cure in exorcism/deliverance
in order to help patients that this applied to and would benefit from, to the point of saving
their lives and their minds instead of losing both to incureable disorders.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
Click to expand...


I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4. 

Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.

Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe. 

Simple. 

It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me. 

Simple. 

So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
Click to expand...


You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> You do owe the apology.
> 
> & the fact of what I said about an all knowing knower is not the same as what YOU glean from it.
> 
> We don't agree on what it implies.
> 
> Sorry, but I never backed away from it, only what YOU feel it amounts to.
> 
> You continuously misrepresent me, my intent, and what I've actually said.
> 
> So, you can apologize or I'll just ignore you, pretty much.
> 
> Not cuz it matters, but just b/c it's annoying as fuck.



You just don't grasp the ramifications.  Your limited apprehension about what an all-knowing knower would have to be has no bearing on the reality of the ramifications that you don't see yet.  Certain things necessarily follow from what would have to be true about an all-knowing knower.    You just haven't thought it through.  That's all.

If I were to apologize to you as if these ramifications didn't exist, that would be like lying to you.  I told you I would never lie to you.


----------



## G.T.

Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi MD About your five points.
> 1. The fact we AGREE that we exist is presuming a lot, but it shows that we
> can CHOOSE to agree on this. We don't have to. We could argue as some do that perhaps
> none of this life really exists and we are living under delusions on a mental level that can neither be proven nor disproven,
> like a Matrix we can't get out of anyway so might as well play along and enjoy life as we know it.
> 
> So what makes us trust to assume this and NOT rebel against each other,
> thinking the other person is "pushing some reality on us" that can't be proven and must be some "control" game.
> 
> Some psychiatric patients cannot work with doctors when they think this way and don't trust ANYONE.
> So what prevents us from being like that?
> What allows us to have faith that "nobody is out to get us"
> like 98% of the world is pushing this "reality" and we are among the 2% not buying into the game.
> 
> Since people FEAR "religion" as some majority out there pushing some agenda for the wrong reasons,
> what allows us NOT to see "reality" that way, but to trust we're talking about and looking at the same reality.
> 
> 2. For #2 what's wrong with leaving it open either way?
> If some people see the universe as the default, or some people point to a source of creation of the universe,
> why can't we focus on LAWS that are true for the universe where it doesn't matter if these have a beginning or not.
> 
> We can still use the same math/number system, whether we argue it always existed, or the Arabs or Greeks
> deserve more credit, or that values/quantity exist as concepts REGARDLESS of the systems of symbols we use
> to describe their quantity or relationships or process between them.
> 
> 4. For #4 can we agree already that if God represents infinite wisdom or knowledge of all things beyond man's finite limited knowledge, perception and ability to understand or express such collective all-encompassing truths,
> then God "can neither be proven or disprove to exist" because what God represents exceeds the ability of man on all counts.
> 
> Can we get over this already?
> 
> 3. for #3 instead of arguing over atheism and "which person means what" by that term, on either side of the theist/atheist divide, can we agree to stick to the terms "theist" or "nontheist" and use these NEUTRALLY depending if people think in terms of a personified God or religion or if people think in secular terms that don't depend on personifying God or Jesus.
> And don't attach judgments or values to that distinction, either it is theist or nontheist, religious or secular, as a language.
> 
> (On that note, I wanted to ask Hollie and others
> do you have the same reaction when someone refers to Mother Nature
> as to when someone refers to God?
> Here's an example, a recent article that uses the term Mother Nature:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/opinion/what-were-afraid-to-say-about-ebola.html
> "What is not getting said publicly, despite briefings and discussions in the inner circles of the world’s public health agencies, is that we are in totally uncharted waters and that Mother Nature is the only force in charge of the crisis at this time."
> 
> What would that read like if you substituted the word God and does it make a difference
> HOW we might personify life or nature using such symbolism? Don't we mean Life? or Nature regardless?)
> 
> 5. For #5 instead of arguing that nothing will be enough to prove God anyway
> 
> I offered to focus on proving that forgiveness is the key factor
> that can bring about the healing of humanity described in the Bible and taught in religions as oneness or
> interconnectedness or fulfillment of all laws to bring heaven on earth, or the rapture or the coming
> of Jesus or Justice to save humanity etc.
> 
> this is like stopping arguments over whether "math" is good, bad, both, needs to be thrown out or used correctly,
> and just USE the math to solve problems and demonstrate in the process it is consistent and valid.
> 
> How can we move from fighting over problems we're having with math
> and find ways to use it to solve problems instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On *1 *and* 2*:  I already pointed out that folks can argue anti-realism or irrationalism if they want, but I don't have to take then seriously regardless of what the actual nature of these existents might be.  As I said the idea that we exist and the universe exists is something we do as a matter of practicality.  That's just the way it is.  Anyone one who agrees with that is bound to accept the other three things and their ramifications.  I've written enough on this thread showing why all of that's true.  It just needs to be rightly understood.
> 
> As for *3*, I do leave that open.  The potentiality of God's existence as the origin of the universe simply can't be logically eliminated.  That's all.  Folks are going to believe what they want, but they're not going fool with the lie that their denial there be any substance behind the idea of God means they're not aware of the fact that their knowledge about the idea of God in their heads is not there because of the evidence of the existence of the universe.  That lie doesn't fly.  That's all.
> 
> *4* is also left open.  The highest conceivable state of divinity simply avoids begging the question.
> 
> As far as proving God's existence (*5*), in organic/classical logic, the necessity of God's existence is an axiom.  In science its an unknown/unprovable potentiality.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple for you simpletons.
> 
> For all your time spent pontificating and appealing to magic and supernatural realms, we know with certainty that every discovery about the natural world had been absent any of your alleged gods, intervention by magical spirits or supernatural forces. Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of your alleged gods, spirits, spirit realms and super-magical forces are nothing more than relics of ancient tales and fables. I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know that your particular, sectarian version of gods / supernatural agents could be responsible for creation, your appeals to magical gods are futile send time wasting. .
Click to expand...


????

Hollie why do you keep harping on "magical gods"

Even one of my atheist friends who doesn't believe in God or Christianity
benefited from the Spiritual Healing he used to get rid of the demonic rages in his mind.

They no longer bother him and now he is able to work with doctors on his physical treatment unlike before.

*"magical gods" are not necessary for the teachings and practices in Christianity, as both my atheist friend has worked with and is STILL atheist (and another atheist friend also teaches 'abundance of free grace" to help people with healing and forgiveness and he also remains atheist and doesn't believe in any "magical gods" to share this universal message).*

Hollie to make it WORTH your time,
I have offered to set up a 10 million dollar bet
1. that spiritual healing can be demonstrated to cure
cases of physical and mental illness as claimed,
2. that this is ENOUGH to resolve the issues over God and  Jesus
(and prove there is a pattern and process to building consensus)
by focusing on the impact of Forgiveness on healing
human minds bodies and relationships,
3. and that the SAME process of spiritual healing through forgiveness
can also resolve religious and political conflicts
and change our social institutions worldwide.

So if you really think there is no way science can prove
anything that is taught in this "magical realm of religion"
I bet you 10 million dollars it can be proven using
science and statistics to show a pattern,
correlating forgiveness with reconciliation and healing,
and correlating unforgiven conflict and division
with FAILURE to reach a consensus that preserves and includes our differences,
religious political or otherwise.

So this would prove that YOUR inability to reconcile
is based on YOUR OWN unforgiveness
and is not the fault of either atheists, nontheists, theists or Christians
because more of us of all these ways HAVE reconciled already
because we FORGIVE each other's ways.

That is the issue, not just theism vs. atheism.
It's whether or not we forgive that determines if we reconcile
and agree in truth or not.

The truth is what it is.
What is going wrong is if we cannot forgive each other's differences
then we block our perception, communication, and relations
from coming to a consensus about it.

Our language will not change in terms of theistic or nontheistic viewpoints.
but how we interpret and work together changes
when we forgive these differences and quit fearing or blaming them as the problem.

Hollie I hope you are smarter than me, and wise enough to figure out
what I am saying despite my inability to express it clearly.

I hate being disappointed when I think I've found
someone like you smart enough to get what I'm saying but
I still fail to explain it.

My apologies where this is my fault.
I hope you get it anyway.

Either way I bet you 10 million dollars that science
can prove spiritual healing works naturally and effectively.
And that proof process is enough to form a consensus
on God, Jesus and the Bible because it requires
the same steps of forgiveness and reconciliation between people.

Let me know if you want to bet.

And I'm happy to work with you to contact
Dawkins, Hawkings and any person or foundation willing to fund
either side of the bet, raise 5 million for each side, and donate the winnings to
the charity or charities as chosen by the team members depending on the outcome.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> .
> 
> 
> 
> See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.
> 
> You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."
> 
> You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."
> 
> First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS.
> 
> You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.
Click to expand...


But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident, logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.

Forget about the all-knowing knower thing; it's confusing you, though from that you should be able to get the point.

Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:

It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.​
Simple.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.



So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .

This is not rocket science.  It's very simple.  Stop begging the question and cut to the chase:  God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents.  That's what the term God means!
_________________________

Edit:  God means the uncreated Creator.  If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created:  a creature, not the Creator.  Hello!

Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?

MOVE ON!

*1, 2, 3* and *4* are established.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
Click to expand...


Dear MD there is an added emotional factor tied to theism and Christianity.
Because of past abuses, crusade/genocides, and general "@$$ holiness" associated with theists/Christian religion,
then people like my own atheist friend who can't stand Christians
will not go along with ANYTHING that is seen as enabling, tolerating or siding with them in any way
because they don't want to encourage any more such abuses.

The human association with religious abuse is so strong,
that my friend would even deny help to his own daughter because he can't stand it himself.
Even though Christian spiritual healing is what saved him from his own demons,
he will not share this with other people because it is just too painful.

So MD you have a huge emotional reason why people will not favor anything theist or appear to be associated with it.

Now, what do you propose to give incentive to change
WITHOUT people feeling pushed by Christian theists they CANNOT STAND.

I propose a 10 million dollar bet where proceeds go to charities chosen by the team members,
to prove that it is enough to prove the effects and process of spiritual healing based on forgiveness therapies,
in order to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible
and to solve religious and political conflicts in the same process.

So there is a logistical practical use of these teachings done through religion,
and this can be demonstrated, documented and/or proven by science
by collecting the statistics to show correlated and patterns.

And this same process applies to people of ALL views
so we don't need to nitpick over what kind of theist or atheist believes this or that or the other.

As long as people agree what team to work with where they don't fear a bias
is being imposed unfairly to skew the process, then it's fair.

We had a whole thread where people couldn't agree what God or atheism means
because people use the words differently, right or wrong, these weren't all the same.

So what.

Just form teams anyway, see if we can set up a  proof
of spiritual healing to show that what matters is if we
forgive or not.  The more we forgive we are better able to 
reconcile with people of different groups even conflicting beliefs.

And the studies would prove this as a correlating factor:
forgiveness with healing and reconciliation across religious and political lines
unforgiven conflicts with division and inability to work across those same lines.

it's not a matter of affiliation or label
but the degree to which we can forgive and include each other, regardless of our differences,
instead of reject and divide.

How is that ramification NOT applicable to people,
when it would change the face of politics and religion
to agree that forgiveness is the key, so we can no longer
keep following or electing leaders that push division and bullying that goes against this.

This would totally change our world.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection and tell me you're not begging the question.  LOL!
> 
> This is not rocket science.  It's very simple.  Cut to the chase and move on. . . .
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> .
> 
> 
> 
> See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.
> 
> You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."
> 
> You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."
> 
> First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS.
> 
> You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.
> 
> Forget about the all-knowing knower thing, it's confusing you though from that you should be able to get the point:
> 
> Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:
> 
> It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.​
> Simple.
Click to expand...

Youre missing a step.

Proving god existing in the first place.

Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


You're being too hard on the boy.

You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.

As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:

1. There is evidence for the gods.

_How do we know this?_

2. Because the universe exists.

_And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_

3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

_And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_

4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.

Therefore:....

Simple. 


A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.

How convenient.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> "or prove it to be true by saying its not true"
> 
> The stupidity lies with them. They know, they know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the man who thought he was going to disprove the transcendental argument with organic logic only to prove it true himself.  At least at that point, you were still trying to make a coherent argument rather than wasting space like Hollie, who everyone that matters knows is an idiot.  You've already conceded the five things and you know it, but you don't have the balls to openly admit that, which means your balls will only get smaller and smaller, an ever shrinking ability to think.   The real truth here is that you're turning into a Hollie. How pathetic is that?  You're a man whose intellectual life can only get smaller with each denial of the obvious.  I know a couple of atheists who at least acknowledge the objectively obvious truths of the issue of origin but then their real intellects who aren't afraid to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I know a few atheists who will tell you that atheists like Dawkins are idiots, an embarrassment.  "Who created God?"  LOL!  Even Hawking asks that same stupid question.  There will always be people in the world who, no matter how smart they might be in their fields, are utter retards philosophically or, as you suggest, intellectual cowards. * dblack* made the same observation about how many scientists are not well versed in philosophy in general or even in the philosophy of science; and that's why, by the way, like you, Justin, in spite of the fact that I believe there to be ample scientific evidence to justifiably infer  that humans do in fact have real free will, I also know that the matter is not a conclusively demonstrated scientifically, as there does remain a very real philosophical objection.  Now, I don't think it's a valid objection, to be sure, given my belief that the counter philosophical argument is stronger and that science has "proved" the opposite, but I cannot objectivity or honestly claim that this constitutes ultimate proof by the overarching conventions of sound academia.  If I did, that would be a lie.
> 
> Initially, Dawkins' book got all kinds of attention.  He sold a lot of books and got a lot of exposure, and then we had the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism.  But what has happened in the last few years, especially, is that Dawkins's book has taken a pounding in academia, as his guff is riddled with sophomoric psychobabble, philsophbabble, historical and conceptual errors regarding the imperatives of the problem of origin and the classical proofs for God's existence, wherein he attempts to assail centuries-old metaphysics that are unassailable!  LOL!  And then you have several theistic philosophers of science who have taken up these arrogant asses' challenge to debate--no sweat, children!--and the truth of the matter is that the Four Horseman are getting trounced by these centuries-old metaphysics that had simply been lost on popular culture in the post-modern world of one-dimensional thinking.
> 
> Though most accept his position on evolution, the real experts in the fields of philosophy and theology, which is what his book it ultimately on, think he's an idiot in that regard.  His book will not withstand the test of time.
> 
> As for *GT*, he has in fact conceded everyone of "the five things."  Everyone has, as everyone must.  Dawkins has conceded them.  No one escapes these imperatives.  *QW* has unwittingly conceded them all.  So has *Hollie*.  So has *Boss*.  So has *dblack*.  And of course we have G.T. on record emphatically conceding every one of what you call "the five things," which I'm going to repost under that title (good call, by the way, never occurred to me to call them "the five things").
> 
> So why doesn't *GT* frankly state that fact without all the bullshit, the shimmy-shammy, the dodge and duck?  *That's what solidly honest and forthright intellects do, and then they defend their position accordingly; they don't obscure or evade the established facts of human cognition!
> And they certainly don't tell themselves and other that the persons who proved these things, the very same things they themselves conceded to hold, liars. There's your psychology of most, though not all, atheists.*
> 
> Of course, GT is the sort of guy who would now scream, unwittingly telling on himself again: "“I’m an agnostic or an agnostic-atheist (LOL!), damn it, not an atheist!"
> 
> Exactly! You concede the cognitive fact of the five things! LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually met Dawkins after a talk he gave at Berkeley.  I was doing a plumbing job in Oakland for an origin build, heard he'd be there a few months before I left for the job and bought a ticket.  During the question and answer time I kept trying to get noticed by the microphone guy but never got picked, but because I came with a copy of his book I got it signed by him later.  I wasn't a Christian back then but was asking questions and wondering.  I read his book and only got convinced that he was nuts.  But, hey, would I ever get another chance to here this guy in person, probably not so I did.  I assume you mean  "The God Delusion" because that's one getting hit hard and that's one I read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Sorry, I am talking about _The God Delusion_.  I edited that post to make it clear.  Good eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just realized a problem though I think.  Is inferential evidence the right term as opposed to direct evidence?  That's what you wrote in your post about constructive logic and I repeated those terms in one of mine.  But isn't all evidence inferred?
Click to expand...


Yes  that's why we can neither prove nor disprove God.
Because all our knowledge or evidence is gotten from other sources
and our interpretations/perceptions are "inferred" from those.

Justin what do you think about proving Spiritual Healing
in order to arrive at a consensus on God Jesus and what is taught in religion based on forgiveness?

Wouldn't that achieve the same goal of getting everyone on the same page?


----------



## G.T.

The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.

One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.


----------



## dblack

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> 
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
Click to expand...


I dunno. I'm sticking with the "fucking idiot" theory.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
Click to expand...


NO that is not what he is saying
he is saying it can't be ruled out
God can neither be proven or disproven

He is trying to get to NEUTRAL

Can we get to NEUTRAL
that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
means God cannot be either proven or disproven

Can we please agree on that
and get to NEUTRAL


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> 
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno. I'm sticking with the "fucking idiot" theory.
Click to expand...

Dog chasing its tail is most accurate, IMO.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.
> 
> One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.



Hi GT if Hollie chickens out on the bet
would you like to join in?

10 million dollars says that Spiritual Healing
can be proven to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible,
by showing a correlation between
* forgiveness and ability to reconcile religious and political conflicts independent of the groups and viewpoints
* unforgiveness and inability to reconcile among these groups

so the problem is not with people's beliefs as theists or nontheists, left or right.
The problem is whether we forgive each other or not,
that determines if we can reach agreement and understanding as needed for consensus.
Our language and beliefs we hold naturally will not change
but our perception and ways of interacting will change 
by receiving forgiveness to bring healing to people in mind body spirit and relations.

Do you want to make the bet?
My other friends chickened out
but one Atheist friend on another site
WANTS to see this spiritual healing proven
and documented by science. Are you in?

is this "ramification" applicable enough to matter to you?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.
> 
> You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.
> 
> Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.
> 
> You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special in naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and argue with something I find so epically stupid, it's inarguable.
> 
> 
> Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.
> 
> Put any animal versus a human being in a warehouse with tools and materials and tell one to survive. My $ is on the human every single time. Not because of spirituality, and same for our morals.
> 
> Spirituality did not create our morals. Spirituality once DEEMED it moral, to make HUMAN SACRIFICES to the gods. What changed? Our ability to reason increased.
> 
> Reason, brought upon us by evolution, is what separates us and where we got our morals. Not religion, not spirituality.
Click to expand...


Well, no one likes to argue against points so irrefutable, it's not much fun. It's a whole lot easier to ridicule the point and claim it is absurd without addressing it. 

*Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.*

I didn't claim anything overrode anything else. You are using human intelligence to explain human intelligence. This is simple circular reasoning... humans are the most intelligent because humans are more intelligent. What you are missing is, human intelligence largely stems from inspiration and inspiration is spiritually based. 

Now, you jump from intelligence to reason, and again make the same circular argument, we have reason because we are able to reason....ahem, it's through da evolutionz! But yet.... the miraculous and remarkable difference in human reasoning versus the reasoning found elsewhere in nature, is unexplained by evolution. 

Natural reasoning says, if I am stronger than you, it is to my advantage to take what is yours for myself. Survival of the fittest, circle of life, law of the jungle... whatever you want to call it, this is what nature reasons. We see this evidenced everywhere except in human nature. With humans, there is the component known as human morality. This can't be an evolved trait because it does not exist elsewhere in nature. It is a trait which stems from our spiritual understanding that we aren't the supreme power, there is something greater and more important than self.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The tag is a viciously circular argument indeed.
> 
> One has to have two fatal flaws in order to buy into it: mental disability, or damaging bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi GT if Hollie chickens out on the bet
> would you like to join in?
> 
> 10 million dollars says that Spiritual Healing
> can be proven to form a consensus on God Jesus and the Bible,
> by showing a correlation between
> * forgiveness and ability to reconcile religious and political conflicts independent of the groups and viewpoints
> * unforgiveness and inability to reconcile among these groups
> 
> so the problem is not with people's beliefs as theists or nontheists, left or right.
> The problem is whether we forgive each other or not,
> that determines if we can reach agreement and understanding as needed for consensus.
> Our language and beliefs we hold naturally will not change
> but our perception and ways of interacting will change
> by receiving forgiveness to bring healing to peoplin mind body spirit and relations.
> 
> Do you want to make the bet?
> My other friends chickened out
> but one Atheist friend on another site
> WANTS to see this spiritual healing proven
> and documented by science. Are you in?
> 
> is this "ramification" applicable enough to matter to you?
Click to expand...

Concensus is not proof of anything. Your bet is frivolous.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think we have the same idea of smarts.
> 
> You're taking animals that specialize in a very specific trade or ability.
> 
> Also - we do have an explanation for "how we developed this." It's called evolution. You can argue against it until you're blue in the face - but we're worlds apart and that's boring.
> 
> I'm not going to continue this, I'll cut it off here. You're streeeeeeeeetching, to make a point that isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I did was give you examples of what you were explaining away as humans little sumn-sumn that made them unique. It's not complicated, humans have humanity which is inspired through our spiritual awareness. That's this special quality that makes humans different.
> 
> You can't run and hide behind evolution because it supports what I am saying as well. If what we developed that makes us special in naturally acquired, there would be evidence elsewhere in nature, our common ancestors at least. But we don't see the gorillas offering their bananas to hungry children after earthquakes, do we? In spite of all the advanced training we provided through NASA, we don't see the chimps putting a man on the moon. Our humanistic aspects are not found anywhere else in nature. Human morality and ethics are not present in the natural world, other than in humans who are spiritually aware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, where we differ is spirituality being the only thing that seperates us.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and argue with something I find so epically stupid, it's inarguable.
> 
> 
> Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.
> 
> Put any animal versus a human being in a warehouse with tools and materials and tell one to survive. My $ is on the human every single time. Not because of spirituality, and same for our morals.
> 
> Spirituality did not create our morals. Spirituality once DEEMED it moral, to make HUMAN SACRIFICES to the gods. What changed? Our ability to reason increased.
> 
> Reason, brought upon us by evolution, is what separates us and where we got our morals. Not religion, not spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no one likes to argue against points so irrefutable, it's not much fun. It's a whole lot easier to ridicule the point and claim it is absurd without addressing it.
> 
> *Humans are more intelligent than any other species on the planet. niche abilities of certain animals do not override that.*
> 
> I didn't claim anything overrode anything else. You are using human intelligence to explain human intelligence. This is simple circular reasoning... humans are the most intelligent because humans are more intelligent. What you are missing is, human intelligence largely stems from inspiration and inspiration is spiritually based.
> 
> Now, you jump from intelligence to reason, and again make the same circular argument, we have reason because we are able to reason....ahem, it's through da evolutionz! But yet.... the miraculous and remarkable difference in human reasoning versus the reasoning found elsewhere in nature, is unexplained by evolution.
> 
> Natural reasoning says, if I am stronger than you, it is to my advantage to take what is yours for myself. Survival of the fittest, circle of life, law of the jungle... whatever you want to call it, this is what nature reasons. We see this evidenced everywhere except in human nature. With humans, there is the component known as human morality. This can't be an evolved trait because it does not exist elsewhere in nature. It is a trait which stems from our spiritual understanding that we aren't the supreme power, there is something greater and more important than self.
Click to expand...

No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.

You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.


----------



## Boss

hobelim said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm. I suppose the answer must be that humans are less intelligent than every other species.
> 
> You will never see another species pray to a block of wood for help during a crisis.
> 
> How stupid is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, it doesn't even make sense that this isn't fundamentally important, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense. Its a simple matter of monkey see monkey do, except, historically, it has been under penalty of death for failure to comply with whatever irrational religious belief or practice was being done at the time. The instinct to survive IS fundamentally important.
> 
> I heard it is still happening in certain places where if you do not profess a belief in a so called god named alla whose prophet was a psychotic homicidal pedophile when even the least moral human being wouldn't choose such a perverse person for anything, much less God, you will be summarily executed..
> 
> Is the "spirituality" of people living under such conditions really that deep and mysterious to you?
> 
> Perhaps every civilization ever founded on false beliefs crumbled because believing in what does not exist creates confusion that can only increase exponentially by praying to what does not exist for guidance and help.
Click to expand...


Hey... bash away at religion and religious beliefs all you like. I'm not here to defend those. Men who are hungry for power have often attempted to control people through religion. It always fails, which is why you are aware of it. What I believe spiritually is beyond your ability to control or force. 

Now what doesn't make any rational sense, is that humans have imagined something unreal for all their existence and that thing has been the source of human inspiration and achievement, yet it is imagined and not fundamental. Your opinion doesn't render it any more rational.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Yes  that's why we can neither prove nor disprove God.
> Because all our knowledge or evidence is gotten from other sources
> and our interpretations/perceptions are "inferred" from those.
> 
> Justin what do you think about proving Spiritual Healing
> in order to arrive at a consensus on God Jesus and what is taught in religion based on forgiveness?
> 
> Wouldn't that achieve the same goal of getting everyone on the same page?



God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic.  That has already been proven and the problem is that you don't know what logical proofs are.  You don't know what you're talking about as far as that goes.  God's existence simply cannot be proven in the ultimate sense in constructive logic which is the logic of science. That's all you are saying.  Science can't verify or falsify the existence of spiritual hings, though I agree with you that science can be used to methodologically  gather evidence in a disciplined way from which you can rationally infer the existence of spiritual things from repeated experience, like you said about how good things consistently happen when we apply the spiritual ideas of healing and such as compared to what happens when we don't. But still that evidence cannot be said to be spiritual in substance, but empirical, observed results.  Does that makes sense?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.



Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?

We are not reading the same theory of evolution.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection and tell me you're not begging the question.  LOL!
> 
> This is not rocket science.  It's very simple.  Cut to the chase and move on. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.
> 
> You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."
> 
> You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."
> 
> First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS.
> 
> You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.
> 
> Forget about the all-knowing knower thing, it's confusing you though from that you should be able to get the point:
> 
> Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:
> 
> It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.​
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
Click to expand...


There he goes again pretending we're talking about proving things ultimately rather than the basic facts of origin.  You said the five things are beyond debate.  You're such an intellectual coward.  The five are obvious.  You take what is so simple and twist it into something so stupid and silly.  You're just a liar and a coward.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehhhhh...buzzer - false. The ramifications do not logically follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection and tell me you're not begging the question.  LOL!
> 
> This is not rocket science.  It's very simple.  Cut to the chase and move on. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *.*
> 
> *4.* You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, you took quite a few liberties here, which is either dishonest or wishful thinking.
> 
> You took "all knowing knower" and changed it to "supreme entity of origination."
> 
> You also said that an entity of origination would have to BE AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER...................which is NOT the same as saying "if an all knower exists, it knows that it knows all."
> 
> First of all, an entity of origination doesnt need to be an all knower, and B: an all knower doesnt need to be the entity of origination, and C: positing the axiom of the all knowing knower does NOT also conclude that ONE EXISTS.
> 
> You're taking QUITE a few liberties here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But see I didn't change anything, I merely got straight to the point regarding the inherently self-evident logical ramifications about what the construct God ultimately represents.
> 
> Forget about the all-knowing knower thing, it's confusing you though from that you should be able to get the point:
> 
> Just get this, as I wrote elsewhere:
> 
> It does not matter what persons ultimately believe God to be anywhere below the absolutely infinite standard of perfection. That is the highest conceivable standard. To assume anything less is to beg the question. Define something lower, I'll define something higher and so on . . . unto infinity.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There he goes again pretending we're talking about proving things ultimately rather than the basic facts of origin.  You said the five things are beyond debate.  You're such an intellectual coward.  The five are obvious.  You take what is so simple and twist it into something so stupid and silly.  You're just a liar and a coward.
Click to expand...

See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.

I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.

The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.

Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You've conceded that we exist.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 2. You claimed at one point that the fact of the cosmological order's existence doesn't mean God exists so we have you down on the second one: The cosmos exists.
> 
> Check.
> 
> 3. You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist. Hence, the potential substance behind that idea of God cannot be rationally denied out of hand either. These things can't be rationally denied under alternate-world forms of logic either in spite of what Q.W. the LIAR insinuated. So we have you down for that one too, otherwise, of course, you'd look like an idiot, right?
> 
> Check.
> 
> 4. You showed that you're aware of the principle of transcendent infiniteness when you recognized that a supreme entity of origination would necessarily have to be an all-knowing knower at some point or another that is in fact aware that it knows all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist. We both know Q.W. is full of crap, for I can assure you that even under constructive logic, the notion that an all-knowing knower would not know all things that can be known about all things or persons that exist would be assigned a false value and discarded due to the deduction of its obvious inherent contradiction. Good bye. So much for Q.W.'s philosophical bullshit. Looks like we, you and I, win that argument!
> 
> Check.
> 
> And now let's add your fifth belief that you're absolutely sure of to the list. . . .
> 
> 5. You believe that your belief in the potentiality of *number 4* cannot be proven in terms of ultimacy.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Finally found this stupid assed list of five, so I'll go through them one by one.
> 
> 1. *We exist*, is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.
> 
> 2. *The cosmos exist,* is not evidence of a sentient, or "on purpose" creator, or evidence that all of the other existence theories could not be so. Poor proof for god.
> 
> 3. *Atheism is not rational*, CURRENTLY. Same with theism. I've said BOTH. Neither are rational, until there's considerable proof of one or the other - of which I have yet to see any.
> 
> 4. *An all knowing knower would necessarily know that they're all knowing* is simply an axiom, and it's an axiom BECAUSE OF ITS DEFINITION, and THAT'S IT! This does not speak to w_hether or not AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER EVEN EXISTS_. And the point was, A non all knowing knower NECESSARILY knows THAT THEY DON'T know everything, as well - - - - - meaning that the tag question "what do you know, and how do you know it?" is answered, you can ground all of your knowledge from THAT starting point: "I know I'm not all knowing." This is an axiom because of its definitions. This does not speak to whether or not a god exists, and does not prove that it's required, the baseless tag premise, that objective knowledge has its basis in a "mind" holding it together, necessarily. "It just is" is still just as plausible, in current human knowledge, and so the TAG cannot be used as PROOF of anything because EXISTS  ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS. You're taking LIBERTIES by ascribing it as you have in the TAG when OTHER (non disproven!!!!!!!!) EXPLANATIONS *DO* EXIST. Taking said liberties is dishonest, or misguided, or shortsighted, or LYING, or a combination of all of them.
> 
> 5. I dont even know what the fuck this means, its bad english.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the more you bring up "but but but but but you agreed with the FIVE THINGS!!!! THE FIVE THINGS!!!!!!!!!" the more you waste my time and fail. They don't advance the proof for god, they dont advance the rationale for god. They're a meaningless numbered list that don't lead one one way or another if they're being _*absolutely*_ (hee hee) objective.
Click to expand...

this is for the very 'speeeshul' Mr. Davis


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss, I understand the dynamics of the psychology you're talking about.  It's not rocket science.  It has a name.  It's called epistemological subjectivism/relativism, essentially, irrationalism.  What you're really saying in the rest of the post outside the portion I quoted in the above to save space, is that human consciousness has primacy over the actual nature of any given thing all the way up to the cosmological order itself. Worse, according to your logic, human consciousness has primacy over ultimate existence itself, namely, over divine consciousness.



Consiousness only has primacy over awareness. I've made no other argument. 



> You don't really believe that.  You just fail to connect the dots out of sheer contrariness, more at, out of sheer pride, the refusal to concede the silliness of your unexamined ideas, though you be so close to the truth.



I don't connect dots because connecting dots is drawing conclusions and that is important to avoid while making objective evaluations. My ideas are not silly and are being examined as we speak. You do not have the only set of keys to the truth. You're smart, you make some very compelling arguments and I enjoy reading most of your posts. I have not attacked you or your opinion, but I keep being attacked brutally by you for some odd reason. 



> I am _not_ arguing *number 1*, not now, not ever, because I am not an irrationalist.



Well you can't argue number 1 because that is my opinion of your argument. Opinions are not arguments, so you can't argue  against or for them, you can only agree or disagree. 



> I do not hold, for obvious reasons, that human consciousness has primacy over existence as if a toad, for example, would suddenly turn into a bird because I decided in my head that the toad were a bird. Your failure to understand what I'm arguing, just as you somehow got it into your head that I was arguing spirituality to be something contrary or mysterious, is a symptom of your _refusal_ to be objectively unbiased about anything. You can't even keep track of your own arguments, as *number 1* is what _you're_ arguing, not I.



Well I go by what you post... you said "this mysterious spiritual nature" and that seems to indicate you believe spiritual nature to be mysterious. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Also, I don't believe toads turn into birds because our mind imagines that. Or... that monkeys turn into humans, for that matter. I believe that humans evaluate and value evidence differently, and this may cause some humans to think monkeys turned into humans while others reject that notion. 



> Hence, in *number 2 *and *number 4*, you essentially argue that evidence is whatever one believes it to be. There is truth in that, but, of course, that’s not the point and never has been, and only an irrationalist would habitually fail to get the point or grasp the ultimately pertinent fact of reality about any given thing. The irrationalist is the most gullible of persons in the world, a danger to himself and everyone else.



You keep saying I am irrational, but you've not demonstrated a thing I've said that was irrational. Here, I make a point (or two) that you agree with, but you still want to call me names and denigrate me for some odd reason. Here's the most pertinent fact of reality... there is no universal reality. We all experience an individual perception of reality. You seem to think there is only one reality and it is yours, and those who don't agree with your view of it are wrong. 



> Of course the veracity of evidence _can_ be and is questioned all the time. How did you come to attribute the stupidity of the contrary to me? The issue is not what any given person accepts to be evidence, but whether or not any given person's alleged evidence for something *actually proves the object*!
> 
> *The object! The object! The object!*


*
*
The object may be subject to rational evaluation itself... are we talking about a physical or spiritual object? If you don't believe in spiritual objects, no amount of anything is going to be seen as evidence, valid or otherwise. Evidence is what we perceive to be evidence. Once it is accepted as evidence, it can be evaluated objectively for veracity. Proof is what you personally believe the evidence supports and suggests as truth. If you don't acknowledge the evidence you can't find proof. 

Also, evidence is never proof. It may be used in the support of your belief something is proven, but most everything in our universe is unproven. 



> And once again, you incessantly confuse yourself with your irrationalism: if one claims something to be evidence, they obviously accept it to be evidence.  You’re not making a distinction in *number 4*. They're the same thing.  From there we weigh the veracity of said evidence relative to the object.



Again, you are talking about subjective evaluations and objective evaluation after you have accepted something as evidence for something else in a rational manner. Evidence is not evidence just because someone claims it is evidence. It is evidence to them, it may not be evidence to anyone else. You can't weigh the veracity of something that doesn't yet exist. The object is what you are trying to prove with evidence, but evidence and proof are subjective. 



> Finally, Boss, the *atheist* _does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence.  Your allegation to the contrary has been incontrovertibly falsified by the only justifiable and universally objective standard, namely, the principle of identity.  The judge, i.e., the unassailable principle of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, has ruled your lunacy inadmissible evidence.  In this case, the one before the court, your evidence has no relevancy, as it does not and cannot prove your object.
> 
> Once again, the court's finds that the *atheist*_does _accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence, regardless of what any given nitwit says, whether that nitwit be an *atheist* or not. It is also the court's finding that the latter suffer from or form of cognitive psychosis or cognitive sociopathy. They are pathologically deluded, or they are pathological liars.  Intellectually honest atheists concede this axiomatic, tautological fact of human cognition regarding this imperative of the  problem of origin, for their concession inhabits the term *atheist*. They know and believe that!



All I can say is, ask any Atheist what they believe? Most of the ones I speak to have not said they accept the universe to be evidence for God's existence. Now you can talk about the principle of identity and various forms of logic and reasoning, I enjoy hearing your opinions. But you're not the judge and this isn't a court and I'm not on trial. I growing very impatient with your constant insulting and denigration. 



> What they do not believe is that the evidence for the existence of God, namely, the existence of the universe, _proves the fact of the object_ or _the fact of the substance_ of the idea of God that’s in their heads due to the evidence for God’s existence, namely, the existence of the universe.
> 
> Boss! Are you always so gullible or deluded, always so easily deceived, or are you a sociopath?  In any event, you are duly ordered to pay a troll penalty of _mea culpa_ and to cease and desist with this lunacy.  The court also recommends no less than 90 days of rehab in a substance abuse program of your choice.



What they do not believe is that any evidence exists for God. You are trying to argue the universe is obvious and incontrovertible evidence, and I agree with you, I'm on your side there. But it is evidence the Atheist is not interested in accepting as evidence. Your argument can be totally valid up one side and down the other, it doesn't matter to the Atheist, they don't accept your evidence as evidence. 

Now, if you want to insist on calling me a troll, or busting my chops over semantics details, or trying to go out of your way to find fault in something I've said on the subject... be my fucking guest. I don't have a popularity complex like some. I get called all kinds of names and insulted in all kinds of ways as I deliver my profound wisdom to these boards. It comes with the territory of being legendary.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


What is wrong with you?  When have I ever spoken to you like that?  Did you or did you not  just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"?  Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists. 

If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot?  Have you lost your mind? 

If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either.  So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
> 
> What *religious extremists* such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that *until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic* can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of *supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis*, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? *Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet*.



Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter.  You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all.  You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you.  Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about.  I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on  Hollie's bullshit.

Back off!  You're out of line.

Hollie is a known quantity.  An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread!  Ever!  You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU?  You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?

And science _is_ premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.

Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from  metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.

As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under:  Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.
> 
> I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.
> 
> The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.
> 
> Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.





You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know.  Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the  obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand.  And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you.  You can't even stick to one story from post to post.  

G.T.:  "the five things are beyond debate."

So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5?  Right?  Right?  Right?  Is that like the millionth or the zillionth  time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
> 
> What *religious extremists* such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that *until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic* can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of *supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis*, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? *Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter.  You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all.  You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you.  Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about.  I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on  Hollie's bullshit.
> 
> Back off!  You're out of line.
> 
> Hollie is a known quantity.  An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread!  Ever!  You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU?  You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?
> 
> And science _is_ premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.
> 
> Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from  metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.
> 
> As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under:  Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.
Click to expand...

Oh my. The raving supernaturalist had his feelings hurt. I suppose that happens when pompous religious zealots are taken to task for their pointless, circular arguments.

_M. Pompous Rawling_ is a religious fundamentalist.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  When have I ever spoken to you like that?  Did you or did you not  just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"?  Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.
> 
> If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot?  *Have you lost your mind?*
> 
> If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either.  So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?
Click to expand...


No. I've lost patience with discussions that turn out to be struggles for control over popular definitions rather than exploring ideas. I gave you the opportunity dispense with that nonsense and focus on the issue (your proof of god), but you've chosen propaganda over debate by promoting the idea that having no belief a god is equivalent with a belief that gods do not exist. A person who says "I know of no god. All of those I've heard about seem like hogwash to me, but it's possible such a thing exists" is as much an atheist as the person who claims to have proof that there are no gods. I'm fed up with the campaign to narrow the term to the latter.

If the intent of point 3 was merely to establish that we can't rule out the logical possibility that a god created the universe, then let's move on. We've done that. But it sounds like there's more to it than that, or you'd simply jettison the 'atheist' cargo.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


What in the world?  dblack what's going on with you all of the sudden?   Have you gone Hollie on us?  You asked him to resolve something, though why you saw any contradiction in the first place over an easy thing is weird.  It's not hard.  When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist?  Where does he get the idea of God from?  Doesn't a person have to know what it is they're saying doesn't exist and why they're saying it doesn't before they say it doesn't exist?  Do normal people go around saying things don't exist without knowing what the thing is or where the idea came from?

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true.  Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you.  Man alive.  I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?  When have I ever spoken to you like that?  Did you or did you not  just agree with me that "we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe"?  Which, of course, entails the idea that we cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.
> 
> If you agree with me on that, then why are your calling me idiot?  *Have you lost your mind?*
> 
> If we can't logically rule out the possibility that God exists, it follows that the atheist can't logically do that either.  So what is going in his mind about the idea of God, dblack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I've lost patience with discussions that turn out to be struggles for control over popular definitions rather than exploring ideas. I gave you the opportunity dispense with that nonsense and focus on the issue (your proof of god), but you've chosen propaganda over debate by promoting the idea that having no belief a god is equivalent with a belief that gods do not exist. A person who says "I know of no god. All of those I've heard about seem like hogwash to me, but it's possible such a thing exists" is as much an atheist as the person who claims to have proof that there are no gods. I'm fed up with the campaign to narrow the term to the latter.
> 
> If the intent of point 3 was merely to establish that we can't rule out the logical possibility that a god created the universe, then let's move on. We've done that. But it sounds like there's more to it than that, or you'd simply jettison the 'atheist' cargo.
Click to expand...


dblack you asked him to explain something.  He's trying to explain it to you.  It's not hard.  What proving are you talking about.  Number 5 says God can't be proven in the ultimate sense.  Man alive.  We exist.  The universe exists.  God exists by rules of organic logic.  God means supreme being.  But God can't be verified by science.  That's all he's saying.  These things are all true.  As for the atheist thing, obviously the atheist recognizes that the idea of God comes from the evidence of the universe's existence.  What made the universe exist?  Well, God could have.  The atheist obviously gets that, but says he doesn't believe that the universe was caused by God anyway but by something else or maybe it's always existed.  Come on.  Really?  Rawlings is an idiot?  There's not trick to this.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes  that's why we can neither prove nor disprove God.
> Because all our knowledge or evidence is gotten from other sources
> and our interpretations/perceptions are "inferred" from those.
> 
> Justin what do you think about proving Spiritual Healing
> in order to arrive at a consensus on God Jesus and what is taught in religion based on forgiveness?
> 
> Wouldn't that achieve the same goal of getting everyone on the same page?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic.  That has already been proven and the problem is that you don't know what logical proofs are.  You don't know what you're talking about as far as that goes.  God's existence simply cannot be proven in the ultimate sense in constructive logic which is the logic of science. That's all you are saying.  Science can't verify or falsify the existence of spiritual hings, though I agree with you that science can be used to methodologically  gather evidence in a disciplined way from which you can rationally infer the existence of spiritual things from repeated experience, like you said about how good things consistently happen when we apply the spiritual ideas of healing and such as compared to what happens when we don't. But still that evidence cannot be said to be spiritual in substance, but empirical, observed results.  Does that makes sense?
Click to expand...


"God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic"

False. Organic logic or "inorganic" logic is not a tool that can prove your partisan gawds or other gawds. You use terms you don't understand to promote a fraud. 

I suspect your fraud is calculated so you cannot claim ignorance of your fraud as an excuse.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack you asked him to explain something.  He's trying to explain it to you.  It's not hard.  What proving are you talking about.  Number 5 says God can't be proven in the ultimate sense.  Man alive.  We exist.  The universe exists.  God exists by rules of organic logic.  God means supreme being.  But God can't be verified by science.  *That's all he's saying*.  These things are all true.  As for the atheist thing, obviously the atheist recognizes that the idea of God comes from the evidence of the universe's existence.  What made the universe exist?  Well, God could have.  The atheist obviously gets that, but says he doesn't believe that the universe was caused by God anyway but by something else or maybe it's always existed.  Come on.  Really?  Rawlings is an idiot?  There's not trick to this.



If there's no trick to it, then why all the trickery? Seriously, I don't claim to be a genius, so it's possible I'm just not bright enough to follow, but this argument is a meandering mess in my view. This is the kind of stuff that causes people like QW to reject philosophy altogether. 

It sounds like the point of it all is simply to confirm the agnostic's position that the existence of god's can't be proven. But whether a not a god's existence can be proven depends entirely on the supposed nature of the god in question.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.
> 
> I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.
> 
> The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.
> 
> Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know.  Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the  obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand.  And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you.  You can't even stick to one story from post to post.
> 
> G.T.:  "the five things are beyond debate."
> 
> So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5?  Right?  Right?  Right?  Is that like the millionth or the zillionth  time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

Cuz you're the fuckin idiot who brings them up every time I say that the TAG argument is bullshit, which it very clearly IS.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
Click to expand...


That's right.  Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying.  She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me.  Where did you get that crap from?  I never wrote any crap like that.  So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says?  You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said. 

But you are still wrong about one thing.  Under the rules of  organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition.  One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty.  Obviously, the basis for such certainty  would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual.  God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic.  God's existence just can't be verified by science.  Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven.  Science simply cannot address the question.  That's it.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> What in the world?  dblack what's going on with you all of the sudden?   Have you gone Hollie on us?  You asked him to resolve something, though why you saw any contradiction in the first place over an easy thing is weird.  It's not hard.  When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist?  Where does he get the idea of God from?  Doesn't a person have to know what it is they're saying doesn't exist and why they're saying it doesn't before they say it doesn't exist?  Do normal people go around saying things don't exist without knowing what the thing is or where the idea came from?
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true.  *Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you.*  Man alive.  I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.



As I said, I'm fed up with this campaign to force a false dichotomy on the subject of religious belief. It's a strawman to claim that rejecting theism is a claim of knowledge that no gods exist. It's subtle form of intimidation, to dissuade doubters with the suggestion that disbelief is irrational.



> When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist? Where does he get the idea of God from?


 He get's it from you - or whoever is making the claims about their God. He's saying "I don't believe your claims."



> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true.  Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you.  Man alive.  I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.



Ok. I answered those questions: *Atheists don't believe the claims of believers. But it's possible believers are right.*

Really? That's all Rawlings is trying to say? Huh. My version is shorter. Feel free to cut and paste.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3): The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying.  She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me.  Where did you get that crap from?  I never wrote any crap like that.  So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says?  You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said.
> 
> But you are still wrong about one thing.  Under the rules of  organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition.  One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty.  Obviously, the basis for such certainty  would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual.  God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic.  God's existence just can't be verified by science.  Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven.  Science simply cannot address the question.  That's it.
Click to expand...

That's not it. You continue to promote a fraud. Logic will never prove supernatural agents you call gods.


Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3): The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  Hollie doesn't understand what he's saying.  She never has. Just like you didn't know what i was talking about regarding philosophy of science when you unloaded her crap on me.  Where did you get that crap from?  I never wrote any crap like that.  So your pretending to know what I'm talking about based on what that liar Hollie says?  You had no business making those assumptions based on what some lunatic said.
> 
> But you are still wrong about one thing.  Under the rules of  organic/classical logic "God exists" is an axiomatically proven proposition.  One cannot credibly claim to have absolute knowledge about anything (assert anything to be absolutely true as you are by the way) without presupposing there is an absolute basis for that certainty.  Obviously, the basis for such certainty  would have to be an absolutely immutable ground of existence: spiritual.  God's existence is proved by the necessity of logic.  God's existence just can't be verified by science.  Saying that is not the same thing as saying that God's existence cannot be proven.  Science simply cannot address the question.  That's it.
Click to expand...

That's not right. You continue to promote a fraud. That's not a simple miscalculation on your part. That's a calculated effort to deceive. Logic will never prove alleged supernatural agents you call "gods".  

It is pretty self-explanatory. A god by definition has the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and jinn do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? _Reason_ operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call “science”. Reason’s innate fluidity does not invalidate it; to the contrary, that fluidity makes _reason_ the only possible choice because models of reality can only be compared when one is not hopelessly mired in fundamentalist religious dogma. One cannot assert an alternative to reason without first ingesting the available data and using reason itself to come up with the new assertion. Hence, the assertion itself that reason is somehow flawed cannot be viable. To follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, one must assert solipsism, in which case the very act of this discussion is rendered absurd.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> dblack you asked him to explain something.  He's trying to explain it to you.  It's not hard.  What proving are you talking about.  Number 5 says God can't be proven in the ultimate sense.  Man alive.  We exist.  The universe exists.  God exists by rules of organic logic.  God means supreme being.  But God can't be verified by science.  *That's all he's saying*.  These things are all true.  As for the atheist thing, obviously the atheist recognizes that the idea of God comes from the evidence of the universe's existence.  What made the universe exist?  Well, God could have.  The atheist obviously gets that, but says he doesn't believe that the universe was caused by God anyway but by something else or maybe it's always existed.  Come on.  Really?  Rawlings is an idiot?  There's not trick to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no trick to it, then why all the trickery? Seriously, I don't claim to be a genius, so it's possible I'm just not bright enough to follow, but this argument is a meandering mess in my view. This is the kind of stuff that causes people like QW to reject philosophy altogether.
> 
> It sounds like the point of it all is simply to confirm the agnostic's position that the existence of god's can't be proven. But whether a not a god's existence can be proven depends entirely on the supposed nature of the god in question.
Click to expand...


What trickery? There's no trickery? Are these things true? Yes or no? The answer is yes! What are you talking about? What is philosophy? It's the science of thought used  to accurately define the nature of things and establish a base for true justified knowledge, including a reliable foundation for science. We use philosophy to systematically pull out the things that are axiomatically true, objectively true without bias. If these things are objectively true, and they are, then they are true without bias. There's no trickery. You know these things are true. Whose tricking you? Are you tricking yourself? Did he trick you into knowing these things are true? You're not making sense are you? Science can't verify God's existence because science can only deal with physical things. Another truth. Is that a trick?

And why are you jumping to conclusions about agnosticism, making assumptions? Is that philosophy? No. That’s not philosophy. Bad philosophy jumps to conclusions and makes assumptions without justification. Rawlings isn't the one jumping to conclusions or making assumptions. You are, and you don't understand what he's telling you about atheism. Your inability to understand something that my child understands does make what he‘s telling you wrong. The problem is not with what he's telling you. The problem is with you. Apparently you're not smart enough. So that pisses you off and you call him idiot? Apparently you have something personal against him, because nothing youre saying makes sense at all. You're insulting him for something he gave you credit to be able to understand.

You are smart enough to understand what he's telling about atheism.  You're just all pissed and not trying over something that's not his fault.  I know where he's going because he's already written on it and it isn't the assumptions you're making about agnosticism. And where he’s going, the logic follows bullet proof just like the five things. What are you afraid of? No. QW is as liar.  He's a fake, dogmatic, closed-minded prig. His problem with philosophy is that he doesn’t understand what it is and he doesn’t understand logic like he pretended.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> No. I've lost patience with discussions that turn out to be struggles for control over popular definitions rather than exploring ideas. I gave you the opportunity dispense with that nonsense and focus on the issue (your proof of god), but you've chosen propaganda over debate by promoting the idea that having no belief a god is equivalent with a belief that gods do not exist. A person who says "I know of no god. All of those I've heard about seem like hogwash to me, but it's possible such a thing exists" is as much an atheist as the person who claims to have proof that there are no gods. I'm fed up with the campaign to narrow the term to the latter.
> 
> If the intent of point 3 was merely to establish that we can't rule out the logical possibility that a god created the universe, then let's move on. We've done that. But it sounds like there's more to it than that, or you'd simply jettison the 'atheist' cargo.



You gave _me_ the opportunity?  For what?  Did you or did you not ask me what certain terms meant from the beginning? I was accommodating _you_, as anyone who had my level of thought on these matters would have followed me with no problem.  You're the one who started out over definitions.  And I pointedly told you I had no problem whatsoever with your definitions and asked for your suggestions.  Whatever you want that makes sense to you and is accurate is fine with me.  I told you that.  So don't give me this crap about me playing games with you and holding things up.    

What the hell is going on with you?  Why are you being rude and obnoxious out of the blue? I have been  nothing but courteous to you?

_You_ asked me to explain what appeared to _you_ to be a contradiction regarding the "atheist cargo."  You raised the "atheist cargo," _not_ me.  The "atheist cargo" is your friggin' cargo, not mine.  There's no contradiction.  That's my answer, and I explained to you why there's no contraction.  

I politely addressed _your_ "atheist cargo," and _your_ response is to be rude to me for answering _your_ "atheist cargo"?  Don't blame me for _your_ ignorance, and don't call what is in fact _your_ ignorance and_ your_ inability to follow a very simple thing about atheism my nonsense.  Indeed, Justin is right.  My son at the age of 12 understood that one!  

There's no campaign.  Are a paranoid?  You're the one asking the questions.  I'm answering those questions.  Understanding the matter about what the atheist is actually doing is important in order to recognize what follows from the five things.  I assumed you understood it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world?  dblack what's going on with you all of the sudden?   Have you gone Hollie on us?  You asked him to resolve something, though why you saw any contradiction in the first place over an easy thing is weird.  It's not hard.  When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist?  Where does he get the idea of God from?  Doesn't a person have to know what it is they're saying doesn't exist and why they're saying it doesn't before they say it doesn't exist?  Do normal people go around saying things don't exist without knowing what the thing is or where the idea came from?
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true.  *Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you.*  Man alive.  I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I'm fed up with this campaign to force a false dichotomy on the subject of religious belief. It's a strawman to claim that rejecting theism is a claim of knowledge that no gods exist. It's subtle form of intimidation, to dissuade doubters with the suggestion that disbelief is irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God what is he saying doesn't exist? Where does he get the idea of God from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He get's it from you - or whoever is making the claims about their God. He's saying "I don't believe your claims."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out? There must be a reason you believe that's logically true.  Answer those questions and that one especially and you'll understand what he's telling you.  Man alive.  I come back and you're calling Rawlings whose been nice to you an idiot out of the blue over something my ten-year-old understands and emilynghiem is talking crazy stuff about the philosophy science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I answered those questions: *But it's possible believers are right.*
> 
> Really? That's all Rawlings is trying to say? Huh. My version is shorter. Feel free to cut and paste.
Click to expand...


Your version does not answer the question.  Your attitude is pissy, rude, shrewish, churlish and childish.

Justin and I have never been anything but courteous to you and even supportive of a number of the ideas you have shared on this thread, because a number of your ideas make good sense.  Heretofore you have been objective.  Now you've gone all typical, postal atheist. 

Justin is politely asking a question that as a theist I am able to recognize the reason for.  It is imperative that you be objective and think clearly in order to understand what the theist is telling you about something.  How about dropping the attitude?  And act like an adult.  There's no gotcha in these questions.  They pertain to a simple, objective truth about the problem of origin and nothing else.  In real objective thought you do not assume the answer.  You're assuming things that aren't there! 

Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?

Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes  that's why we can neither prove nor disprove God.
> Because all our knowledge or evidence is gotten from other sources
> and our interpretations/perceptions are "inferred" from those.
> 
> Justin what do you think about proving Spiritual Healing
> in order to arrive at a consensus on God Jesus and what is taught in religion based on forgiveness?
> 
> Wouldn't that achieve the same goal of getting everyone on the same page?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic.  That has already been proven and the problem is that you don't know what logical proofs are.  You don't know what you're talking about as far as that goes.  God's existence simply cannot be proven in the ultimate sense in constructive logic which is the logic of science. That's all you are saying.  Science can't verify or falsify the existence of spiritual hings, though I agree with you that science can be used to methodologically  gather evidence in a disciplined way from which you can rationally infer the existence of spiritual things from repeated experience, like you said about how good things consistently happen when we apply the spiritual ideas of healing and such as compared to what happens when we don't. But still that evidence cannot be said to be spiritual in substance, but empirical, observed results.  Does that makes sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "God's existence is proven under the terms of organic logic"
> 
> False. Organic logic or "inorganic" logic is not a tool that can prove your partisan gawds or other gawds. You use terms you don't understand to promote a fraud.
> 
> I suspect your fraud is calculated so you cannot claim ignorance of your fraud as an excuse.
Click to expand...


He understands the term.  It's been defined and discussed on this thread.  It's you who doesn't understand what he's talking about.  The logic he's referring  to has no correlation with inorganic logic whatsoever!  He's talking about the fundamental laws of human thought.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
> 
> What *religious extremists* such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that *until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic* can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of *supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis*, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? *Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter.  You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all.  You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you.  Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about.  I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on  Hollie's bullshit.
> 
> Back off!  You're out of line.
> 
> Hollie is a known quantity.  An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread!  Ever!  You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU?  You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?
> 
> And science _is_ premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.
> 
> Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from  metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.
> 
> As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under:  Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. The raving supernaturalist had his feelings hurt. I suppose that happens when pompous religious zealots are taken to task for their pointless, circular arguments.
> 
> _M. Pompous Rawling_ is a religious fundamentalist.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.
> 
> I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.
> 
> The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.
> 
> Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know.  Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the  obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand.  And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you.  You can't even stick to one story from post to post.
> 
> G.T.:  "the five things are beyond debate."
> 
> So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5?  Right?  Right?  Right?  Is that like the millionth or the zillionth  time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz you're the fuckin idiot who brings them up every time I say that the TAG argument is bullshit, which it very clearly IS.
Click to expand...


Boring!  Atheists exchanging ideas.  LOL!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?



OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Oh my. The raving supernaturalist had his feelings hurt. I suppose that happens when pompous religious zealots are taken to task for their pointless, circular arguments.
> 
> .



Boring!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
Click to expand...



 Atheists can't be honest or objective about the nature of their belief.  The possibly of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism asserts God doesn't exist.  That's illogical.  That's your convoluted right there. But you can say God exists without any inherent contradiction. Why is that?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists can't be honest or objective about the nature of their belief.  The possibly of God's existence cannot be logically denied.  Atheism asserts God doesn't exist.  That's illogical.  That's your convoluted right there. But you can say God exists without any inherent contradiction. Why is that?
Click to expand...


Yes, your strawman is convoluted. Good job.

Now, what the hell is this "five things" argument supposed to prove?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
Click to expand...


The claims of believers are not relevant.  It's your belief that matters here. 

You believe the idea of God objectively exists.  You know it objectively exists.  The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of  universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God. 

1.  We exist.  2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists.  3.  The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated. 

4.  God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.

Written to GT:

So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .

This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Stop begging the question and cut to the chase: God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents. That's what the term God means!

God means the uncreated Creator. If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created: a creature, not the Creator. 

Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?​
The logic for number 4 is right, right?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claims of believers are not relevant.  It's your belief that matters here.
> 
> You believe the idea of God objectively exists.  You know it objectively exists.  The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of  universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.
> 
> 1.  We exist.  2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists.  3.  The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.
> 
> 4.  God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> Written to GT:
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .
> 
> This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Stop begging the question and cut to the chase: God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents. That's what the term God means!
> 
> God means the uncreated Creator. If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created: a creature, not the Creator.
> 
> Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?​
> The logic for number 4 is right, right?
Click to expand...


Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.


----------



## Boss

> 4. God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.



It depends on how one defines a "being." The atheist only recognizes a physical existence, so any "being" would have to be a physical being. Is God a physical being?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claims of believers are not relevant.  It's your belief that matters here.
> 
> You believe the idea of God objectively exists.  You know it objectively exists.  The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of  universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.
> 
> 1.  We exist.  2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists.  3.  The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.
> 
> 4.  God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> Written to GT:
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .
> 
> This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Stop begging the question and cut to the chase: God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents. That's what the term God means!
> 
> God means the uncreated Creator. If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created: a creature, not the Creator.
> 
> Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?​
> The logic for number 4 is right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.
Click to expand...



Why is it not logical?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that the possibility of God's existence can't be ruled out?
> 
> Yes.  It's possible the theist could be right!  But the question is not _what _you believe in that regard, but _why_ do you believe the theist might be right?  What is your reason for believing that?  _Why? _You must have a reason.  Are you saying it's unreasonable for me to ask you _why_ you believe that?  Is it a secrete that you promised not to tell anyone?  Is it too personal?  What the hell are you getting all bent out of shape over?  Are you saying you don't know _why_ you believe the theist might be right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll spell it out. The answer then becomes "Atheists don't believe the claims of believers, but there's no proof that they are wrong, so must admit it's possible that they are right" - Again, this is an obvious observation and if that's all you're saying I can't imagine why you'd present it in such convoluted fashion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The claims of believers are not relevant.  It's your belief that matters here.
> 
> You believe the idea of God objectively exists.  You know it objectively exists.  The reason you know that God's existence cannot be logically ruled is because you objectively believe that the cause of  universe, which is the evidence for God's existence, could be God.
> 
> 1.  We exist.  2. Whatever your definition was about the material realm of being exists.  3.  The potentially of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.
> 
> 4.  God would necessarily be the supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> Written to GT:
> 
> So define something lower than absolute perfection for the notion of God as the potentiality of ultimate origin and I'll define something higher unto infinity. . . .
> 
> This is not rocket science. It's very simple. Stop begging the question and cut to the chase: God is the supreme order of things as the ultimate uncaused cause of all other existents. That's what the term God means!
> 
> God means the uncreated Creator. If we're not talking about the supreme Being Who created all other existents, you know, the only Being Who could possibly know all there is to know about all things or persons that exist as the Creator of all other things and persons that exist, we're not talking about God the uncreated Creator, but a lesser being that was created: a creature, not the Creator.
> 
> Do you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every axiomatic/tautological fact of logic?​
> The logic for number 4 is right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not logic, just a definition, but I'll accept it as a premise. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it not logical?
Click to expand...


It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> What they do not believe is that any evidence exists for God. You are trying to argue the universe is obvious and incontrovertible evidence, and I agree with you, I'm on your side there. But it is evidence the Atheist is not interested in accepting as evidence. Your argument can be totally valid up one side and down the other, it doesn't matter to the Atheist, they don't accept your evidence as evidence.
> 
> Now, if you want to insist on calling me a troll, or busting my chops over semantics details, or trying to go out of your way to find fault in something I've said on the subject... be my fucking guest. I don't have a popularity complex like some. I get called all kinds of names and insulted in all kinds of ways as I deliver my profound wisdom to these boards. It comes with the territory of being legendary.



*You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel (Matthew 23: 24).*​
You're wrong, of course, Boss, you've already talked about the historical and anthropological evidence for human spirituality. That evidence is empirical, just one aspect of the evidence that is part of the universe. Hence, the universe _is _the evidence for God's existence. Period. That is the simple, uncomplicated, straightforward fact of origin.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that the real dogmatists have gone on and on about how the things I've talked about are overly involved, when in fact everything I've talked about is as simple as the ABCs, 2 + 2 = 4, the color of the sky, the days of the week, a dog with a bone.

I laid down the foundation because I know from experience that most folks live reactionary lives and don't think outside the box, ponder the wondrous, unbound potentialities of infinity, and so they pile convoluted . . . shrooms on top of convoluted shrooms until the simplest things of cognition that a child understands at first blush are turned into mountains of controversy over nothing.

What does the term _atheist _mean and what are its inherent connotations relative to the existence of the universe and the universal idea of God?
*2 + 2 = 4*?

No, by golly! *2 + 2 = 7 *or maybe *21*. But then again, maybe, just maybe, *2 + 2 = 1032* on Fridays or *63* on Sundays.

Seriously? This is rocket science?

The Five Things. . . .

(1) We exist. (2) The cosmological order exists. (3) The axioms of organic logic hold that God exists, though the barrier of faith remains in terms of ultimacy. (4) By definition God is the Supreme Being of unparalleled, absolute perfection unto infinity. (5) We cannot verify God's existence via the means of science, because science is limited to affirmations about material things as inferred from direct physical evidence.

Simple.

And from these simple truths of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin a whole host of other simple truths follow, one after the other in logical harmony: any given existent, for example, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously. Hence, we may know that actual free will and absolute omniscience can coexist in an existentially multidimensional transcendent-cosmological order of being.

Simple?

Yes!

Yet the implications are staggeringly complex.

But for some, it can't be that simple from the jump. We can't just go with the natural flow of the fundamental absolutes of logic: the commonsensical ramifications of the universal principle of identity. Heaven forbid! Instead, things must be convoluted, distorted, confounded, conflated, obscured to the point that all one is left with is a pile of subjective mush, an endless merry-go-round of _duh_ that actually circumvents the exploration of the contents of our minds, which would otherwise divulge the harmonious, albeit, staggeringly complex implications of reality.

The simple absolutes actually reveal complexity, while the convoluted mush of supposed open-mindedness gets us nowhere and creates a whole host of paradoxical quagmires that stifle the exploration of the infinite potentialities. In short, the latter are banalities that reveal nothing of interest at all.

This is the very same point that Jesus Christ—_the_ Principle of Identity, the universal Logos of infinite potentiality—made about the closed-minded, pharisaic dogmatists of His time, who refused to allow for the simple truths of first principles so that the grandeur of the infinitely complex reality of realities standing right in front of them might be revealed to them:

You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.​


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Hollie said is right. What Justin Davis did not do was actually address what Hollie wrote but chose instead to babble-on with some irrelevancy.
> 
> What *religious extremists* such as Justin Davis fail to understand is that *until theology / creation science / supernaturalism and Magic* can be used in development of a plausible means to investigate the method of *supernatural / magical creation, some tentative hypothesis*, the  beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? *Supernatural / magical intervention as a hypothesis is simply religious dogma under a guise and lacks both credibility as a useful hypothesis and a plausible explanation for life on the planet*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin can speak for himself, but he rightly understands the matter.  You and Hollie don't rightly understand things at all.  You just blew Justin off without understanding what he's telling you.  Everything that is in bold has absolutely nothing to do with what Justin is talking about.  I know that because he and I discussed the matter of the philosophy of science (generic) earlier on this thread, long before you came along and assumed to know what he's thinking based on  Hollie's bullshit.
> 
> Back off!  You're out of line.
> 
> Hollie is a known quantity.  An irrational, pathological liar, who does nothing but attack people and incessantly attribute ideas to them that they have never stated or thought on this thread!  Ever!  You did not get these notions about Justin from Justin, DID YOU?  You got them from Hollie, DIDN'T YOU?
> 
> And science _is_ premised on one metaphysical apriority or another, with epistemological-ontological constructs of justification serving as its infrastructure. The philosophy of science precedes science! It has primacy over science. It cannot be any other way. Hollie is a rank idiot and a historical illiterate. There is nothing about the Enlightenment that relegated philosophy to the back of the bus relative to science, and only backward, nose-picking hayseeds and post-modern atheistic materialists talk that stupid bullshit. Science is the methodological investigation of empirical phenomena, a system of precise rules of inference, experimentation and falsification. Methodology doesn't precede and cannot precede the first principles of ontological and epistemological justification.
> 
> Moreover, while there is a general consensus regarding the fundamental categories of scientific methodology, there is no single, universally comprehensive consensus in the scientific community in terms of the regulatory concerns of epistemology and ontology; and the leading metaphysical presuppositions/apriorities for science range from  metaphysical naturalism to methodological naturalism to theistic naturalism and to religious naturalism.
> 
> As for our respective apriorities for science, though it's doubtful that either one of you know what category your stuff actually falls under:  Hollie is a metaphysical naturalist; Jason and I are methodological naturalists and you and Boss are talking like religious naturalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. The raving supernaturalist had his feelings hurt. I suppose that happens when pompous religious zealots are taken to task for their pointless, circular arguments.
> 
> _M. Pompous Rawling_ is a religious fundamentalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my.post on your 'five things' and try to respond to it pussy.
> 
> I'm not the coward - you're the distasteful little bitch who doesn't understand shit.
> 
> The 'five things' and WhAT YOU EXTRAPOLATE FROM THEM are two totally different animals. You'd have to be a six year old not to understand that.
> 
> Stop.being such a troll. And if not trolling, such a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what can or can't be extrapolated from them so stop pretending like you know.  Because you constantly self-delude you can barely get the  obviously true five things that any six-year old can easily understand.  And no one is even talking about extrapolations past the five things with you.  You can't even stick to one story from post to post.
> 
> G.T.:  "the five things are beyond debate."
> 
> So why did you write that and start debating them and talk about proving things scientifically again when that's the whole point of number 5?  Right?  Right?  Right?  Is that like the millionth or the zillionth  time you bored us with that now, as if that were something earthshatteringly new.  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz you're the fuckin idiot who brings them up every time I say that the TAG argument is bullshit, which it very clearly IS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Atheists exchanging ideas.  LOL!
> 
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Click to expand...

Such are the wages of religious extremism. 

Spamming the thread with such nonsense really invites a lot of questions about your ability to actually address the issues you have so far sidestepped.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Edit:  God means the uncreated Creator.




that does not preclude God was created from "nothing" but simply not by something - binary forces as good and evil are non existent elements of the Everlasting that by their presence have created a being controlling one from the other, the same as physiology is made possible by the presence of matter and is then given life, direction by the Creation of the Everlasting.

.


----------



## Boss

Rawlings, I agree it's all very simple once you accept the evidence as evidence. I posted a thread a while back entitled "Definitive Proof God Exists." It enjoyed a good little run here with lots of pages of commentary. The OP begins by addressing each individual word of that phrase and how the Theist vs. Atheist recognize and comprehend those words in meaning. Of course, the Atheists never agreed that I had definitively proven God's existence, but that wasn't the point of the thread.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?



Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?

That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.

It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.

Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.

By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the 
Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.

*1*. Do we exist? YES!

*2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!

* 
3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!

And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!

* 
4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
Click to expand...



To #4, no. 

To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Click to expand...


Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit!  You've already acknowledge the five things.  You couldn't overthrow the MPTA.  Nobody can with classical logic  without affirming it.  Shut up!


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
Click to expand...


Boring!




zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.



Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.

But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.

Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.



> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.



Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.



> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!



Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit!  You've already the five things.  You couldn't overthrow MPTA.  Nobody can with classical without affirming it.  Shut up!
Click to expand...


"youve already the five things"


like you guys have a tick. 

No, the five things you guys have dishonestly changed, and what you think logically follows from them doesn't. 

MPTA is overthrown as being a naked assertion and viciously circular. And saying such doesn't affirm it. You keep saying that, but you can't say why. It's because you can't show that absolute knowledge requires a mind to ground it. And until you can, it is not logical to use it as a premise. 

And again on the five things - you're being dishonest and so is Justin. 

I said that an all knowing knower would know that it's all knowing. by definition. 

I did *not* say:

**an all knowing knower exists
*god would BE an all knowing knower
*an all knowing knower, if one did exist, would be the creator 


You then change my comment from "an all knowing knower would know its all knowing" - - - - - to "the divine potentiality is necessarily the supreme being of all creation"      - - - - - which COMPLETELY CHANGES what you keep saying "I conceded to." #1 - IT ASSERTS AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO BE GROUNDED OR ABSOLUTE. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED AND THE OPPOSITE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO IT'S TAKING A LIBERTY TO SAY THAT IT MUST BE. HENCE MPTA SUCKS A FAT COCK. 


sO LONG AS YOU AND YOUR MINION CONTINUE YOUR DISHONESTY, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT IT OUT. *


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Click to expand...


Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic. 

Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?

Are all atheists liars?

*Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...



LOL!  Justin.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...


Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussing an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit!  You've already the five things.  You couldn't overthrow MPTA.  Nobody can with classical without affirming it.  Shut up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "youve already the five things"
> 
> 
> like you guys have a tick.
> 
> No, the five things you guys have dishonestly changed, and what you think logically follows from them doesn't.
> 
> MPTA is overthrown as being a naked assertion and viciously circular. And saying such doesn't affirm it. You keep saying that, but you can't say why. It's because you can't show that absolute knowledge requires a mind to ground it. And until you can, it is not logical to use it as a premise.
> 
> And again on the five things - you're being dishonest and so is Justin.
> 
> I said that an all knowing knower would know that it's all knowing. by definition.
> 
> I did *not* say:
> 
> **an all knowing knower exists
> *god would BE an all knowing knower
> *an all knowing knower, if one did exist, would be the creator
> 
> 
> You then change my comment from "an all knowing knower would know its all knowing" - - - - - to "the divine potentiality is necessarily the supreme being of all creation"      - - - - - which COMPLETELY CHANGES what you keep saying "I conceded to." #1 - IT ASSERTS AN ALL KNOWING KNOWER IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO BE GROUNDED OR ABSOLUTE. I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED AND THE OPPOSITE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND SO IT'S TAKING A LIBERTY TO SAY THAT IT MUST BE. HENCE MPTA SUCKS A FAT COCK.
> 
> 
> sO LONG AS YOU AND YOUR MINION CONTINUE YOUR DISHONESTY, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT IT OUT. *
Click to expand...


Boring! 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
Click to expand...

exactly


"we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"


derp derp derp

it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.


----------



## G.T.

justin is reduced to dogshit commentary, he's been added to ignore.


----------



## hobelim

emilynghiem said:


> OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.
> 
> Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
> 1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
> and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
> and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
> I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
> and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
> (and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
> society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
> and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
> valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
> so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
> and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)
> 
> what is your take on  the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
> is it EGO?  ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
> is it related to sex and gender?
> is it class and economic or political dominance?




Hi Emily,

I will respond to the other questions in another post.

As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.

The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and  farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies,  eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.


simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.

The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.

It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk,  wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit!  You've already acknowledge the five things.  You couldn't overthrow the MPTA.  Nobody can with classical logic  without affirming it.  Shut up!
Click to expand...

You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Justin.
Click to expand...


They're all bores, liars, rude, stupid, dense and insane.  dblack quibbles over definitions and whines like a girl after you told him his definition was okay, asks you about atheism and whines like a girl again you for answering his stupid question. Duh.  God doesn't exist.  Really?  Well, the idea God is in your head, where did you get it?  Do you get a straight answer?  You get some convoluted crap which avoids a direct answer to a simple question.  They're intellectual cowards.  They know their logic is pure crap. That's why 99% of time there's no argument, boring idiots. 

You exist.  The universe exists.  The  possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated (and you lying idiots know the universe is the evidence for God and that's were you get YOUR idea for God).  Creator (supreme being) means everything else are creatures. Duh.  Science can't falsify or verify God's existence. 

Seriously, I showed the five things to my little girl yesterday and asked what it meant?  She even understood the atheist thing. 

ONE POST WAS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED FOR THIS.  The answers are all yes.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a tautology. But for the sake of your argument, I'll accept it as a premise. Where's this going?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you able to acknowledge the logical facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, as I have done in The Five Things, without constantly interjecting your personal biases or not? Why do you always defensively and kneejerkingly interject your person biases regarding these objective facts, which only require a _yes_ or _no_?
> 
> That's your bullshit philosophy right there. That's where bullshit philosophy comes from, the inability of philosophers to simply embrace the logical truths of things as they come at them without any preconceived ideas or biases.
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument. There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To #4, no.
> 
> To #3, it can also not be logically asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away. I'm not responding to any more of your argumentless bullshit!  You've already acknowledge the five things.  You couldn't overthrow the MPTA.  Nobody can with classical logic  without affirming it.  Shut up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're like a petulant child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.
Click to expand...


Boring!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Justin Davis

Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> justin is reduced to dogshit commentary, he's been added to ignore.




zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.



So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> "we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"
> 
> 
> derp derp derp
> 
> it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.
Click to expand...



What a liar.  You admitted your argument against is failed.  What a liar.  It's buried on the thread, so now he's starting all over. 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Morons who go in circles.  you idiots never get to any real ideas.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring!  Endlessly quibbling about the facts.  Never getting to real ideas.  Phony claims.  Phony logic.
> 
> Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist?
> 
> Are all atheists liars?
> 
> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit is the right call. I thought you guys were discussion an argument for the existence of god. Turns out you're just trying to control word definitions. Orwell would be impressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> "we cant prove god in the ultimate sense but we can prove god logically!!!"
> 
> 
> derp derp derp
> 
> it advances nothing except ego, and it's also based on very shaky ground masquerading as intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a liar.  You admitted your argument against is failed.  What a liar.  It's buried on the thread, so now he's starting all over.
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Morons who go in circles.  you idiots never get to any real ideas.
Click to expand...


Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?

Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?

If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
Click to expand...


It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
> 
> Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
> 
> If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.



More of the same.  No ideas, just endless personal crap.  What a bunch of losers. 


dblack: what about this atheist thing?

Rawlings:  Idea of God in your mind - universe - evidence - it's your idea.  12-year-olds get this.

dblack:  Hey, you SOB why are you talking about that?

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Cool it down, guys.


----------



## G.T.

"the five things!!!! the ffiiiiiiIIIIIIIve things!!!!!"

Mean nothing toward god existing or not.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seemed to me we had worked out the first three.  I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right?  *And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated*, so what's your beef?  From there four and five follow.  In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
Click to expand...





> *emilynghiem: *Can we get to NEUTRAL



and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...

.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
Click to expand...


Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
> 
> Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
> 
> If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of the same.  No ideas, just endless personal crap.  What a bunch of losers.
> 
> 
> dblack: what about this atheist thing?
> 
> Rawlings:  Idea of God in your mind - universe - evidence - it's your idea.  12-year-olds get this.
> 
> dblack:  Hey, you SOB why are you talking about that?
> 
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
> 
> Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
> 
> If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of the same.  No ideas, just endless personal crap.  What a bunch of losers.
> 
> 
> dblack: what about this atheist thing?
> 
> Rawlings:  Idea of God in your mind - universe - evidence - it's your idea.  12-year-olds get this.
> 
> dblack:  Hey, you SOB why are you talking about that?
> 
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

Are you somehow confused about why folks can see you fundamentalists as unreasonable?


----------



## G.T.

I


dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
Click to expand...



They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.

They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.

1. I exist.

Supports the tag argument? No.

2. The Universe exists.

Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.

3. God is not disprovable.

Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.

4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>

4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.

What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:

-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)


It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.


----------



## G.T.

The TAG argument is a failure, its enthusiasts cannot prove that knowledge is impossible without god, and what sucks is that the entire TAG rests on that naked assertion - thus fails.


----------



## BreezeWood

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?

or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.

.


----------



## G.T.

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
> 
> or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win. 

To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin and I have never been anything but courteous ...



that asshole is a part of your game plan - to bad for you.


----------



## BreezeWood

G.T. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
> 
> or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
> 
> To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
Click to expand...





> *GT:*  If the room has tools and materials ...




your in company, Boss has never gotten it either -


are your tools and materials what gain for you your Admission to the Everlasting - the Lion ( obviously ) knows differently. 

.


----------



## G.T.

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
> 
> or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
> 
> To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GT:*  If the room has tools and materials ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your in company, Boss has never gotten it either -
> 
> 
> are your tools and materials what gain for you your Admission to the Everlasting - the Lion ( obviously ) knows differently.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

^ this is bad english man

youll have to elaborate


----------



## BreezeWood

G.T. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> 
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
> 
> or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
> 
> To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GT:*  If the room has tools and materials ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your in company, Boss has never gotten it either -
> 
> 
> are your tools and materials what gain for you your Admission to the Everlasting - the Lion ( obviously ) knows differently.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ this is bad english man
> 
> youll have to elaborate
Click to expand...








the consequences of actions determines one's future ... there is not a material means for Admission to the Everlasting, only a proper conclusion from consequences of the living creature - all are Admissible.

antiquity knew to reach the apex of knowledge is the goal, it is only modern humanity that tries to make themselves an exclusivity to the Creators intent.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.



They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.

You might have had some interesting insights given your interest  in the  mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me.  Get real.  You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.

I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.

One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.

Why do you have the idea of God in your head?

All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.

But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.

Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of justifiable logic or a evidence.

Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.


----------



## G.T.

Lies ^


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.
> 
> You might have had some interesting insights given your interest  in the  mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me.  Get real.  You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.
> 
> I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.
> 
> One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God can only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he’s got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.
> 
> Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of evidence or a justifiable logical argument.
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
Click to expand...

Aww, you're just angry because your pontificating couldn't mask your bankrupt arguments. 

As a rule, I've found that pompous blowhards who need to bolster their flagging self-esteem with bellicose pronouncements that they "annihilated" the arguments of others is typically a smokescreen for their failures snd inadequacies.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Lies ^


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.
> 
> You might have had some interesting insights given your interest  in the  mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me.  Get real.  You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.
> 
> I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.
> 
> One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God can only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he’s got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.
> 
> Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of evidence or a justifiable logical argument.
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you're just angry because your pontificating couldn't mask your bankrupt arguments.
> 
> As a rule, I've found that pompous blowhards who need to bolster their flagging self-esteem with bellicose pronouncements that they "annihilated" the arguments of others is typically a smokescreen for their failures snd inadequacies.
Click to expand...


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
> 
> They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
> 
> 1. I exist.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? No.
> 
> 2. The Universe exists.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
> 
> 3. God is not disprovable.
> 
> Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
> 
> 4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
> 
> 4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
> 
> What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
> 
> -gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
> 
> 
> It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.
Click to expand...



Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> I
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
> 
> They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
> 
> 1. I exist.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? No.
> 
> 2. The Universe exists.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
> 
> 3. God is not disprovable.
> 
> Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
> 
> 4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
> 
> 4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
> 
> What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
> 
> -gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
> 
> 
> It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.
Click to expand...



TAG is only for the suckiest of suckers.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
Click to expand...



Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
> 
> They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
> 
> 1. I exist.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? No.
> 
> 2. The Universe exists.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
> 
> 3. God is not disprovable.
> 
> Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
> 
> 4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
> 
> 4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
> 
> What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
> 
> -gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
> 
> 
> It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is only for the suckiest of suckers.
Click to expand...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is.  She thinks Hollie's a genius.  How stupid is that?  Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows.  Next. Move on.  What's the point?  How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling.  Did you get the atheism thing yet?  It's so obvious.  Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic?  There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true.   And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread.  He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument.  He admitted that too.  So is this what you atheist do?  Go in circles all the time?  Get to ideas?  When do you atheists ever do that?  I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas.  Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic?  You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work.  My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint.  Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get.  They ruin discussion.  Will not let honest and objective discussion occur.  Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either.  Boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
> 
> They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
> 
> 1. I exist.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? No.
> 
> 2. The Universe exists.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
> 
> 3. God is not disprovable.
> 
> Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
> 
> 4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
> 
> 4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
> 
> What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
> 
> -gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
> 
> 
> It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

At least you don't use a thesaurus and shotgun words / phrases into embarrassing non-sequiturs the way M. Pompous Rawling does.

You know your limitations.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.
Click to expand...

So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism. 

Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.



That would be because you never asked about it.

I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.

And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?



> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?



See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:



> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?



It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because you never asked about it.
> 
> I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.
> 
> And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.
Click to expand...


All you want to do is argue.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  There's no bait and switch.  There's nothing  oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath.  I'm dead serious. 

The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves.  I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see.  But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore.  What does one do with a bore who calls an  axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?  

If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical.  They're the same assertion.  That's not a boogie man.  That's an objective fact of cognitive reality.  You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason.  You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is.  You raised the issue of definitions.  You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist.  You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy.  You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty.  You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth. 

A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him.  A normal, intellectually honest person says:  "Wow!  I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought."  And that was the third time you did that kind of thing. 

Goodbye.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because you never asked about it.
> 
> I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.
> 
> And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.
Click to expand...


Three strikes, you're out.  You've proven yourself to be another Lying QW.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.
Click to expand...


Boring.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring.
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

The best way to confront fundie logic is to lay out, in declarative terms, the requirements for a rational, reasoned argument. As we see, this causes the fundies to retreat to the only debate they possess.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because you never asked about it.
> 
> I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.
> 
> And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you want to do is argue.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  There's no bait and switch.  There's nothing  oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath.  I'm dead serious.
> 
> The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves.  I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see.  But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore.  What does one do with a bore who calls an  axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?
> 
> If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical.  They're the same assertion.  That's not a boogie man.  That's an objective fact of cognitive reality.  You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason.  You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is.  You raised the issue of definitions.  You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist.  You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy.  You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty.  You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.
> 
> A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him.  A normal, intellectually honest person says:  "Wow!  I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought."  And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.
> 
> Goodbye.
Click to expand...

But what about *The Five Things™*


----------



## emilynghiem

1. 





G.T. said:


> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.



Dear  GT and MD:
*1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
can NEVER be proven or disproven.
So this is impossible.
The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
NOR
neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.

Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.

The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
much less any proof using these finite human means.

If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.

That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
is this clear? can we agree on this please?

Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.

2. 





			
				GT said:
			
		


			Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.

Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.

that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
		
Click to expand...


2. ?????

Sorry GT
It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.

I think we got crossed when
A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
instead of sticking to the content.
C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
instead of sticking to the content.

I though the point was that
God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.

And most other conflicts stem from people
"insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.

Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
a lot of messages saying 
"but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."

Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
Can we start with that and agree on that much?*


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.



Hi Hollie: As a Naturalist, I can give it my best shot of explaining the spiritual relations in Christianity using
reasonable science and logic.

A.
1. people are connected either socially or spiritually. if you are religious you may describe this spiritually.
But even if you are secular, you can describe human relations and collective humanity as a "social" construct.
They are still interconnected, and interact the same way.
We still influence each other whether you call it "social" or "spiritual."

2. The point of Christianity is to teach, develop and RESTORE  healthy and harmonious relationships.
* the keys are forgiveness as the greatest act of charity that brings healing to mind, body, and relationships.
* mutual connection and correction in the spirit of truth as established by agreement by conscience
* the concept that connecting and restoring truthful harmonious relations between
individuals "collectively" impacts the same on a "global" scale so all humanity follows those steps as well.
* and understanding the PROCESS so that we work WITH each other and follow
the process, whether we call it natural laws, universal laws, or use religion or psychology/sociology to describe it.

We are basically learning how to grow, either socially or "spiritually" if you call it that.

Whether or not we are nontheistic/secular or religious/theistic about it
it is STILL the same process, that can be described socially or spiritually.

There is nothing wrong with using those terms as long as they help communicate to that audience.

Does this help, Hollie?

if so then let's pick an angle that can be proven scientifically to show how this "universal process' works naturally

B. proving spiritual healing
in order to demonstrate universal laws (or "God's laws" if you are Christian)
I propose to study the effects of Spiritual healing on
* curing mental and physical illness by working WITH the mind/body's natural energy and process of health and healing
* resolving political and religious conflicts between people or groups
to demonstrate and/or document the impact of Forgiveness on reconciling differences
and to show it does not mean that people convert to other views, it means we learn to work around our conflicts
especially where these remain
* apply this reconciliation process to 
SPECIFIC goals in the real world and real life to show real world applications that can be replicated

As an especially critical area
I would like to study the impact of spiritual deliverance on curing
"demonic voices" and occult/religious abuses that have made people act crazy, dangerous or otherwise
incureable of criminal illness and abuse.

So even if you think this stuff is "supernatural" it can be shown to follow
QUANTIFIABLE and predictable Patterns of behavior, cause and effect changes,a
and stages of treatment and recovery.

Similar to curing cancer or detecting remission or relapse of sickness.

This is all "energy" so it is consistent with science.

Positive thoughts, prayers and meditations that work on "life giving" energy
have a different effect than negative manipulations that work on "dark energy".

Even if we do not yet have the technology to measure these distinctly,
the EFFECTS of positive vs. negative can be documented
and show the Correlations through Statistics:
* that forgiveness/positive energy and "abundance" mentality CORRELATES with better health, success
and stable working relations with others
* unforgiveness/negative energy and "ill will" CORRELATES with division and unresolved conflicts
that DISRUPTS the natural flow of life and shows in the body, mind and relations around people.

So whatever is called "supernatural or spiritual"
can be shown to CORRELATE or ALIGN with
parallel process on the social and physical level.

No big deal.

proving gravity works is science and natural
and so is proving how spiritual healing works.


----------



## emilynghiem

hobelim said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so let's talk about the message in the Bible in terms of the development of human awareness and consciousness to reach maturity where there is collective harmony and peace.
> 
> Do you follow at least these interpretations that are very loose and general
> 1. the idea that Adam and Eve represent when man became self aware
> and discovered free will and making choices so there are positive and negative consequences
> and that past generations can affect future generations, or some variation of that theme.
> I've seen this interpreted as shame about sex, or the karma that comes from eating meat
> and corrupted our spirit, or the shift in trends from egalitarian to women being dominated by men
> (and even that was interpreted two ways, one as a spiritual trend to replace matriarchal
> society with patriarchal systems that dominate today,
> and another interpretation was that economically men who hunted meat began to be
> valued greater than the women and workers who gathered grains and vegetables,
> so this dominance of man was economic and split people into classes to cause the downfall of human equality
> and to keep women/workers subservient while the patriarchal leaders rule and monopolize the wealth)
> 
> what is your take on  the symbolism of Adam and Eve and downfall of humanity?
> is it EGO?  ie become aware of our own will and desire in competition with other people or tribes
> is it related to sex and gender?
> is it class and economic or political dominance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Emily,
> 
> I will respond to the other questions in another post.
> 
> As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.
> 
> The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and  farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies,  eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.
> 
> 
> simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.
> 
> The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.
> 
> It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk,  wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..
Click to expand...


OK so the point remains: it represents the KNOWLEDGE of the laws.
and relationship with AUTHORITY over laws.

And whether this process of humanity coming to terms with "who is responsible or in charge"
leads to either
* death and destruction by the Letter of the Law (which can be corrupted in the church or state by greed for power)
* life and lasting peace by the Spirit of the Laws (which is shared by love of Truth and Justice to restore peace and order
and  harmonious/balanced relations between people and among humanity collectively)

Are you okay saying that the downfall of humanity
is fighting over defending our freedom from the fear of tyranny or takeover by "other groups"

All this "tribal warfare" and competition, putting interests
of one's self or one's identity/group above others and other people 
doing the same out of fear of being dominated as well.

So this is the vicious cycle that goes round and round.

Do you agree that the "selfish ego" side of humanity is what 
leads to killing, crime, violence, oppression and suffering in the world
and continues the division in class by rich or poor, powerful or powerless, etc etc.

So if we are going to teach salvation/peace and freedom from slavery/suffering/sins of the past
we need to get over all this destructive sick behavior.

Do you agree the point is to seek justice to correct injustice, to seek good will to overcome ill will,
and to resolve conflicts in peace to prevent violence and war, 
to restore and improve health to prevent sickness and death.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fact of human cognition that, unlike the assertion of atheism, one can logically assert that God exists without contradiction. That's an objectively axiomatic truth of human cognition. That's not a straw man, dblack. *A straw man presupposes the imposition  of a fallacious propositional/argument in the place of the actual proposition/argument.* There is not corresponding proposition/argument for falsification anywhere in sight here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is exactly what you're doing. Atheism doesn't assert that God doesn't exist.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not here to argue that. These campaigns to control meanings of the words we use aren't interesting. They're just propaganda.
> 
> Instead, I'm trying figure out what in the hell you're trying to prove with your arugment. You don't seem to be saying anything substantial, yet you're bloviating on about it like it's the next gospel. All I see here is the same old retort - we can't prove your God doesn't exist. Okie dokie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now as for you time-wasting comments about *number 4*, tautologies are true be definition. They are axiomatically true if no inherent contradiction can be deduced from them. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical axiom. They are not illogical. They cannot be illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to follow along. I didn't say it was illogical. You asked if the "logic" for number 4 was right, and I said it wasn't logic, because it's not. It's just a definition. And I accepted it as a premise. There's no logic there to be judged as right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition God is the eternally self-subsistent, transcendent Creator of all other things. A creature cannot be greater than its Creator. Hence, the
> Creator is necessarily the unparalleled Supreme Being in all of existence.
> 
> *1*. Do we exist? YES!
> 
> *2.* Does the cosmos exist? YES!
> 
> *
> 3*. Can the potentially of God's existence be logically eliminated? NO!
> 
> *And it's correlate: Is the bald assertion of atheism illogical? YES!*
> 
> *
> 4*. Would this divine potentiality necessarily be the Supreme Being of all creation logically? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's not worry about atheism, okay? Make your argument without a boogie man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, stupid, if God's existence cannot be logically eliminated, then the assertion that logically eliminates it is illogical. That's your boogie man, dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So give us a logical explanation for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Be specific and give us a "logical" progression of circumstances from contingent reality to your alternate reality of spirit realms, uncaused causes, (wait, what? Nevermind), and your partisan gods. Remember to provide specific attributions that eliminate competing versions of gods so we can make a reasonable and "logical" conclusion regarding your gods.
Click to expand...


Prayer works by the "life energy" connecting people.
So all the things in Christianity can be explained in terms of how
people connect by "conscience" and how scientifically the
process in the mind affects the body, and relations with other people in the real world.

Thoughts, words, action.
Body mind spirit.

Whatever terms you use for these levels,  that is what is symbolized
in religion, trying to explain the RELATIONSHIP between the
individual and the collective whole, or 
the physical local level and the  global level.

You can call the Collective level "spiritual" or "social"
or even "abstract" as in "collective truth" or "universal laws"
and it means the same highest level that includes all humanity.

Whatever you call this collective level, does not have to be "supernatural"
to be talking about the same thing.

Some people call the laws of nature "God"
some call them "Mother Nature"
and others just see them as natural laws or universal laws without personifying them.

The point is they are still the same laws
just represented in different symbology.

the Content and Principles behind the laws still exist.
No need to fight over supernatural symbolism for these laws.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because you never asked about it.
> 
> I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.
> 
> And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you want to do is argue.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  There's no bait and switch.  There's nothing  oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath.  I'm dead serious.
> 
> The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves.  I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see.  But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore.  What does one do with a bore who calls an  axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?
> 
> If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical.  They're the same assertion.  That's not a boogie man.  That's an objective fact of cognitive reality.  You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason.  You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is.  You raised the issue of definitions.  You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist.  You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy.  You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty.  You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.
> 
> A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him.  A normal, intellectually honest person says:  "Wow!  I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought."  And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.
> 
> Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3): The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, *I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe.* Is that what you're looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *emilynghiem: *Can we get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


????

No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.

it just drops EXCLUSION of any one side or another.

Dropping the "division or exclusion factor" still allows
all sides to participate equally.

Sorry if this isn't clear. Thanks BreezeWood
I know your heart and spirit is in the right place
and you are very inclusive and openly engaging.

We all need to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.


----------



## emilynghiem

dblack said:


> Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.



Dear dblack and M.D. Rawlings:
I can follow MD through the logic of the arguments
UP TO THE POINT where things are thrown in there
like "if you can't see that then you're a Useless Bore"?

That is NOT neutral. Neutral would say
X and Y are conflicting. So if this is not resolved,
then something is wrong with this picture, and remain NEUTRAL
and not ASSUME The problem is with X person being a _____.

M.D. Rawlings: how can you ask our good friends here to
drop their emotional attachments to arguments,
and stick to what is purely logical and neutral,
but then you go and make an emotional judgment attached?

Do you see that is why they attach more to their points also?
You did the same, by saying "X condition equates to you being useless or a bore"

Those are NOT synonymous. The logic is a jump in conclusions.
So please fix this "leap in logic"
and maybe other people will quit this business of
"G cannot be proven thus this equates to angry Christians being mindless"

Those are NOT synonymous but value judgments attached.

We would ALL have to agree to stop adding "pork barreling to the
legislation" if we are going to pass any laws without those additives!


----------



## hobelim

emilynghiem said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the story of Adam and Eve, no, no, no and no.
> 
> The story is not about becoming self aware, sex or gender, the transition between hunting and gathering and  farming and animal husbandry, matriarchal and patriarchal societies,  eating meat, the first human beings, original sin, political dominance, competition with other tribes, or the downfall of humanity.
> 
> 
> simply put it is a bronze age Hebrew version of a fairy tale, a story intended to educate children recently freed from bondage in Egypt about the dangers of losing your mind in a world where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered by superstitious and irrational knuckle dragging barbarians, the beasts of the field, and the Nachash, the lowest of them all, were brazen deceivers who roamed the wilderness in search of the gullible.
> 
> The Hebrew word for serpent, Nachash, is both a noun and an adjective which means shining one, brazen, serpent or anyone who practices divination, the shining stars of the ancient world.
> 
> It is no small coincidence that the term 'breath of life' is Egyptian in origin and the Pharaoh, who was able to talk,  wore a serpent on his head and disputed with Moses about God..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so the point remains: it represents the KNOWLEDGE of the laws.
> and relationship with AUTHORITY over laws.
> 
> And whether this process of humanity coming to terms with "who is responsible or in charge"
> leads to either
> * death and destruction by the Letter of the Law (which can be corrupted in the church or state by greed for power)
> * life and lasting peace by the Spirit of the Laws (which is shared by love of Truth and Justice to restore peace and order
> and  harmonious/balanced relations between people and among humanity collectively)
> 
> Are you okay saying that the downfall of humanity
> is fighting over defending our freedom from the fear of tyranny or takeover by "other groups"
> 
> All this "tribal warfare" and competition, putting interests
> of one's self or one's identity/group above others and other people
> doing the same out of fear of being dominated as well.
> 
> So this is the vicious cycle that goes round and round.
> 
> Do you agree that the "selfish ego" side of humanity is what
> leads to killing, crime, violence, oppression and suffering in the world
> and continues the division in class by rich or poor, powerful or powerless, etc etc.
> 
> So if we are going to teach salvation/peace and freedom from slavery/suffering/sins of the past
> we need to get over all this destructive sick behavior.
> 
> Do you agree the point is to seek justice to correct injustice, to seek good will to overcome ill will,
> and to resolve conflicts in peace to prevent violence and war,
> to restore and improve health to prevent sickness and death.
Click to expand...


No, the downfall of humanity is not fighting to defend freedom from tyranny and oppression. When Jesus taught to turn the other cheek he was not teaching that Christians cannot defend themselves against violence or even the threat of violence.. The law about seeking justice against violence starts with life for life, limb for limb, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. A slap on the face isn't even on the list and at the time a slap on the face was how slaves were treated and was considered a great insult and not an act of violence. Jesus was just saying don't seek retribution for an insult.

As far as the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law, it is not about discarding the law in its entirety by summing it up with just the suggestion to be a nice person. Each law has a literal meaning and each law has deeper implications that reveal a sublime wisdom and specific teaching for each subject that can never be summed up by just being nice.

Each creature described in kosher law, clean or unclean, has specific traits that make it so. Without the correct knowledge of the deeper implications, the spirit of the law, it is impossible to fulfill the law and receive the promise of eternal life for compliance.

In many cases one cannot conform to the letter of the law without violating the spirit of the same law and one cannot even know the spirit of any given law without first discerning the deeper implications which sometimes require a person to be not so nice..

And yes, I would agree about the "selfish ego" and I relate it to the evil inclination,  which is the subject of what is commanded to be circumcised,  the flesh of the foreskin of the heart which we now know means the selfish inclinations of the mind.

And finally, God is in charge of judging and enforcing his own laws. Humans not required to punish or reward at all.

The only way to be freed from the burden of the law, which is the promised maledictions for disobedience, is by conforming to the spirit of the law as revealed by Jesus and encapsulated in his command to eat his flesh, a direct reference to Kosher law and a sublime teaching about how to correctly comply with  its very specific demands.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact of the matter, dblack, *I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . .  I wonder why*. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be because you never asked about it.
> 
> I find your argumentation style needlessly oblique and shifty, and I don't have much patience for that. I asked you repeatedly what you were trying to prove, and you wouldn't answer. If you'd like to come back to that, and stow the nonsense, I'm curious to hear your argument. All I got out of what you've said so far is that your conception of God can't be disproven. I accept that. But I was fine with that to begin with. Nothing about your points seemed novel to me - rather the opposite. It all seemed rather obvious.
> 
> And sure, if you define atheism as a claim of knowledge that no gods exist, it's irrational. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that definition - but I'm curious why it matters. Are you trying to present an argument for the existence of God, or just trying to prove atheists are irrational? Do you think it's the same argument? Even with your narrow definition of atheism, showing that atheists can't prove gods don't exists, isn't the same thing as proving one does. You do understand that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... this question is intensely interesting to me. It's what draws me into these discussions, despite the fact that it's almost always a bait and switch. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because* it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God cannot only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.*
> 
> But you don’t believe that true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a question of believing. I have no fucking idea what it means. I can't even parse it as in intelligible English sentence. And if you're not willing to put away the smoke and mirrors, and explain your points clearly, I'm not that interested in wading through it all.. Yes, you've "annihilated" everyone with your bullet proof profundity, but you have to make some sense, or I'm not going to give shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you want to do is argue.  I'm not trying to prove anything.  There's no bait and switch.  There's nothing  oblique or shifty about my style, you paranoid schizophrenic, though in all serious, I know you to be a narcissist at the very least and perhaps a sociopath.  I'm dead serious.
> 
> The objective facts of cognitive realty speak for themselves.  I don't need prove anything that you yourself cannot see.  But you don't care what the objective facts of cognitive reality tell you, so you're a useless bore.  What does one do with a bore who calls an  axiomatic fact of logic a boogie man, eh?
> 
> If God's existence cannot be logically ruled out than its inverse that God does not exist is also illogical.  They're the same assertion.  That's not a boogie man.  That's an objective fact of cognitive reality.  You quibble over everything, and you're subject to go postal atheist for no reason.  You have yet to acknowledge your irrational behavior for it is.  You raised the issue of definitions.  You raised the alleged contradiction regarding the connotations of the term atheist.  You! I was showing you something that you might come to grasp the principle of identity that follows from the five things, and in the light of that, discuss the mind-brain dichotomy.  You cannot do that if you're going ignore the objective facts of cognitive realty.  You cannot to be trusted to tell the truth.
> 
> A normal, intellectually honest person doesn't go boogie man postal in the face of something like that and then insult the person who pointed that out to him.  A normal, intellectually honest person says:  "Wow!  I never noticed that before; the assertion of atheism is comprehensively contrary to the fundamental laws of thought."  And that was the third time you did that kind of thing.
> 
> Goodbye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.
Click to expand...


See.  Look at you.  You know what he just told you is the truth, and you still lie about what you did and blame him. How sick is that?

You still don't understand anything.  You still think this is about winning an argument.  *Rawlings just wanted to pursue the organic laws  of human thought with you on the mind-brain thing because he credited you with the knowledge to guide the way, taking you at your word as a gentleman*.  I get him because I know what he cares about.  The truth!  I've followed his posts.  Understood what he's all about.  He's doesn't say anything to win argument but to simply show what logic tells us.  You have no idea what a total jerk you are.  That's why I got pissed with you and all the rest of the liars on this thread, including QW making up crap, and all the personal and hateful attacks that have come from you atheists and the closed-minded jerks who just spout whatever they think wins an argument.

*Rawlings doesn't care about anything so stupid as trying to win an argument, you fool*.  Rawlings is telling you he can't trust you after all because you won't even tell yourself the truth about something as simple as an inverse axiom, boogie man, you sick trick.  He's not bragging when he tells you what has been shown on this thread by following the universal principle of identity.  Rawlings is not trying to win an argument.  He's not trying to prove something except where the logic of the organic laws of  thought given to  us by God take us, wherever it leads.  The only one gets this beside me and Rawlings is emilynghiem, which is true even though she annoyed me when she listened to Hollie's lies about other things.  But that doesn't matter to what is true about the rest.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, this is the vibe I got from your pontificating earlier in the thread. Which is why I was initially reluctant to step in your bullshit. I need to learn to trust my instincts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear dblack and M.D. Rawlings:
> I can follow MD through the logic of the arguments
> UP TO THE POINT where things are thrown in there
> like "if you can't see that then you're a Useless Bore"?
> 
> That is NOT neutral. Neutral would say
> X and Y are conflicting. So if this is not resolved,
> then something is wrong with this picture, and remain NEUTRAL
> and not ASSUME The problem is with X person being a _____.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings: how can you ask our good friends here to
> drop their emotional attachments to arguments,
> and stick to what is purely logical and neutral,
> but then you go and make an emotional judgment attached?
> 
> Do you see that is why they attach more to their points also?
> You did the same, by saying "X condition equates to you being useless or a bore"
> 
> Those are NOT synonymous. The logic is a jump in conclusions.
> So please fix this "leap in logic"
> and maybe other people will quit this business of
> "G cannot be proven thus this equates to angry Christians being mindless"
> 
> Those are NOT synonymous but value judgments attached.
> 
> We would ALL have to agree to stop adding "pork barreling to the
> legislation" if we are going to pass any laws without those additives!
Click to expand...


Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.


----------



## Treeshepherd

What is the import of Plato's allegory of the cave? 

Folks are chained as prisoners in the depths of a cave. Their entire reality is what they see in the shadows cast upon the wall, caused by a fire lit behind them. They discuss the various shadows they see, and perhaps learn to manipulate the shadows. In fact, they go to self-help seminars in order to better learn how to capitalize on cave-life. 

The philosopher breaks free of his chains, and escapes, and reaches the surface, and is blinded by the light of the sun. After a time, his eyes adjust, and he finds a whole new world above ground that he never was aware of. He returns, and returns to tell  the prisoners of his discovery.

But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak. 

What is the import of the allegory of the cave (logic-ministers will differ with my opinion)? Few of us have the acumen to understand the teachings of the great historical prophets and mystics, just as few of us have the potential to become NBA players or masters of advanced calculus, or the ability to write like Shakespeare. 

God, to the vast majority of those who believe and disbelieve in God, is best understood as a cartoonish Santa Claus-like old-man-with-a-beard abstraction. I exaggerate, but there is a kernel of truth in what I am saying. In the Hindu and Buddhist traditions, they have the concept of maya (illusion). In the OT, we have prophets who are rejected. In the gospels, even John the Baptist and the 12 apostles misunderstand Jesus at every turn. Collectively, even if we are logical, what we experience is in actuality a mass hallucination, and we call that reality. 

Yet, faith is not merely a doctrine to be intellectually grasped. Religion is a practice. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the reading of a Zen koan, contemplative prayer, the chanting of scriptures, etc, all of these practices tend to empty the self, tend to short-circuit a habitual pattern of thought, tend to level the mental constructs that our minds have erected over the years. 

p.s. Ebola! Global Warming!


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this.  Atheist = *God* doesn't exist.  There's no room for quibbling about that.  That's what the term means.   a = no; theist = God.  No God or God doesn't exist.  So precisely what is the atheist saying _*does*_ objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind?  What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on?  The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
> 
> Answer:  The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
> 
> Answer:  His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence:  the universe.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> It follows that even the atheist knows that "*we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe."  *The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic.  The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
> 
> Simple.
> 
> So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *emilynghiem: *Can we get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.
> 
> it just drops EXCLUSION of any one side or another.
> 
> Dropping the "division or exclusion factor" still allows
> all sides to participate equally.
> 
> Sorry if this isn't clear. Thanks BreezeWood
> I know your heart and spirit is in the right place
> and you are very inclusive and openly engaging.
> 
> We all need to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.
Click to expand...




> *emily:* No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.



that is what I was saying the OP had concluded by posting the Thread - Christianity etall has not proven the existence of God, is there something else that will ... the intent for the Thread.

Christianity has failed emilynghiem, it is your best interest to understand why.

.


----------



## Treeshepherd

How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists? 

That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
Click to expand...


A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.


----------



## amrchaos

Treeshepherd said:


> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.



I wonder if the deaf could feel music.  I know that I can feel bass, I wonder what  is necessary in order to feel higher octaves?


----------



## Treeshepherd

amrchaos said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if the deaf could feel music.  I know that I can feel bass, I wonder what  is necessary in order to feel higher octaves?
Click to expand...


He who has ears, let him hear. 

It's like the parable of the sower, who cast his seed. Some fell on rocky ground. Other seed fell by the road and was choked by weeds. Other seeds fell on good ground, and bare fruit 100 fold. 

Everyone has gifts. Everyone has an acumen for something. By the same token, some can never have a deep spiritual experience, or for lack of a better phrase, an epiphany on the road to Damascus.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Treeshepherd said:


> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.



He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.

But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be.  The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
Click to expand...

+

Thanks, Emily,  I will have to get to this tomorrow.  It's late.  But let me give you something to think about in the meantime.  No matter how axiomatic it may seem to you now, there's a serious problem with the notion that certain things cannot be proven or disproven.  This is not the dichotomy you want to be using.  Big trouble.  Also, there appears to be some confusion about the nature of the underlying presuppositions for number 1 and number 2.  They are asserted as axioms of practicality, not as absolute decrees from on high, though, in truth, that's what they ultimately are.  Finally, watch out for the distinction between having a coherent apprehension of a thing and an absolute comprehensive of a thing.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.
> 
> But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be.  The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.
Click to expand...



"it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought"

How cool is that? According to _M. Pompous Rawling_, any arguments against Rawling's gods is actually an argument _in support_ of Rawling's gods.

_How do we know this?_

Simple. According to _M. Pompous Rawling, "because I say so" _is the only requirement, or possibly his manufactured version of "organic logic", as opposed to inorganic logic.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
Click to expand...


Cool. Rawling has a groupie.


----------



## G.T.

God is the source of knowledge therefore if you argue against god using knowledge you prove knowledge so you prove god.....




Begging the question harder than Eli Manning begs for protection on Sundays

(Derp derp logic).


----------



## BreezeWood

.
there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.


----------



## dblack

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> God is the source of knowledge therefore if you argue against god using knowledge you prove knowledge so you prove god.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question harder than Eli Manning begs for protection on Sundays
> 
> (Derp derp logic).


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.



BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.   

In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.


----------



## Treeshepherd

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.

You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
_"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
"Oh, okay honey. "
"Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
"Umm, never mind." _


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
Click to expand...


I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.

Go, Team!
I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.

We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.

Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.


----------



## Boss

Treeshepherd said:


> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _



I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you. 

Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true. 

The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...


What I would add MD is that this CAN be proven.
1. by continuing the process WITHOUT insulting anyone as I fear you do without realizing it makes the difference.
it is sort of like a contrapositive proof, where you present the conclusion (which here is the OPPOSITE of what your objectors believe) and then remove all the subsequent arguments and examples that come up.  In pure logic, this is not the usual way to do a contrapositive proof; the usual way is to show that a FIXED contradiction comes up that is universally true in all cases, so once you prove that contradiction is inevitable and universal, this proves it across the board. With God there is an infinite number and variations on the contradictions that arise for each person, so technically you can never prove them all as a pattern for all people.

but in practice YES with each person, they will come to a point where they run into a conflict or contradiction.
So it can bep roven to THEM. it just cannot totally be assumed that this pattern applies to all people, because each person goes through a different version of it.

so what Christians do is follow this pattern: first stating it, then working through all objections untli those FINITE issues are resolved and people reach agreement after exhausting that process. it is different for each person and that is why it has never been proven globally

HOWEVER

2. what CAN be proven is a statistical pattern to show this repeats.
using stats we CAN show that this process is based on forgiving and resolving conflicts.

So as the pseudo-contrapositive approach is applied,
conflicts come up for each person to be resolved or to get deadlocked.

And two outcomes result
a. either the person forgives and resolves the conflicts or issues of division and the process proceeds
until conclusion or agreement is reached
b. or the person cannot forgive and resolve the point of conflict and thus remain divided

And what can be shown to CORRELATE
is 
a. forgiveness as reported by the people involved in the conflict or division
correlates with ability to resolve it
b. unforgiveness correlates with inability to get past it

so MD in this case, if you do not forgive but keep passing judgment and insulting
the objectors, that is unforgiveness on your part

and this theory says that as you forgive or as these objectors forgive your flaws
instead of jumping on you for them, then you will be able to move past this.

what you do not see MD is that your flaw is mutual to theirs.
you think you do not need to change but they do.
so that is why you are stuck, all of you.

whoever is the bigger person and sees it is a mutual change will break the deadlock
I am guessing it will be either Justin or dblack
and then they can help you and Hollie quit locking horns

Justin and dblack am I right
are you able to see my points above?
someone in this group is going to be the first
and you will help the others get off their emotional stances and stick to the logic

I thought MD understood this, but it looks like he only understands the logical conflct
but doesn't get the HUMAN dynamics of why the emotions get in the way of logic

the change has to come mutually or people resent the others making them change
someone has to be first to reach across the aisle and agree the changes are needed
on all sides. who will it be?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
In the case of electrons, the assumption was false and that is why the logic failed.
There was an exception to the rule so logic based on a false statement tagged on = false.

If we eliminate all such conflicts then we can use consistent logic.

May I propose this logic
a. people either AGREE or DISAGREE
b. to them something is either TRUE or FALSE
c. or they WANT X and do NOT want Y
d. they either Consent or Dissent
e. either Consistent with what they understand believe and agree to go along with
or Inconsistent and has some objection to be resolved first

what is relative is each person's system or rationale/justification for why their
conscience answers Yay or Nay, Yes or No, true or false, 1 or 0

but the logic is there, either go or no go.
if we can respect each other's logic and try to eliminate the contradictions
we can all get to yes. but we have to respect the no's even if someone's reasoning is different.

how can we get to the yes buttons and push those?
when we hit a NO, can we agree to stop and hash out what is missing or wrong
instead of insulting someone's reasons for objecting. they may say one thing
and it turns out to be another, but the conscience is still flagging an alarm so
why can't we answer that. and work through the no's and yes's until we all get to yes.


----------



## Treeshepherd

responding to Boss...

That's the Schrodinger's Cat paradox, right?

Is an electron an object with a mass in orbit? Is it a wave with a charge? A standing wave? Cloud? It's all these things at once.

Am I an individual, or is the universe on indivisible continuous unity?

" We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections." -Niels Bohr

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature _is_. Physics concerns what we can _say_ about Nature.'' -Bohr

"The old saying of the two kinds of truth. To the one kind belongs statements so simple and clear that the opposite assertion obviously could not be defended. The other kind, the so-called 'deep truths', are statements in which the opposite also contains deep truth." -Bohr


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being too hard on the boy.
> 
> You’re just not understanding the _M. Pompous Rawling_ theory of pointless argumentation.
> 
> As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
> RE A.
> 1. There is evidence for the gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> 2. Because the universe exists.
> 
> _And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?_
> 
> 
> 3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> _And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?_
> 
> 4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
> 
> Therefore:....
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
> 
> How convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO that is not what he is saying
> he is saying it can't be ruled out
> God can neither be proven or disproven
> 
> He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Can we get to NEUTRAL
> that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
> means God cannot be either proven or disproven
> 
> Can we please agree on that
> and get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *emilynghiem: *Can we get to NEUTRAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and that includes disqualify Christianity as is expressed by the OP as previous fallacies to discern the true origin of creation ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.
> 
> it just drops EXCLUSION of any one side or another.
> 
> Dropping the "division or exclusion factor" still allows
> all sides to participate equally.
> 
> Sorry if this isn't clear. Thanks BreezeWood
> I know your heart and spirit is in the right place
> and you are very inclusive and openly engaging.
> 
> We all need to be as INCLUSIVE as possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *emily:* No, "getting to NEUTRAL" does NOT disqualify Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that is what I was saying the OP had concluded by posting the Thread - Christianity etall has not proven the existence of God, is there something else that will ... the intent for the Thread.
> 
> Christianity has failed emilynghiem, it is your best interest to understand why.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


DISAGREE Breezewood!
Thanks for your clear explanation which helps.

Christianity helps explain God to others who understand that way.
So it HAS succeeded.

I will cite two examples that have changed and saved lives:
A. example 1. Francis MacNutt did not think that prayer for removing demons was real
but thought it was dark age myth. When he discovered that people could work in teams
to follow this process of natural healing, he wrote a book in 1974 and has updated it in 1999
to include medical research on Rheumatoid Arthritis. He and his wife have counseled trained
and shared the healing process with thousands of cases of people who learned how to receive healing
which is natural and consistent with science and does not reject medicine as the false faith healers twist it.

B. example 2 Dr. Phillip Goldfedder who is a neurosurgeon
was shown how Spiritual healing works by a Christian practitioner,
and once he got that this is real and works by natural science, it 
changed his practice. so now he helps people full time to receive healing
and it works better than surgery.  he is able to help people by phone
and once they understand they canshare this with other people so it multiplies.

C. another example that isn't finished yet
Scott Peck found out that this exorcism/deliverance process healed two schizophrenic
patients that were so severely psychotic with demonic voices taking over their personalities
they were deemed incureable. so he wrote books descrbing his observations of this
treatment and cure of these patients that changed his mind
and he urged that formal research and development be conducted to integrate
this therapy into medical practice.
this isn't finished yet, he was convinced and changed his mind
but each person would have to see it is real before they change their mind.

BreezeWood the key is forgiveness.
in order to let go and see this Christian spiritual healing is real
and consistent with science and medicine, the human brain
and conscience has to let go and forgive all the things that told us otherwise.

tht is what is blocking the proof: unforgiven conflict and division

and guess what Christianity teaches to overcome these
so it is the reason people have come to peace,
the forgiveness taught in Christianity that is also
the key to letting go taught in AA and other systems.
it is part of human nature and process

so the proof is in the works, and each person comes
to a conclusion a different way.

Christianity is succeeding and so is science
and Buddhism and all the ways people use to understand
the laws of human nature. they are all working together.


----------



## G.T.

MD continues to be a liar as to what ive said done or conceded 

Lost all respect.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Doctrine is one aspect of religion.

IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth. 

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.


----------



## G.T.

Also tag is not a logical proof, it begs the question. Everyone rational knows this.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...





> *MD:* It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof - It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon ...




but the Christian God is stated as a physical being, so there is a criteria for Christians as yourself to provide the scientific proof for that Deities being, that you have not established.

for centuries ... how much time is time enough ?

that's the point, there is a Logical proof for a God that proves it is not the Christian deity, logically and as QW and others point out logic alone is not a proof for anything only an insinuation.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Breezewood,

I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back. 

Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy. 

I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.


----------



## Justin Davis

Treeshepherd said:


> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _



But you're talking about this in terms of proofs in the ultimate sense of veracity are you not?  I think I'm saying that right.  Rawlings is not asserting any of this in those terms at all.  He never has.  He knows better and so do I, though, to be honest I'm just a novice at this.  He's merely talking about these things in terms of what the principle of identity recommends and let that take us wherever it goes without bias.


----------



## Treeshepherd

_"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things


Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations"
-Tao te Ching Chapter 1_


----------



## Justin Davis

Rawlings:  Treesshepherd appears to be suggesting that your way of doing this is wrong or least that's the impression I got from his eloquent post.



> But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.



Can you please explain this to us in the sense that he's talking about if I'm saying that right.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.
> 
> But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be.  The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought"
> 
> How cool is that? According to _M. Pompous Rawling_, any arguments against Rawling's gods is actually an argument _in support_ of Rawling's gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> Simple. According to _M. Pompous Rawling, "because I say so" _is the only requirement, or possibly his manufactured version of "organic logic", as opposed to inorganic logic.
Click to expand...


Hollie, you're still being unnecessarily antagonistic and for no good reason.  Rawlings told me to cool it down and Emily's advice makes sense.  Rawlings is not a pompous man.  That's just not true.  It only appears that way to some people who  hear what they want to rather than what he's really saying.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.

Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.

Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic _Rawling’isms”_ is:
“_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_


Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what _M. Pompous Rawling_ rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.

I’ve noticed that _M. Pompous Rawling_ is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.


This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.


Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
> Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
> We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.
> 
> Go, Team!
> I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
> and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
> We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.
> 
> We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.
> 
> Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
> will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
> to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
> to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.
Click to expand...


Actually I will take your advice and be nice.  I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying.  Their posts are reactionary straw men.  We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again.  It's ridiculous.  But I agree my insults don't help things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
> Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
> We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.
> 
> Go, Team!
> I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
> and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
> We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.
> 
> We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.
> 
> Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
> will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
> to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
> to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I will take your advice and be nice.  I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying.  Their posts are reactionary straw men.  We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again.  It's ridiculous.  But I agree my insults don't help things.
Click to expand...


Don't be too hard on yourself.  I just suggested you cool it down a bit is all.  We're still getting unacceptable behavior from GT of all people, calling me a liar about things that have been well-established on this thread, and Hollie's ongoing, gratuitous insults sans any sign of argumentation, though I see that he/she finally posted something of more substance.  I will continue to forcefully point out what the truly close-minded among us are doing until they stop doing it, however, in a less confrontational tone.  That does not mean that I will not employ sarcasm to drive the point home.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
> Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
> We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.
> 
> Go, Team!
> I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
> and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
> We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.
> 
> We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.
> 
> Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
> will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
> to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
> to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I will take your advice and be nice.  I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying.  Their posts are reactionary straw men.  We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again.  It's ridiculous.  But I agree my insults don't help things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself.  I just suggested you cool it down a bit is all.  We're still getting unacceptable behavior from GT of all people, calling me a liar about things that have been well-established on this thread, and Hollie's ongoing, gratuitous insults sans any sign of argumentation, though I see that he/she finally posted something of more substance.  I will continue to forcefully point out what the truly close-minded among us are doing until they stop doing it, however, in a less confrontational tone.  That does not mean that I will not employ sarcasm to drive the point home.
Click to expand...

You poor dear. Are you upset that your frauds are exposed as such?


----------



## G.T.

You ARE a liar.

You continue to say I've 'conceded' to that I have not.

If you dispute that, instead of CONTINUING to lie, how about instead quote the post in question and I can correct any misconceptions you might have, like an adult would? No? That's too much to ask?

No, instead you continue the lie Or.misconception as though I don't even exist. Then don't feel that deserves an apology. It does.

Also "the five things the five things" syndrome you all have I've explained it twelve times over what you're incorrectly extrapolating from them, and instead of going into my counter points you simply say "nuh uh, you just don't get it!" Like a child while not attempting to take anything to task I've said about 'the five' in my post about 'the five' which I've linked you to several times now.

The dishonesty lies right at your doorstep. And I will continue to be equally an asshole until it stops.

That's how I roll.

P.s. the tag is irrational BC it begs the question

PSS Justin is acting like such a huge cheerleader its almost disgusting

PSS pages of pages of pages of saying 'I've shown' without ever actually 'showing',is why others are getting frustrated with you and also being assholes.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
Click to expand...


Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter?  It is no surprise.  Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans.  They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them.  How long before dogs can talk?


----------



## G.T.

TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.

Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails as a premise. TAG begs the question.

You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO _*using*_ LOGIC PROOFS to rule them out, where the premises are *absolute.*

Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "*just exis*t?"

Not a lofty explanation about why it's *unlikely*, an explanation of why it *CANNOT* be, via *ABSOLUTE *premises.

Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out, and accept TAG's first premise because of the POSSIBILITY of the contrary.

And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.
> 
> Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.
> 
> You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.
> 
> Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"
> 
> Not a lofty explanation about why it's *unlikely*, an explanation of why it *CANNOT* be, via *ABSOLUTE *premises.
> 
> Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.
> 
> And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.



Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.

But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.
> 
> Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.
> 
> You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.
> 
> Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"
> 
> Not a lofty explanation about why it's *unlikely*, an explanation of why it *CANNOT* be, via *ABSOLUTE *premises.
> 
> Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.
> 
> And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.
> 
> But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.
Click to expand...

Sentence #2 eggggggggsackleeeee


----------



## Treeshepherd

Justin Davis said:


> Rawlings:  Treesshepherd appears to be suggesting that your way of doing this is wrong or least that's the impression I got from his eloquent post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain this to us in the sense that he's talking about if I'm saying that right.
Click to expand...


No, I do not believe that logic is going to take anyone to nirvana, satori, enlightenment, or the kingdom of heaven. 

The allegory of the cave is a form of poetry. Accordingly, I am going to react to it differently than others, and we're all going to end up with different conclusions. It's like a parable, meant to light a spark in your mind. 

To your question, though...

#1 In a general sense, to those people who are very strong in logic, yet crippled in their ability to grasp esoteric wisdom, I think the vast majority of the meaning of the allegory is going to be unreachable. 

#2 Specific to your question, the prisoners in the cave begin with an erroneous premise, and therefore all the branches of logic that grow from that erroneous trunk are going to be bogus. They are blinded by logic. 

I'll give a real world example of how logic can be blinding; 
Evolutionary biologists once insisted that change unfolded steadily over time within a gene pool. That was Darwin's assumption, and that's where they began in their understanding. Years later, despite the evidence (the fossil record) which failed to support gradual evolution, the biologists held unshakably to their beliefs. When the Piltdown Man was discovered, errr, faked, nobody questioned the veracity of the find, because the 'discovery' was supported by their logic as evidence of gradual evolution. It took decades for biologists to admit that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, and not even a very good one. 
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now, after many decades of kicking and screaming, most biologists hold to a theory of staggered evolution. You might say, even, that the Theory of Evolution has passed through a sort of staggered evolution, or periods of stasis (orthodoxy) broken up by short bursts of radical change.

Yet, a very few 'heretic' evolutionary biologists have recently suggested that a gene pool may become unstable and undergo radical change *without* causation (climate change, resource availability, natural selection of beneficial genes, competition, etc.). Evolution often occurs for no reason whatsoever, and they apply the principles of chaos theory to explain this. If they are correct, they are really beginning anew with a fresh premise, because the former premise would declare that only causation can drive evolution. 

As for myself, I substitute the concept of 'destiny'  for the concept of 'chaos theory'. The former is imbued with meaning, and the latter is merely a description of a mechanical process, both describing the same phenomena.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter?  It is no surprise.  Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans.  They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them.  How long before dogs can talk?
Click to expand...


Dogs can talk now. I have a friend who's dog says "Roll Tide!" when Alabama scores. Clear as day, I've seen it dozens of times. Crows can describe to another crow (through crow language) what an individual posing a danger looks like and the other crow consistently avoids these individuals they have never even seen before. 

Again, my point remains intact. All kinds of living organisms are supposedly evolving in this natural cycle of evolution, intelligence, sentience, ability... they all have their share. Cognizance, reasoning, rationalization... many of them have that as well. Big brains, big cerebral cortex? Some have that as well. All the ingredients are there in the same primordial soup, but of all the billions of life forms ever to exist, humans are unique and different. There is no evidence it "evolved" into us, it has always been present in humankind. 

Yes, dogs are going to become "smarter" and so is every other life form, if you believe in anything Darwin theorized at all. And I think most everyone can agree this is so, but until I see dogs attending Sunday School or leading mass, I don't think they have achieved the same level of spiritual awareness (inspiration for humanity) as humans... (sorry Breeze, I know you disagree with this.) Humans continue to have something that other living things don't have, and that is our spiritual foundation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Rawlings:  Treesshepherd appears to be suggesting that your way of doing this is wrong or least that's the impression I got from his eloquent post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain this to us in the sense that he's talking about if I'm saying that right.
Click to expand...


I too noted Treeshepherd's thoughtful post and it seemed that he's under the impression that my premise is not well-founded.  I gave his post a thumbs up as the bulk it is right on the money; albeit, I'm merely asserting the existentially commonsensical premise of first principles and nothing more.  I don't have to prove in any absolute sense that we exist or that the universe exists as we have all conceded the practical necessity of these apriorities.  That's just the way it is, and everything else I've presented merely follows from this pragmatic foundation. 

The real  problem is not with my logic, but the logic of those who keep forgetting this and wander off into a Kafkaesque world of dreams, that cave Treeshepherd is talking about, and, without warning or qualification, imagine the objections premised on the landscape of that world to be pragmatically substantial.  There is nothing erroneous about my foundation or about the line of logic that follows.  The foundation has been dully established, defined and accepted by all on this thread.  Some just need to stop meandering off into la-la land in the face of the subsequent, objectively obvious apprehensions recommended by the delineations of the principle of identity that overturn things they've always held to be true by the very same standard of logic they think to employ countervaillingly, albeit, as premised on incomplete or misapprehended data.

We have to start somewhere, and the suggestion that the universal principle of identity is _not_ the foundation of human knowledge, as I have dully established, is false; therefore, the objectively extrapolated apprehensions thereof cannot be rationally dismissed out of hand.  That would be an erroneously arbitrary standard of belief, especially since one would necessarily have to presuppose the veracity of the very same foundational principle of human knowledge in order to argue against its veracity:  the positive proof of double negation.  Oops.


----------



## G.T.

That's just speculation, though. Doesn't pass in an absolute sense. (boss)


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter?  It is no surprise.  Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans.  They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them.  How long before dogs can talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs can talk now. I have a friend who's dog says "Roll Tide!" when Alabama scores. Clear as day, I've seen it dozens of times. Crows can describe to another crow (through crow language) what an individual posing a danger looks like and the other crow consistently avoids these individuals they have never even seen before.
> 
> Again, my point remains intact. All kinds of living organisms are supposedly evolving in this natural cycle of evolution, intelligence, sentience, ability... they all have their share. Cognizance, reasoning, rationalization... many of them have that as well. Big brains, big cerebral cortex? Some have that as well. All the ingredients are there in the same primordial soup, but of all the billions of life forms ever to exist, humans are unique and different. There is no evidence it "evolved" into us, it has always been present in humankind.
> 
> Yes, dogs are going to become "smarter" and so is every other life form, if you believe in anything Darwin theorized at all. And I think most everyone can agree this is so, but until I see dogs attending Sunday School or leading mass, I don't think they have achieved the same level of spiritual awareness (inspiration for humanity) as humans... (sorry Breeze, I know you disagree with this.) Humans continue to have something that other living things don't have, and that is our spiritual foundation.
Click to expand...


So what humans are different/smarter?  So what?  Just because we are the smartest animal doesn't mean a god exists.  

Science has explained what a freak accident it was that we got as smart as we did and they said if all humans disappeared from earth tomorrow it is highly unlikely another animal would some day become as smart as we are.  I can't remember all the details but they did say what a fluke it was that at some point we became more intelligent than any other animal ever.  

So I do understand that no other animal will probably ever get as smart as we are.  So what?  What does that prove?  

Just because you are the fastest person in a race or the smartest person on a test doesn't mean you go to heaven and other animals don't.  

Spiritual foundation?  I think humans are the worse animal on this planet.  We are worse than cockroaches and rats.  We are overpopulating and destroying this planet.  If anything we are god big mistake.  Get rid of humans and this planet turns back into the garden of Eden.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Treeshepherd said:


> No, I do not believe that logic is going to take anyone to nirvana, satori, enlightenment, or the kingdom of heaven.



No it can't.

But the misapprehension of that truth has no bearing on the place to which the objectively extrapolated recommendations of organic logic lead.  (See post 2063.)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


>



*dblack, GT, Hollie and perhaps others* have once again wandered off the beaten path of the existential first principles they insist that we all abide by . . . except when we run into certain, objectively self-evident facts of human cognition premised on that beaten path that countervail their preconceived notions. When _that_ happens, they retreat into that alternate, kafkaesque world of dreams and assert the "derp-derp logic" (G.T.) of special pleading.

The academic objection regarding the informal logical fallacy of circular reasoning (or begging the question) is of no practical significance whatsoever.

*dblack*, you haven't raised anything new here. It's old news. Redundant. I've already shown on this thread why this objection fails. The Internet is riddled with this sort of nonsense, the assertions of the post-modern know-nothings of popular culture who imagine they have refuted something that cannot be refuted: as if those who have asserted the logical proof in question since time immemorial were all fools (the prophets and apostles of Judeo-Christianity, for example), as if Kant, who is credited with the first formal iteration of it in the philosophical cannon, were a fool.  This objection is an illusion. Some simply refuse to concede the obvious or do not rightly understand the matter.

This academic objection is the objection of last resort before one is compelled to retreat to the default position of scientific falsification, which is of no significance either, really, as the gist of that is to say that the substances of spiritual existents cannot currently be verified to exist scientifically.

So?

We know that. That's nothing earthshatteringly new or profound either.

The fact remains that in any given form of logic, due to the inescapable imperative of the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive principle of the laws of thought), the logical proof or proposition (the major premise of the transcendental argument), in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is premised on the direct evidence of an incontrovertible axiom of human thought.  In the terms of constructive/intuitionistic logic, for example, it's also inhabited by its own incontrovertible proof.

Even Michael Martin knows his reformulation of the transcendental argument intended to illustrate this *informal* logical objection is merely academic, as it's a distinction that makes no concrete difference to the incontrovertible facts of human cognition. We do not say under the *formal *(practical, real-world standards of justifiable logic) that a proposition that is necessarily (axiomatically or tautologically) true begs the question. Such a proposition is incontrovertibly true intuitively. That's just the way it is, as the apprehension of such propositions is biologically hardwired.  For example, *2 + 2 = 4*.

Hence, this academic objection is silly, but not only that, its illustrative expression, the negative reformulation of the transcendental argument, is inherently contradictory, self-negating, and, of course, is yet another counterargument that is in actuality a premise for an argument that proves the real McCoy logically holds.

LOL!

If the major premise of the transcendental argument can sensibly be said to beg the question, then _all_ the other rational and mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems of human cognition beg the question too!

Make up your minds, people, beginning with you *Quantum Windbag*!

If you people are going to keep raising these same kinds of objections—the stuff of that windbag's, i.e., Quantum Windbag's, "philosophical bullshit!"—then at least have the integrity to tells us that all you're really saying in the end is that all we hold to be true in our minds as a matter of necessity (the existentially inescapable facts of human cognition, the imperatives of the principle of identity), may not ultimately be true beyond our minds . . . *including your academic objections asserted as absolute truths from on high, which necessarily suggest something is true in terms of ultimacy from on high*!

LOL!

Have the integrity to admit that this is the basis on which you think to justify your allegations that the rest of us are "fucking idiots" (dblack) or fanatically closed-minded dogmatists.

(Are you paying attention, Foxfrye?)

Some finite beings keep forgetting that they're finite beings, but something very much like, rather, something exactly like, the idea of God, the potentially ultimate substance of which, they keep insisting doesn't exist, except, apparently, when they engage in special pleading from on high as if they were the substance behind the idea of an all-knowing, divine origin!

If you were to ask me, I'd say that we have a number of atheists and agnostics on this forum who are closet theists begging to be outed.

LOL!

But I digress. . . .

Fine. Nothing we think we know about the contents of our minds or about the apparent realities beyond our minds, as premised on the beaten path, is really true. It's all an illusion. Everything we must necessarily presuppose to be true in order to do things like mathematics or science, design and build things, devise new technologies . . . feed the dog, wipe our asses, blow our noses or coherently consult with our $200-dollar-an-hour therapists about all these troubling hallucinations, is the stuff of dreams.

Allow me to make a suggestion: all of you enlightened posters who keep going around and around this same mulberry tree, as if this banality were something profound, as you think to circumvent the exploration of the objective contents of human cognition as delineated by the imperatives of the universal principle of identity: pack up your gear, go back to the dark recesses of the cave and twiddle your thumbs.

As for the rest of us—those who don't, for example, call the inverse expressions of illogical propositions boogie men—let us move on. . . .


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *dblack*, you haven't raised anything new here. It's old news. Redundant. I've already shown on this thread why this objection fails. The Internet is riddled with this sort of nonsense, the assertions of the post-modern know-nothings of popular culture who imagine they have refuted something ...



Of course I haven't. I can't refute your "argument" because I don't have a clue what you're talking about. And my allergy to blowhards prevents me from wading into your posts to sort it out.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *dblack, GT, Hollie and perhaps others* have once again wandered off the beaten path of the existential first principles they insist that we all abide by . . . except when we run into certain, objectively self-evident facts of human cognition premised on that beaten path that countervail their preconceived notions. When _that_ happens, they retreat into that alternate, kafkaesque world of dreams and assert the "derp-derp logic" (G.T.) of special pleading.
> 
> The academic objection regarding the informal logical fallacy of circular reasoning (or begging the question) is of no practical significance whatsoever.
> 
> *dblack*, you haven't raised anything new here. It's old news. Redundant. I've already shown on this thread why this objection fails. The Internet is riddled with this sort of nonsense, the assertions of the post-modern know-nothings of popular culture who imagine they have refuted something that cannot be refuted: as if those who have asserted the logical proof in question since time immemorial were all fools (the prophets and apostles of Judeo-Christianity, for example), as if Kant, who is credited with the first formal iteration of it in the philosophical cannon, were a fool.  This objection is an illusion. Some simply refuse to concede the obvious or do not rightly understand the matter.
> 
> This academic objection is the objection of last resort before one is compelled to retreat to the default position of scientific falsification, which is of no significance either, really, as the gist of that is to say that the substances of spiritual existents cannot currently be verified to exist scientifically.
> 
> So?
> 
> We know that. That's nothing earthshatteringly new or profound either.
> 
> The fact remains that in any given form of logic, due to the inescapable imperative of the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive principle of the laws of thought), the logical proof or proposition (the major premise of the transcendental argument), in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is premised on the direct evidence of an incontrovertible axiom of human thought.  In the terms of constructive/intuitionistic logic, for example, it's also inhabited by its own incontrovertible proof.
> 
> Even Michael Martin knows his reformulation of the transcendental argument intended to illustrate this *informal* logical objection is merely academic, as it's a distinction that makes no concrete difference to the incontrovertible facts of human cognition. We do not say under the *formal *(practical, real-world standards of justifiable logic) that a proposition that is necessarily (axiomatically or tautologically) true begs the question. Such a proposition is incontrovertibly true intuitively. That's just the way it is, as the apprehension of such propositions is biologically hardwired.  For example, *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> Hence, this academic objection is silly, but not only that, its illustrative expression, the negative reformulation of the transcendental argument, is inherently contradictory, self-negating, and, of course, is yet another counterargument that is in actuality a premise for an argument that proves the real McCoy logically holds.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> If the major premise of the transcendental argument can sensibly be said to beg the question, then _all_ the other rational and mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems of human cognition beg the question too!
> 
> Make up your minds, people, beginning with you *Quantum Windbag*!
> 
> If you people are going to keep raising these same kinds of objections—the stuff of that windbag's, i.e., Quantum Windbag's, "philosophical bullshit!"—then at least have the integrity to tells us that all you're really saying in the end is that all we hold to be true in our minds as a matter of necessity (the existentially inescapable facts of human cognition, the imperatives of the principle of identity), may not ultimately be true beyond our minds . . . *including your academic objections asserted as absolute truths from on high, which necessarily suggest something is true in terms of ultimacy from on high*!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Have the integrity to admit that this is the basis on which you think to justify your allegations that the rest of us are "fucking idiots" (dblack) or fanatically closed-minded dogmatists.
> 
> (Are you paying attention, Foxfrye?)
> 
> Some finite beings keep forgetting that they're finite beings, but something very much like, rather, something exactly like, the idea of God, the potentially ultimate substance of which, they keep insisting doesn't exist, except, apparently, when they engage in special pleading from on high as if they were the substance behind the idea of an all-knowing, divine origin!
> 
> If you were to ask me, I'd say that we have a number of atheists and agnostics on this forum who are closet theists begging to be outed.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But I digress. . . .
> 
> Fine. Nothing we think we know about the contents of our minds or about the apparent realities beyond our minds, as premised on the beaten path, is really true. It's all an illusion. Everything we must necessarily presuppose to be true in order to do things like mathematics or science, design and build things, devise new technologies . . . feed the dog, wipe our asses, blow our noses or coherently consult with our $200-dollar-an-hour therapists about all these troubling hallucinations, is the stuff of dreams.
> 
> Allow me to make a suggestion: all of you enlightened posters who keep going around and around this same mulberry tree, as if this banality were something profound, as you think to circumvent the exploration of the objective contents of human cognition as delineated by the imperatives of the universal principle of identity: pack up your gear, go back to the dark recesses of the cave and twiddle your thumbs.
> 
> As for the rest of us—those who don't, for example, call the inverse expressions of illogical propositions boogie men—let us move on. . . .
Click to expand...


I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.

I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.


----------



## Justin Davis

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre missing a step.
> 
> Proving god existing in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear  GT and MD:
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.
> 
> That which is BEYOND our scope/limits can neither be proven nor disproven.
> is this clear? can we agree on this please?
> 
> Without judgment on anyone's views for or against.
> Just agree on the neutral starting ground. Please.
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of a small misstep on your part. Or not. Either way, you haven't done it.
> 
> Also - I still don't understand how my saying that an all knowing knower would know.its all knowing........IS A CONCESSION AN ALL KNOWER EVEN EXISTS.
> 
> that's where you're taking DISHONEST liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. ?????
> 
> Sorry GT
> It seemed clear to me that MD was saying it COULD NOT BE PROVEN to exist.
> 
> I think we got crossed when
> A. messages overlapped and these quotes got mixed up over who said or quoted what or whom.
> B. emotionally thinking someone has other motives and attacking those motives
> instead of sticking to the content.
> C. arguing about the imperfect logic, arguments or statements people make
> instead of sticking to the content.
> 
> I though the point was that
> God represents something that can NEITHER be proven NOR disproven.
> 
> And most other conflicts stem from people
> "insulting or rejecting" someone for saying something else.
> 
> Some of this is "crossed communication," because I see
> a lot of messages saying
> "but that's not what I said" or "that's not what X is saying."
> 
> Again, can we agree that God can Neither be Proven Nor Disproven.
> Can we start with that and agree on that much?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A word to the wise:  it's not a good bet to think that you have overturned anything Rawlings has asserted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool. Rawling has a groupie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I equally back you up Hollie, Justin, dblack and MD.
> Establishing a consensus means we all have to agree.
> We are not going to get there without including all our points and resolving all our objections.
> 
> Go, Team!
> I'm rooting for all of you to score, to make your touchdowns,
> and homeruns. Each player needs to make those free throws and goals.
> We are supposed to help each other to score, not cut each other down.
> 
> We are on the same team, just playing different positions and roles.
> 
> Trying to help each other to throw straight, and to go for the openings,
> will stop players from stumbling and fumbling on the field. We still have
> to stop each other from making preventable mistakes, but the purpose is
> to help each other score not to knock players out of the game over penalties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I will take your advice and be nice.  I was just really frustrated by the posts of those who dogmatically refuse to let themselves see what Rawlings is actually saying.  Their posts are reactionary straw men.  We are on page 103 of this thread and some are still saying the same false things over and over again.  It's ridiculous.  But I agree my insults don't help things.
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *dblack*, you haven't raised anything new here. It's old news. Redundant. I've already shown on this thread why this objection fails. The Internet is riddled with this sort of nonsense, the assertions of the post-modern know-nothings of popular culture who imagine they have refuted something ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I haven't. I can't refute your "argument" because I don't have a clue what you're talking about. And my allergy to blowhards prevents me from wading into your posts to sort it out.
Click to expand...


That's very open-minded of you.  The reason this guy in the video is wrong is obvious from this post of Rawlings.  You don't need to go find the others. If you would just stop and do something called thinking you could see it.  So what you're saying is that your ignorance or inability to comprehend something obvious is Rawlings' fault.  Sorry, but according to your admission of ignorance or refusal to think about something you imply is true with you video, when its not, makes you the blowhard.  I'm just saying.  It's okay with you if I use the word blowhard when you imply things that aren't true about things you don't know or understand right?  You seem to be one of those people who gets mad at people who are smarter than you. 

But if you still don't get it that's okay.  But why don't you just ask him to explain it.  He did before in a very easy way to understand, even G.t. finally got it before he changed his mind.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> That's very open-minded of you. ...



Not at all. It's decidedly closed minded. It's an unfortunate weakness of mine, but I just have no patience for shell games.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *dblack, GT, Hollie and perhaps others* have once again wandered off the beaten path of the existential first principles they insist that we all abide by . . . except when we run into certain, objectively self-evident facts of human cognition premised on that beaten path that countervail their preconceived notions. When _that_ happens, they retreat into that alternate, kafkaesque world of dreams and assert the "derp-derp logic" (G.T.) of special pleading.
> 
> The academic objection regarding the informal logical fallacy of circular reasoning (or begging the question) is of no practical significance whatsoever.
> 
> *dblack*, you haven't raised anything new here. It's old news. Redundant. I've already shown on this thread why this objection fails. The Internet is riddled with this sort of nonsense, the assertions of the post-modern know-nothings of popular culture who imagine they have refuted something that cannot be refuted: as if those who have asserted the logical proof in question since time immemorial were all fools (the prophets and apostles of Judeo-Christianity, for example), as if Kant, who is credited with the first formal iteration of it in the philosophical cannon, were a fool.  This objection is an illusion. Some simply refuse to concede the obvious or do not rightly understand the matter.
> 
> This academic objection is the objection of last resort before one is compelled to retreat to the default position of scientific falsification, which is of no significance either, really, as the gist of that is to say that the substances of spiritual existents cannot currently be verified to exist scientifically.
> 
> So?
> 
> We know that. That's nothing earthshatteringly new or profound either.
> 
> The fact remains that in any given form of logic, due to the inescapable imperative of the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive principle of the laws of thought), the logical proof or proposition (the major premise of the transcendental argument), in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is premised on the direct evidence of an incontrovertible axiom of human thought.  In the terms of constructive/intuitionistic logic, for example, it's also inhabited by its own incontrovertible proof.
> 
> Even Michael Martin knows his reformulation of the transcendental argument intended to illustrate this *informal* logical objection is merely academic, as it's a distinction that makes no concrete difference to the incontrovertible facts of human cognition. We do not say under the *formal *(practical, real-world standards of justifiable logic) that a proposition that is necessarily (axiomatically or tautologically) true begs the question. Such a proposition is incontrovertibly true intuitively. That's just the way it is, as the apprehension of such propositions is biologically hardwired.  For example, *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> Hence, this academic objection is silly, but not only that, its illustrative expression, the negative reformulation of the transcendental argument, is inherently contradictory, self-negating, and, of course, is yet another counterargument that is in actuality a premise for an argument that proves the real McCoy logically holds.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> If the major premise of the transcendental argument can sensibly be said to beg the question, then _all_ the other rational and mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems of human cognition beg the question too!
> 
> Make up your minds, people, beginning with you *Quantum Windbag*!
> 
> If you people are going to keep raising these same kinds of objections—the stuff of that windbag's, i.e., Quantum Windbag's, "philosophical bullshit!"—then at least have the integrity to tells us that all you're really saying in the end is that all we hold to be true in our minds as a matter of necessity (the existentially inescapable facts of human cognition, the imperatives of the principle of identity), may not ultimately be true beyond our minds . . . *including your academic objections asserted as absolute truths from on high, which necessarily suggest something is true in terms of ultimacy from on high*!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Have the integrity to admit that this is the basis on which you think to justify your allegations that the rest of us are "fucking idiots" (dblack) or fanatically closed-minded dogmatists.
> 
> (Are you paying attention, Foxfrye?)
> 
> Some finite beings keep forgetting that they're finite beings, but something very much like, rather, something exactly like, the idea of God, the potentially ultimate substance of which, they keep insisting doesn't exist, except, apparently, when they engage in special pleading from on high as if they were the substance behind the idea of an all-knowing, divine origin!
> 
> If you were to ask me, I'd say that we have a number of atheists and agnostics on this forum who are closet theists begging to be outed.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But I digress. . . .
> 
> Fine. Nothing we think we know about the contents of our minds or about the apparent realities beyond our minds, as premised on the beaten path, is really true. It's all an illusion. Everything we must necessarily presuppose to be true in order to do things like mathematics or science, design and build things, devise new technologies . . . feed the dog, wipe our asses, blow our noses or coherently consult with our $200-dollar-an-hour therapists about all these troubling hallucinations, is the stuff of dreams.
> 
> Allow me to make a suggestion: all of you enlightened posters who keep going around and around this same mulberry tree, as if this banality were something profound, as you think to circumvent the exploration of the objective contents of human cognition as delineated by the imperatives of the universal principle of identity: pack up your gear, go back to the dark recesses of the cave and twiddle your thumbs.
> 
> As for the rest of us—those who don't, for example, call the inverse expressions of illogical propositions boogie men—let us move on. . . .



  The molehills are falling. 

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.  "feed the dog"  "therapists and hallucinations" "the logical proof in question"  "windbags" "the "derp-derp logic" (G.T.) of special pleading".

I almost bust a gut on that last one.  You're killing me, smalls.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very open-minded of you. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. It's decidedly closed minded. It's an unfortunate weakness of mine, but I just have no patience for shell games.
Click to expand...


You're playing the shell game on yourself.  It's not hard to understand.  All he's telling you even if you still don't see why its true about the argument's premise is that the transcendental argument is logically true in the same way that any other axiom like 2+2=4 is true.  It just is logically true and we don't normally call logical truths like that begging the question because they are true in our minds every time we think about them.  These kinds of truths don't need outside evidence for proof.  they are their own evidence for proof.  A dog is dog, not a cat. I'm a thinking being. See.  If we're going to start saying that things like this or something like mathematic axioms are not true because they  might be illusions thennothing's true.  That doesn't make any practical sense.

He also told you basically why its true about the TAG arugment too though in a way that's just funny.  It's easy to break down in a direct way but I'll leave that to him because he told Emily he would show it to her again.   Just check that out and you'll see.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.



Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.


----------



## Justin Davis

Treeshepherd said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings:  Treesshepherd appears to be suggesting that your way of doing this is wrong or least that's the impression I got from his eloquent post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to the trogs living down in the cave, nothing that the philosopher says makes any sense. His speech is gibberish to them, and nothing he says is relevant to what they understand to be reality. Because the course of logic is set by an original premise (often, and in this case, erroneous), the philosopher is deemed to be illogical and irrational. He is deemed to be a believer in Santa Claus, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain this to us in the sense that he's talking about if I'm saying that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I do not believe that logic is going to take anyone to nirvana, satori, enlightenment, or the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> The allegory of the cave is a form of poetry. Accordingly, I am going to react to it differently than others, and we're all going to end up with different conclusions. It's like a parable, meant to light a spark in your mind.
> 
> To your question, though...
> 
> #1 In a general sense, to those people who are very strong in logic, yet crippled in their ability to grasp esoteric wisdom, I think the vast majority of the meaning of the allegory is going to be unreachable.
> 
> #2 Specific to your question, the prisoners in the cave begin with an erroneous premise, and therefore all the branches of logic that grow from that erroneous trunk are going to be bogus. They are blinded by logic.
> 
> I'll give a real world example of how logic can be blinding;
> Evolutionary biologists once insisted that change unfolded steadily over time within a gene pool. That was Darwin's assumption, and that's where they began in their understanding. Years later, despite the evidence (the fossil record) which failed to support gradual evolution, the biologists held unshakably to their beliefs. When the Piltdown Man was discovered, errr, faked, nobody questioned the veracity of the find, because the 'discovery' was supported by their logic as evidence of gradual evolution. It took decades for biologists to admit that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, and not even a very good one.
> Piltdown Man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now, after many decades of kicking and screaming, most biologists hold to a theory of staggered evolution. You might say, even, that the Theory of Evolution has passed through a sort of staggered evolution, or periods of stasis (orthodoxy) broken up by short bursts of radical change.
> 
> Yet, a very few 'heretic' evolutionary biologists have recently suggested that a gene pool may become unstable and undergo radical change *without* causation (climate change, resource availability, natural selection of beneficial genes, competition, etc.). Evolution often occurs for no reason whatsoever, and they apply the principles of chaos theory to explain this. If they are correct, they are really beginning anew with a fresh premise, because the former premise would declare that only causation can drive evolution.
> 
> As for myself, I substitute the concept of 'destiny'  for the concept of 'chaos theory'. The former is imbued with meaning, and the latter is merely a description of a mechanical process, both describing the same phenomena.
Click to expand...


Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the philosopher prove to the prisoners in the cave (in Plato's allegory), that another realm exists?
> 
> That would be like attempting to describe to a lifelong deaf man the beauty of Mozart's Requiem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't. What he does is begin with the fundamental facts of existence and the immediately pertinent imperatives of the problem of origin. It follows that the potentiality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out, but not only that, it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought. From that point on, the principle of identity allows for only one objection: the weak assertion of a scientifically unfalsifiable apriority that remains rationally irreconcilable with the same laws of thought.
> 
> But then it is possible to go on from there and objectively demonstrate why the rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be.  The rest is up to the eye the beholder, not with regard to the veracity of the evidence, of course, as human consciousness does not have primacy over the realities of existence, but with regard to the quality of the beholder's moral and intellectual integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought"
> 
> How cool is that? According to _M. Pompous Rawling_, any arguments against Rawling's gods is actually an argument _in support_ of Rawling's gods.
> 
> _How do we know this?_
> 
> Simple. According to _M. Pompous Rawling, "because I say so" _is the only requirement, or possibly his manufactured version of "organic logic", as opposed to inorganic logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie, you're still being unnecessarily antagonistic and for no good reason.  Rawlings told me to cool it down and Emily's advice makes sense.  Rawlings is not a pompous man.  That's just not true.  It only appears that way to some people who  hear what they want to rather than what he's really saying.
Click to expand...


Not exactly. The problem is, what he's saying is nonsense. It changes every time he's questioned on it, and none of it adds up to anything coherent. The TAG argument is silly, but I can't even credit Rawling's rambling with that much.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
Click to expand...

What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas. 

It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.



Have you shaved your head yet?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter?  It is no surprise.  Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans.  They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them.  How long before dogs can talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs can talk now. I have a friend who's dog says "Roll Tide!" when Alabama scores. Clear as day, I've seen it dozens of times. Crows can describe to another crow (through crow language) what an individual posing a danger looks like and the other crow consistently avoids these individuals they have never even seen before.
> 
> Again, my point remains intact. All kinds of living organisms are supposedly evolving in this natural cycle of evolution, intelligence, sentience, ability... they all have their share. Cognizance, reasoning, rationalization... many of them have that as well. Big brains, big cerebral cortex? Some have that as well. All the ingredients are there in the same primordial soup, but of all the billions of life forms ever to exist, humans are unique and different. There is no evidence it "evolved" into us, it has always been present in humankind.
> 
> Yes, dogs are going to become "smarter" and so is every other life form, if you believe in anything Darwin theorized at all. And I think most everyone can agree this is so, but until I see dogs attending Sunday School or leading mass, I don't think they have achieved the same level of spiritual awareness (inspiration for humanity) as humans... (sorry Breeze, I know you disagree with this.) Humans continue to have something that other living things don't have, and that is our spiritual foundation.
Click to expand...



what you fail to recognize boss is the Lions Spirit has evolved accordingly with its founding whereas your Spirit has evolved to a disposition of self interest - as per religious order the Lion has the ( natural ) affinity for Admission to the Everlasting that humanity has  lost.

Spiritually speaking boss, you are bankrupt.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
Click to expand...


The easiest way to help someone who's struggling with it is to ask them to give you an argument, any argument they can think of which in their minds refutes it.  Then show them why their argument actually serves as a premise for an argument that proves it.  Typically, the first objection you get is the academic objection of the illusory informal fallacy of begging the question.  That objection proves that the premise is an axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4 once they see how that objection is inherently self-negating and also proves the premise is true.  If they see that but are still struggling, ask them to give you another one, something more substantial, direct;  then show them how that kind of argument doesn't work either.  Once they get that, they should see why the premise would necessarily hold up universally against all comers.

Essentially, the transcendental argument is the in-depth, formal proof of the understanding that the potential substance of the God idea cannot be logically ruled out; it's the deeper understanding of the fundamental imperative of the problem of origin.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The easiest way to help someone who's struggling with it is to ask them to give you an argument, any argument they can think of which in their minds refutes it.  Then show them why their argument actually serves as a premise for an argument that proves it.  Typically, the first objection you get is the academic objection of the illusory informal fallacy of begging the question.  That objection proves that the premise is an axiom just like 2 + 2 = 4 once they see how that objection is inherently self-negating and also proves the premise is true.  If they see that but are still struggling, ask them to give you another one, something more substantial, direct;  then show them how that kind of argument doesn't work either.  Once they get that, they should see why the premise would necessarily hold up universally against all comers.
> 
> Essentially, the transcendental argument is the in-depth, formal proof of the understanding that the potential substance of the God idea cannot be logically ruled out; it's the deeper understanding of the fundamental imperative of the problem of origin.
Click to expand...


Okay, I never made that connection until now, but, yeah, I see it now.  Cool.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you shaved your head yet?
Click to expand...


Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum?  I'm a Christian.  So is Rawlings. 
Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible.  Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this.  Most of the rest understand it in the  doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ.  It's not a secrete.  Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.  

Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald?  You all pretty much read off the same page.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.
> 
> It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?
Click to expand...


You're playing shell games on yourself again.  Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and  follow him without any problem at all.  What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing.  You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily.  You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world.  That's your problem, not ours.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.
> 
> It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing shell games on yourself again.  Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and  follow him without any problem at all.  What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing.  You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily.  You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world.  That's your problem, not ours.
Click to expand...


Actually, that was dblack playing the shell games on himself.  Hollie just likes the same game.  Their posts sort of blur together. It's all that baldness and same-page reading you talked about.  Somewhere in the world there's a pile of discarded hair of different shades, albeit, mingled together inside the same file 13. 

If they were to ever stop all the stuttering and mumbling, they might be able to see what is right in front of them, but that's the thing about religious fanatics, dogma is dogma, and dogma's all they got.  Disabusing them of it is like trying to take a bone from an untrained, full-grown German Shepherd.  Don't try it unless you know the animal has been vaccinated for rabies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. *It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either*, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.



The hand of God.

*Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.*


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The hand of God.
> 
> *Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.*





And that would be the hand, of course.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed the pompous bloviating is nothing more than a re-ordering of the pompous bloviating that preceded it.
> 
> I suspect the boy has a four page Microsoft Word document with a host of slogans he found at Harun Yahya, Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute and spends his time shuffling paragraphs around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still being like this Hollie? he's just using humor.  If we can't laugh at ourselves about how we get tangled in things that don't make sense what's point in living.  I didn't get it all at first either but Rawlings made it really easy to see earlier.  I got it before from a book and saw it but not in the crystal clear way I see it now as the book was really technical.  Rawlings just used a few words and equals signs to make it jump at you.  Simple. It really is like 2+2=4. It can't be denied logically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's humorous (in a mordant sort of way), is to watch the pompous blowhard rattle on through multiple paragraphs which are not logically connected and never manage to make a logical progression of ideas.
> 
> It's pitiable. The bloviating Is just a thinly veiled attempt at proselytizing but the confused, rambling, stuttering and mumbling is somehow supposed to be persuasive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're playing shell games on yourself again.  Anyone who understands the argument can see that the logic flows perfectly and  follow him without any problem at all.  What you see as something changing is actually just more of the direct extrapolations of the same thing.  You still don't see why the argument is necessarily true though, though you could if you thought about it, anyone can easily.  You're still in the cave afraid to come out into the real world.  That's your problem, not ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that was dblack playing the shell games on himself.  Hollie just likes the same game.  Their posts sort of blur together. It's all that baldness and same-page reading you talked about.  Somewhere in the world there's a pile of discarded hair of different shades, albeit, mingled together inside the same file 13.
> 
> If they were to ever stop all the stuttering and mumbling, they might be able to see what is right in front of them, but that's the thing about religious fanatics, dogma is dogma, and dogma's all they got.  Disabusing them of it is like trying to take a bone from an untrained, full-grown German Shepherd.  Don't try it unless you know the animal has been vaccinated for rabies.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, here. Aside from your obvious bluster and pontificating, you've been unable (and to avoid embarrassment), haven't even attempted to address the comments in direct refutation to your pompous, time wasting stuttering and mumbling. 

You're now relegated to pointless drivel.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> MD continues to be a liar as to what ive said done or conceded
> 
> Lost all respect.





G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG's first premise is that without god there cannot be knowledge.
> 
> Since it doesn't have a proof of its own, it fails. TAG begs the question.
> 
> You cannot logically or otherwise assert that god is necessary FOR knowledge without ruling out other explanations ALSO WITH LOGIC PROOFS where the premises are absolute.
> 
> Where is the logical proof that knowledge can't "just exist?"
> 
> Not a lofty explanation about why it's *unlikely*, an explanation of why it *CANNOT* be, via *ABSOLUTE *premises.
> 
> Can't do it? Then you can't logically rule it out and accept TAG's first premise.
> 
> And that's just ONE alternate possibility, of the MANY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you believe god created all life and everything we see then of course you would also believe that without god there would be no knowledge either.
> 
> But first you have to prove there is a god to prove that without him there wouldn't be life let alone knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentence #2 eggggggggsackleeeee
Click to expand...




And you both just proved the argument true again! For atheists, you guys sure have a serious God complex, though Rawlings and I have already shown you guys why this line of logic is self-negating and proves the argument true. G.T. likes going in circles. Like that file 13 Rawlings wrote about, now I'm thinking that somewhere in the world there's a well-worn path around a mulberry tree littered with cigarette butts and many crumpled notes with arguments scribbled on them against the TAG, the desperate obsession a someone trying to convince himself of something that has a problem with it that he can't quite keep his finger on long enough for it to sink. I think that's why he keeps changing his mind. But at least he has sealybobo to keep him company.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. *It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either*, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hand of God.
> 
> *Right now all the baldies who have read this post are reading the supposed God in the gaps fallacy off that same page.*
Click to expand...

Right now, others are watching as your pointless arguments are relegated to childish name-calling.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you shaved your head yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum?  I'm a Christian.  So is Rawlings.
> Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible.  Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this.  Most of the rest understand it in the  doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ.  It's not a secrete.  Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.
> 
> Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald?  You all pretty much read off the same page.
Click to expand...

You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.


----------



## G.T.

Tag begs the question, bad argument.

Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> hat I would add MD is that this CAN be proven.
> 1. by continuing the process WITHOUT insulting anyone as I fear you do without realizing it makes the difference.
> it is sort of like a contrapositive proof, where you present the conclusion (which here is the OPPOSITE of what your objectors believe) and then remove all the subsequent arguments and examples that come up. *In pure logic, this is not the usual way to do a contrapositive proof; the usual way is to show that a FIXED contradiction comes up that is universally true in all cases, so once you prove that contradiction is inevitable and universal, this proves it across the board.* With God there is an infinite number and variations on the contradictions that arise for each person, so technically you can never prove them all as a pattern for all people.



The problem with what you're saying here is that Rawlings without speaking to the value of the ideas of posters that served as a basis to move the discussion along, point by point already laid down the foundation and systematically built on it from the beginning early in this thread while most others were  blurting unsupported opinions out of nowhere about anything that came to mind. He started with a simple, step-by-step presentation of the pertinent first principles of human thought, onto the sketched-out though bare bones presentation of the  imperatives of the problem of origin,  then the explication of the universal principle of identity from the laws of human thought, then the  ultimate idea of infinity in the principle.  Then he proceeded to address each of the classical arguments explaining why they hold up as rational and empirical evidentiary proofs for God's existence while fleshing out the relevant imperatives for each as he went along.  He explained what these arguments really, which aren't absolutely proofs but proofs of evidence that powerfully point to God and destroy the nonsense of atheism.  He saved the TAG argument for last that is the one that is most powerful and really reveals the startling facts of the matter regarding the principle of identity and the five things which drives really drives it all home.

The reason I'm able to see the pattern is because these are the same things I've been studying on my own for the last several months.  I almost this thread off after reading a bunch of posts going nowhere when I ran into his first post. Man alive, all cylinders.

After reading the first several posts I went back and copied and pasted from the beginning and so on into Word to keep studying more and more until I got it a really good handle on each. So I see the pattern to his progression. I've learned more from him in the last several days than in all the months before.
What started happening though is that some started getting bent out of shape over his ideas on things because they flew in the face of their cherished subjective beliefs of habit and they couldn’t counter what he was saying. Even I understand the psychology of that. QW went so far as to start trying to tells us that Rawlings' understanding of  logic was all wrong with statements he made  that were all wrong. I was the first to get pissed at QW, not Rawlings, and I did get emotional about it in a counterproductive way. But finally Rawlings did have to grab him by the scruff and kick him hard because he was getting in the way with lies. QW left when he could no longer get away with it because his garbage became so obvious. I studied up on constructive logic because I was fooled by QW at first too, not that Rawlings was wrong but that QW knew other things the right way. The first signs that he didn't know what mattered was the silly things he started saying about the relationship between science and logic and philosophy, and nothing he said about the things in the bible or about classical logica and constructive logic could possibly be true. He got more and more absurd with each post.

That's the background you may not be aware of.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you shaved your head yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum?  I'm a Christian.  So is Rawlings.
> Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible.  Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this.  Most of the rest understand it in the  doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ.  It's not a secrete.  Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.
> 
> Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald?  You all pretty much read off the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.
Click to expand...


Voices in your head again?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm actually able to follow this, and if you're thinking that somebody like Rawlings, who is strong in logic, would be crippled, I'd think again. I've already seen how he took apart a very poor understanding about the actual nature of Aristotle’s error of geocentricism.  Had Aristotle only paid attention to what the principle of identity was alerting him to he wouldn't have made the error. I say that because all Rawlings is employing is the universal principle of identity which is something I understand well though not as well as he does because he has a lot more experience with it when looking at all sorts of things. I came to this discussion with the same foundation though. It holds universally and is the very thing that causes us to see that the old idea of a gradual and steady speciation doesn't add up. It's also the same principle that allows me to see that chaos theory might not be telling us what some think it is either, perhaps, including you, as well as letting me see the problem with the idea of "destiny" in terms of what it's actually describing.  That fact that different people draw different conclusions is not problem but a benefit, and that doesn't stop us see the distinction between different conclusions.  Again the principle of identity at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you shaved your head yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum?  I'm a Christian.  So is Rawlings.
> Despite QW's make up as you go along whatever, it's in the Bible.  Lots of mature Christians with a calling in apologetics know this.  Most of the rest understand it in the  doctrinal form of the Logos, while we all understand it in terms of relationship with Christ.  It's not a secrete.  Some people have a better understanding of it than others due to longer experience or calling.
> 
> Are you, Hollie and G.T. all bald?  You all pretty much read off the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could have been honest and admitted your purpose in this thread was to proselytize. I think that has been obvious but to represent that you had a functioning argument for supernatural gods and spirit realms not connected directly with your extremist beliefs is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Voices in your head again?
Click to expand...

No. Just an observation taken from your comments. You and the guy you're failing your Pom Poms for should realize that you come across as the worst examples of the feverish, sweaty, hair-on-fire bible thumpers who are as dishonest a bunch as they're are.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Tag begs the question, bad argument.
> 
> Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.





Psst. That's the whole point.  Any counterargument does prove them wrong.  Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves.  You got it the first time around and defaulted to science.  I know what you did.  You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours.  You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.

I get your psychology.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tag begs the question, bad argument.
> 
> Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst. That's the whole point.  Any counterargument does prove them wrong.  Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves.  You got it the first time around and defaulted to science.  I know what you did.  You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours.  You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.
> 
> I get your psychology.
Click to expand...

So... You admit you're argument is a fraud yet you choose to continue promotion of fraud. 

Lovely, lovely folks you fundamentalist Christians.


----------



## Justin Davis

Treeshepherd said:


> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.



You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear." 

By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tag begs the question, bad argument.
> 
> Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst. That's the whole point.  Any counterargument does prove them wrong.  Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves.  You got it the first time around and defaulted to science.  I know what you did.  You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours.  You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.
> 
> I get your psychology.
Click to expand...

Youre an idiot.

You cant make a rational argument for something based on premises that are not themselves proven.

Ask a fucking five year old to.explain it to one of you dopes.

And again, arguing against it does not make it so. For that to be true, you AGAIN have to beg the question.

Do you need to be taught why begging the question is an invalid way to attempt a logical proof of something?

You're in effect saying

Proof of god:

God exists, so knowledge has to come from god

Knowledge exists

Therefore god exists!


Only a complete jackass doesn't see what's wrong with that, logically. I.e. you two dorks.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tag begs the question, bad argument.
> 
> Sorry, but until you can prove as an absolute the other possibilities WRONG, tag is a reach. Premise #1 presupposes god. Derp derp logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst. That's the whole point.  Any counterargument does prove them wrong.  Yes of course it does presuppose God's existence and then you went onto make arguments why that's unreasonable only to have your arguments destroy themselves.  You got it the first time around and defaulted to science.  I know what you did.  You're not fooling me. I also see what you can see about these mew arguments of yours.  You know why they fail, you just like the attention you get from sealybobo and Hollie all the while knowing these new arguments fail and are bogus too and why.
> 
> I get your psychology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... You admit you're argument is a fraud yet you choose to continue promotion of fraud.
> 
> Lovely, lovely folks you fundamentalist Christians.
Click to expand...

I think its more likely they have no clue why using a definition to prove ITSELF is retarded.


----------



## G.T.

Sye ten: jackass
Eric hovind: jackass
W.l. Craig: jackass
M.d. Rawlings: jackass
Justin Davis: embarrassment


----------



## percysunshine

.

The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.

Get over it people.

.


----------



## G.T.

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .


Egg sack lee


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
> 
> By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
Click to expand...


Indeed, He is the universal Principle of Identity and I've heard that pin drop too, a very nice way to put it.  I dropped that pin in our men's Bible study and now all off them have heard it too, though my pastor had already heard it before.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Youre an idiot.
> 
> You cant make a rational argument for something based on premises that are not themselves proven.
> 
> Ask a fucking five year old to.explain it to one of you dopes.
> 
> And again, arguing against it does not make it so. For that to be true, you AGAIN have to beg the question.
> 
> Do you need to be taught why begging the question is an invalid way to attempt a logical proof of something?
> 
> You're in effect saying
> 
> Proof of god:
> 
> God exists, so knowledge has to come from god
> 
> Knowledge exists
> 
> Therefore god exists!
> 
> 
> Only a complete jackass doesn't see what's wrong with that, logically. I.e. you two dorks.



Still trying to convince yourself that what you _heard_ earlier isn't true after all, eh?

Stop listening to this voice:

Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,
  the lofty perches,
Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.

Prufrock s Lair A Dirge for J. Alfred Prufrock The Last Hurrah
​
Rather, come out of the cave.  The weather's fine, not a cloud in sight.  The birds are singing, perched on the branches of a tree nearby, a stage under the light of a brightly lit sight.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Did you miss the part where I said I had the same understanding before I came to this forum?  I'm a Christian.  So is Rawlings.



Yeah. I suppose that's the crux of it. I guess I just thought there might be more to it than that. Sorry to bother you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Treeshepherd said:


> Breezewood,
> 
> I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.
> 
> Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.
> 
> I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.



Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, _for_ the universe. He is the Principle of Identity.

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He _is_ the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order.  It's His name, put on us as His property.

The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breezewood,
> 
> I just went on a 400 mile walk/pilgrimage/adventure in September. I came to the Pulgas Water Temple, where water from the Sierra is pumped into a reservoir for usage in the SF Bay Area. Upon the temple is inscribed a few lines of scripture from Isaiah; "I make waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, as drink for my people". I took that to heart for the next 300 miles of my walk. On a literal level, yes, it was important to find water. I had great appreciation for the water I found along the way. But, Isaiah is speaking on multiple levels. It was the living water, in a poetic sense (spiritual strength) that I needed also in order to walk 20 miles a day up and down hills with 30 lbs on my back.
> 
> Is the Christian God a physical being? I don't think you can say that's true for all Christians. I'm more of a pagan druid, but I have been educated in the Catholic faith, and they didn't teach Biblical literalism. Quite the opposite, except on a very few main points. To me, God is best described as a first principle of the universe, like the Tao, non-material, but the source of matter... and the further I go on describing God the further I get from accuracy.
> 
> I find it interesting when atheists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible,seemingly just as often as fundamentalist believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, _for_ the universe. He is the Principle of Identity.
> 
> He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He _is_ the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order.  It's His name, put on us as His property.
> 
> The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged.
Click to expand...


All this prancing around and you're a couple of fucking Jehovah's witnesses.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> So what humans are different/smarter?  So what?  Just because we are the smartest animal doesn't mean a god exists.



Didn't say it meant a God exists... Remember (again), if I could prove God exists, we're not having this conversation. So please stop assuming everything I say means I am claiming God exists. It's getting ridiculous. 

It's not that humans are smarter. It's not that humans are different. There are other animals who can do things better (smarter) than humans. There are other things that are different from humans. There is only one species like humans, with a very special set of attributes enabling what we define as humanity.



> Science has explained what a freak accident it was that we got as smart as we did....



No, science has NOT explained any such thing and neither have you. There are no "freak accidents" in science. Things can be explained through theories or they can't. This thing can't be explained by any theory. So it's no "freak accident" it's something we don't know. We can speculate. We can hypothesize. But there isn't an answer at this time. 



> and they said if all humans disappeared from earth tomorrow it is highly unlikely another animal would some day become as smart as we are.  I can't remember all the details but they did say what a fluke it was that at some point we became more intelligent than any other animal ever.



So we have this special "uber-smartness" that we can't really explain where it came from or how we got it, other than it was a fluke accident... We don't see it anywhere else in nature, no other living thing has it, and it just so happens this thing is what uniquely enables humans to explore their universe and ponder these profound questions, become inspired to answer the questions, believe in themselves as being empowered by a force greater than self which has caused exceptional advancements over other living things in the way of achievement... and it's simply a fluke accident that just so happened to occur in the roll of the dice.. no big deal? 

Nah... the bullshit meter is pegging out on that one.



> So I do understand that no other animal will probably ever get as smart as we are.  So what?  What does that prove?



I think it proves this special set of attributes human have that other living things don't, is not something that simply comes from the evolution process. This is not about simple "smartness" as I've gone over with you... if it were, we'd see where the Chimps tried to launch a rocket to the moon but were unsuccessful because they aren't as smart as humans... or the Great Apes are in Africa trying to cure Ebola but they aren't as smart as humans and are failing. We'd see dolphins and whales organizing protests to demand equal rights. We don't see this because other animals lack something besides smarts. 



> Just because you are the fastest person in a race or the smartest person on a test doesn't mean you go to heaven and other animals don't.
> 
> Spiritual foundation?  I think humans are the worse animal on this planet.  We are worse than cockroaches and rats.  We are overpopulating and destroying this planet.  If anything we are god big mistake.  Get rid of humans and this planet turns back into the garden of Eden.



THIS demonstrates why non-god-believing idiots are dangerous to humanity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Dear GT and MD:
> 
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.*
> 
> *So this is impossible.*
> 
> *The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.*



But I don't really agree with any of this for reasons that go to your faulty proven-disproven dichotomy, however, one thing at a time.

Do me a favor and take a look at this short post, *Post #2106: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999138/*.

Now keep that thought in mind as you set aside everything you ever believed to be true in this regard for the time it takes to read and absorb the following. . . .

Ultimately, the Principle of Identity is God Himself, the ground for all existence, and the expressive logic of God is impressed on our souls or minds or hearts as well. The wisdom divulged by applying this principle to our apprehensions of existence includes the knowledge of spiritual healing, what it is and how it works. An atheist can apply this very same principle and reap the rewards of spiritual healing too, though the optimal outcome in this regard and in all others is experienced by those who acknowledge the existence of God and embrace His reality.

Now the above is what I personally believe to be true as divinely imparted wisdom.  It's ultimate substance cannot currently be scientifically verified, but this does not mean that science cannot be used to systematically correlate the application of the principles of spiritual healing with the experiential outcomes thereof and compare them to the experiential outcomes for those who do not apply these principles. In other words, science can be used to systematically compile and evaluate the data accordingly.

Now let us move on to what is in fact proven by logic and by science comprehensively.

*God's existence is emphatically proven by the principle of identity (the comprehensive laws of rational and moral thought), i.e., the fundamental, organic/classical laws of thought.
*
We have an avalanche of empirical evidence to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). This is what makes us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs. Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts.

Hence, most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true empirically, not merely intuitively true. In constructive/intuitionistic logic (the logic of scientific justification), this proposition would be assigned a truth value. 

Now we come to the theological proposition of *Post #2106:* the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. _This_ proposition, of course, would be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive/intuitionistic logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.

But that's just it, no contradiction can be deduced from this proposition. Unlike the bald assertion of atheism, which unjustifiably (illogically) rules out the possibility of God's existence, it is not illogical to emphatically assert _God exists!_ That declaration, in and of itself, is not inherently contradictory or self-negating like the declaration _God is not_.

Let that sink in. Think about it.

Hence, in organic/classical logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof*:* it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies, as its logical proof is unassailable. Also, because the principle of identity universally applies in all forms of logic, the MPTA is assigned a truth value in constructive/intuitionistic logic too*:* the logically unassailable proposition itself, that is, not the theological proposition, which argues the matter in terms of actual spiritual substance.

Now at this point, I appreciate the fact that you may not understand why the transcendental argument necessarily proves God's existence under the terms of organic/classical logic, though any person with a sound, developmentally mature mind can see that this is self-evident by merely thinking the matter through.
At this point I'm just asking you to trust me or at the very least keep an open mind. Disregard the objections we've seen of late on this thread from fanatically dogmatic laymen, for these "counterarguments" _are_ in fact premises for arguments that actually prove the transcendental argument is logically true.
In other words, despite the intellectual dishonesty of some on this thread who refuse to think their arguments through to their axiomatic conclusions, learned academicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know this is true and why. This fact of human cognition is an historically well-established, centuries-old doctrine in the cannon of philosophical literature.

The following is from _Wikipedia_, which attempts to provide an unbiased summation, but is in fact inaccurate and misleading, yet illustratively instructive: "*[1]* While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, *[2]* the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."


*1.* Actually, it _always_ leads to the conclusion that God exists in organic/classical logic against any conceivable counterargument, and the logical proposition, in and of itself, universally holds in all alternate forms of logic.

Whether one accepts the premise to be ultimately true or not is immaterial. Personal biases have no bearing on the matter whatsoever. The matter is academic, as objectively premised on the fundamental laws of thought, the argument never loses. God exists!


*2.* False, contradictory and/or misleading. The author is confused. The MPTA is not merely a collection of words.

The MPTA _is_ inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof in organic/classical logic, in which the conclusion is necessarily true. Once again, God exists! It's an axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. If this were not so, nobody would care about this argument at all! The author is unwittingly interjecting the bias of metaphysical naturalism as he unwittingly conflates the logical proposition with the theological proposition.

For further clarification on the matter, click on this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

Finally, for now, carefully consider this information, digest it. Tomorrow I will address the rest of your post. Then we will be ready to look at the transcendental argument, and I will show why it never loses an argument.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> All this prancing around and you're a couple of fucking Jehovah's witnesses.



False. I'm not a JW in any way, shape for form, and neither is Justin. JW's reject the divinity of Christ and the Triune God. Stop being silly. Our beliefs are biblically orthodox, though, at this point, they are only marginally related to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof - It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but the Christian God is stated as a physical being, so there is a criteria for Christians as yourself to provide the scientific proof for that Deities being, that you have not established.
> 
> for centuries ... how much time is time enough ?
> 
> that's the point, there is a Logical proof for a God that proves it is not the Christian deity, logically and as QW and others point out logic alone is not a proof for anything only an insinuation.
Click to expand...


The Christian God of the Bible is _not_ a physical being.  What _are_ you talking about?  The Incarnate Christ?

QW's nonsense is incoherent blather, which amounts to epistemological subjectivism/relativism at the level of human apprehension as it contradictorily asserts that existence has absolute primacy over human consciousness. Which is it? If the first is true, the second is false. The man is an utter ass.

It is precisely because of  his confusion that at one point he actually thought I was arguing that human consciousness has primacy existence. I’ve never argued any such stupidity in my life.

Existence has primacy over human consciousness absolutely, and the reason we know that must be true is because the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally absolute, not relative. And his "philosophical bullshit" that the principle of identity does not universally hold is utter lunacy. 

The principle of identity necessarily holds in any given form of logic that exists today or will ever exist, as the that principle is the existentially indispensable first principle of human cognition.  If what QW and others are foolishly saying were true then how in the hell could we assert anything whatsoever, including the stupidity that all logic is insinuative, never absolute? 

Are you and he proposing something about the nature of logic as an absolute fact or not? 

Answer:  Yes, you guys are.  Your guys are arguing the absolute that all logic is insinuative only? 

But if all logic is insinuative only, then how can any assertion be absolute?

Some people are so gullible it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. 

But I don't fault you, BreezeWood, I fault the likes of QW who consciously assert subjective stupidities, mere unsupportable opinions, as if they were absolutes from on high. He knew he was lying through his teeth all along.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.
> 
> Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
> 
> Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic _Rawling’isms”_ is:
> “_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> 
> Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what _M. Pompous Rawling_ rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
> 
> I’ve noticed that _M. Pompous Rawling_ is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
> 
> 
> This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
> 
> 
> Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
> 
> 
> The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
Click to expand...


*Hollie!*  THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE.  I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS!  IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.

*LOGICAL PROOFS  ≠  SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!

AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY.  IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.

ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE  DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.

IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.

FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.  

SHUT.  UP.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .



Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.


----------



## G.T.

Behold, m.d. thinks that the law of identity can be said to BE god by.
........


Mere assertion,



And said assertion NEEDS to be true for the TAG to work,


Hence the tag is not a good rational argument for GOD because it begs the question and mpta is NOT an axiom, it is.an assertion.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.
> 
> Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
> 
> Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic _Rawling’isms”_ is:
> “_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> 
> Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what _M. Pompous Rawling_ rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
> 
> I’ve noticed that _M. Pompous Rawling_ is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
> 
> 
> This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
> 
> 
> Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
> 
> 
> The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie!*  THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE.  I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS!  IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.
> 
> *LOGICAL PROOFS  ≠  SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!
> 
> AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY.  IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.
> 
> ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE  DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.
> 
> THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.
> 
> IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.
> 
> FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.*
Click to expand...

Gargantuan text? Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to actually compose a coherent argument.

And once again, you feel a need to make these childish pronouncements that you know more than anyone else. That's typically a clue that the one making the pronouncement is actually an ignorant blowhard.

You and your Jehovah's Witness clone buddy should take a clue that your personal credibility has been used up.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
Click to expand...

Behold: the dangers of religious fundamentalism... Of the Jehovah's Witness brand.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
Click to expand...


He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ. 

Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them. 

"Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this prancing around and you're a couple of fucking Jehovah's witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I'm not a JW in any way, shape for form, and neither is Justin. JW's reject the divinity of Christ and the Triune God. Stop being silly. Our beliefs are biblically orthodox, though, at this point, they are only marginally related to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. .
Click to expand...

Does that come with a jingle?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
Click to expand...

Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms. 

Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven". 

You just need to "believe".


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.



Right on, Justin Davis.
This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
and wonder why they aren't being receptive.

1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.

You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.

That is one version of this problem.

2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.

I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.

My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
uses it to HAMMER the opposition.

It's not about winning or solving anything,
it's about beating down the other side. period.

3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.

So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
and hammer that away.

This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!

So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.

If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
and driving people away.

People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
in working WITH the people they are opposed to.

So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.

I don't think that approach can change.

I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.

If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
they might make their points better. So the human connection
factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.

The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.

It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.

I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
that we have good points to make and something is lost
in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.

But we need that connection first!

And we can't connect if we are calling each other
* boring or useless
* impossible to work with
* too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
etc.

I hope we can connect and build on that
to address all these points that are being
lost talking past each other and in circles.

I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!

I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
without having to attach insult or judgment to it.

PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
and then use that to address these points
without insulting each other or coming across that way.

It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
> 
> By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
Click to expand...


I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.

If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
and punishment.

If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.

This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.


----------



## G.T.

Emily is person of the year I.m.o.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
Click to expand...


Hollie yes and no.
1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
this CAN be proven to work
c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile

Hollie, where "faith" steps in
A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice

Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!

But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!

B. For forgiveness
Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
each case is different.

In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.

They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
So it will fail.

All the cases I have seen that worked
the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.

They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
counterintuitive!

They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
and then used that higher state of letting go
in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"

So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
We have to believe it is the better step to take
in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.

Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
that is why it requires some faith
to even try this step to see if it helps!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 
> *1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.*
> 
> *So this is impossible.*
> 
> *The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't really agree with any of this for reasons that go to your faulty proven-disproven dichotomy, however, one thing at a time.
> 
> Do me a favor and take a look at this short post, *Post #2106: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999138/*.
> 
> Now keep that thought in mind as you set aside everything you ever believed to be true in this regard for the time it takes to read and absorb the following. . . .
> 
> Ultimately, the Principle of Identity is God Himself, the ground for all existence, and the expressive logic of God is impressed on our souls or minds or hearts as well. The wisdom divulged by applying this principle to our apprehensions of existence includes the knowledge of spiritual healing, what it is and how it works. An atheist can apply this very same principle and reap the rewards of spiritual healing too, though the optimal outcome in this regard and in all others is experienced by those who acknowledge the existence of God and embrace His reality.
> 
> Now the above is what I personally believe to be true as divinely imparted wisdom.  It's ultimate substance cannot currently be scientifically verified, but this does not mean that science cannot be used to systematically correlate the application of the principles of spiritual healing with the experiential outcomes thereof and compare them to the experiential outcomes for those who do not apply these principles. In other words, science can be used to systematically compile and evaluate the data accordingly.
> 
> Now let us move on to what is in fact proven by logic and by science comprehensively.
> 
> *God's existence is emphatically proven by the principle of identity (the comprehensive laws of rational and moral thought), i.e., the fundamental, organic/classical laws of thought.
> *
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). This is what makes us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs. Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
> Hence, most scientists and philosophers hold this to be true empirically, not merely intuitively true. In constructive/intuitionistic logic (the logic of scientific justification), this proposition would be assigned a truth value.
> 
> Now we come to the theological proposition of *Post #2106:* the laws of human apprehension/thought are ultimately grounded in God. God is the universal Principle of Identity on Whom the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness (RFLCHC) are contingent. Ultimately, this is the reason for the apparent synchronization of the RFLCHC with the rest of the cosmological order. _This_ proposition, of course, would be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in constructive/intuitionistic logic until disproved by direct evidence or by deducing a contradiction.
> 
> But that's just it, no contradiction can be deduced from this proposition. Unlike the bald assertion of atheism, which unjustifiably (illogically) rules out the possibility of God's existence, it is not illogical to emphatically assert _God exists!_ That declaration, in and of itself, is not inherently contradictory or self-negating like the declaration _God is not_.
> 
> Let that sink in. Think about it.
> 
> Hence, in organic/classical logic, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is assigned a truth value as it's inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof*:* it cannot be falsified, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes it to be true. God exists! The principle of identity, the foundation of knowledge, universally applies, as its logical proof is unassailable. Also, because the principle of identity universally applies in all forms of logic, the MPTA is assigned a truth value in constructive/intuitionistic logic too*:* the logically unassailable proposition itself, that is, not the theological proposition, which argues the matter in terms of actual spiritual substance.
> 
> Now at this point, I appreciate the fact that you may not understand why the transcendental argument necessarily proves God's existence under the terms of organic/classical logic, though any person with a sound, developmentally mature mind can see that this is self-evident by merely thinking the matter through.
> At this point I'm just asking you to trust me or at the very least keep an open mind. Disregard the objections we've seen of late on this thread from fanatically dogmatic laymen, for these "counterarguments" _are_ in fact premises for arguments that actually prove the transcendental argument is logically true.
> In other words, despite the intellectual dishonesty of some on this thread who refuse to think their arguments through to their axiomatic conclusions, learned academicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know this is true and why. This fact of human cognition is an historically well-established, centuries-old doctrine in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> The following is from _Wikipedia_, which attempts to provide an unbiased summation, but is in fact inaccurate and misleading, yet illustratively instructive: "*[1]* While acceptance of this premise can lead to the conclusion that a god must exist, *[2]* the argument itself provides no demonstrated necessity to accept the premise."
> 
> 
> *1.* Actually, it _always_ leads to the conclusion that God exists in organic/classical logic against any conceivable counterargument, and the logical proposition, in and of itself, universally holds in all alternate forms of logic.
> 
> Whether one accepts the premise to be ultimately true or not is immaterial. Personal biases have no bearing on the matter whatsoever. The matter is academic, as objectively premised on the fundamental laws of thought, the argument never loses. God exists!
> 
> 
> *2.* False, contradictory and/or misleading. The author is confused. The MPTA is not merely a collection of words.
> 
> The MPTA _is_ inhabited by its own objectively demonstrable proof in organic/classical logic, in which the conclusion is necessarily true. Once again, God exists! It's an axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4. If this were not so, nobody would care about this argument at all! The author is unwittingly interjecting the bias of metaphysical naturalism as he unwittingly conflates the logical proposition with the theological proposition.
> 
> For further clarification on the matter, click on this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> 
> Finally, for now, carefully consider this information, digest it. Tomorrow I will address the rest of your post. Then we will be ready to look at the transcendental argument, and I will show why it never loses an argument.
Click to expand...


Hi MD thanks for your posts and I will keep working with YOU on this to reach people YOUR approach WILL help. This is very good, but it works for people like you and me who this speaks to.

I can see where you already lose people by step 1, with the definition of God.
Some people are not there yet, so you are way ahead of the crowd and some people
may never need or respond to this high level approach. Some people need a different way
that speaks to them and you clearly go over 98% of people's heads. I can follow
the consistency of what you say, but it's because I'm already there with you.
For those who aren't, you can't expect to start on the 99th floor and reach people on the
10th, 30th, or ground floor.

I can work with you, but we need to simplify KEY points of your argument
to reach people who don't have all this same information and experience down as you do.

You are not alone, I run into this too!
When I post about spiritual healing as proveable examples of how faith in God/forgiveness/etc works
people don't get that either because they don't think it's real and don't see the connection with proving God.

Here are two suggestions

1. First you mention Wisdom
Wisdom is a perfectly consistent interpretation and meaning that can be aligned with God
if we discuss the existence of Wisdom, how do we know what it is, how
do we recognize or agree what is Wisdom and what isn't,
then we go through the sameprocess of discussing God.

Basically we CAN'T prove that Wisdom is what it is.
We are just AGREEING to cal it that.

So to you, you are proving that God exists by proving we all agree that Wisdom is real.
And what is left to be proven is that we can all agree that Wisdom comes from the
same source as what people call or associate with God.

2. about the process

it's not so much about proving your point per se

it is about answering all the objections that come up that prevent from your point being received

this is the same thing that happens when i bring up spiritual healing
people don't get that until they see it for themselves, so i cannot convnice anyone just by stating it works

what DOES help is that when people Don't get it,
they will state WHY

So we work on that instead!

We address each objection that comes up, which is finite in number

So we WORK with the objections to resovle why we aren't agreeing

it is still the proof process but it is case by case, process of elimination

So MD 
A. your proof itself and your arguments ARE valid and VERY helpful to address people on that level
B. for people who don't get it, they are processing differently
so when people object and get stuck on point 1 or point 10,
let's address why they are stuck and help them through their own proof
which will not be like yours or mine

your proof can still trigger objections to arise to be resolved
so it has more than one purpose both A and B

Please do not get frustrated if people respond to B and not to A.
You have your audience also that needs A but I may be one of the few
and other people need B.

Thanks this should be published when you do finish connecting
with all the audience that your approach addresses. I would
love to help you and include this on a website for outreach.

Not everyone, very few will get your points but they are perfect and should be presented.

I am equally concerned for people who respond to you
using method B of answering their objections as part o ftheir own process

this is much broader, more people fit in that group
and eachperson has their own questions to resolve
so there is not one formula for that, except the forgiveness still applies

MD if you can Forgive that most people will use your proof
for B to address their own conflicts, then you can move forward and focus on A.

I will help you with Both!
I want you to publish your statements on webistes I plan for
Consensus on God so you can reach the right people.
The academic approach is key, so thank you and please publish your statements.
I will help you to reach the academic audiences and get this giong, it is too important
and you are right on target.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity ... The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order.  It's His name, put on us as His property.




are you constrained by your scripture or simply afraid to think freely ?


*
This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order.*

... of the terrestrial order - 

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
Click to expand...


He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."* 

In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.

I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are. 

It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.

Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it

In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.

You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
*
Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning.​
Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.


----------



## emilynghiem

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .



Since percysunshine GT and me seem to agree and get this point,
how can we get MD on the same page?

I think there are at least 3 things going on here to resolve
1. I think MD is focused on the end result and not the process
and not recognizing why people aren't responding to his steps of the process
as he presents it
2. the issue of recognizing the statement above actually
HELPS people to let go of barriers so we CAN form a consensus on God.
we can get to the place where MD points to, where all conflicts will be rsolved
so we reach agreement on God, but not through the ways and means as he presents it.
3. just because we cannot prove/disprove God per se
doesn't mean we can't reach a consensus on God through human means

I can see how MD is saying that we can prove God's existence in that sense
but it is not the same form as a logical argument or we'd be done by now.
the reason it takes so long to finish the proof is that all people have to follow
it in their own way and process to prove it is universal for all people.

I see we are saying the same things in different ways
A. I am saying what matters is that we FORGIVE so we can reconcile
B. PercySunshine stated it above as "getting over it" or "letting go" which is
the secular way of saying forgiving issues emotionally
C. and MD is saying that every time someone makes an absolute statement
(there is no God) then it falls to contradiction; but he is missing is that this also
applies to people like MD who makes an absolute statement there is a God
by defining God as "X" and that's going to bring up contradictions also
because some people's proof of God relies on God being Y or A or B or C
and just reconciling with other people who define God as D E  F, etc.

he is right, about running into contradictions
but to prove this, each person runs into their OWN contradictions.
it follows the VERY pattern MD points out, so he is right,
but to PROVE the pattern takes each person going through their
own version of the proof, an din theprocess, God is not just X
but also A B C , 1 2 3, X Y Z, and any number of versions for
every group or religion on the planet and every person with a different system.

not everyone is going to respond to MD assertion that God = X
God being infinite is going to be all the combinations of 
God = (fill in the blank) and the proof is coming to the agreed
understanding that all these definitions or meanings point to the same higher source.

God = unconditional or all encompassing love
God = truth or wisdom
God = life or nature
God = good will 
God = universal laws or truth, collective knowledge
God = all creation combined
etc.
all these can be aligned but not everyone
is going to understand God = X as MD defines God

thanks GT and PercySunshine

If MD and all of us can get on the same page,
he can write a book and go for person of the century,
and/or win a Nobel Prize for forming a consensus on God
through math and science. I will help him edit into layperson English,
or draw pretty pictures so his book will not be too dry! ;-)


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie yes and no.
> 1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
> 2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
> a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
> b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
> this CAN be proven to work
> c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
> and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile
> 
> Hollie, where "faith" steps in
> A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
> one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice
> 
> Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
> before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
> you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!
> 
> But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
> until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
> But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
> before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!
> 
> B. For forgiveness
> Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
> each case is different.
> 
> In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
> they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.
> 
> They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
> If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
> it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
> So it will fail.
> 
> All the cases I have seen that worked
> the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
> for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.
> 
> They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
> so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
> counterintuitive!
> 
> They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
> and then used that higher state of letting go
> in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"
> 
> So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
> We have to believe it is the better step to take
> in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
> we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.
> 
> Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
> that is why it requires some faith
> to even try this step to see if it helps!
Click to expand...


Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off! 

Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by _M. Pompous Rawling_. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by _M. Pompous Rawling_, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging _ad absurdum_. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.

In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to _reason_ that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.

This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.

Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes _knowledge_, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.

What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the _possible_ versus the _probable_, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.

There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it _probable_? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.



Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with _trust_. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do _not_ have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Click to expand...


Yep, the _uncreated creator™_, weasel.

When your claims to the supernatural are utterly vacuous, beyond reasonable expectation of support, totally bankrupt and useless for grown-up conversation, simply respond with: _" but... but... but.... but... but the uncreated creator resolves all the failures of the argument for supernaturalism"_


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Click to expand...


Hi MD:

1. Do you agree that not every defines God the same way?
So if one person assigns 2 to mean * * *
and another assigns 2 to mean * * * * *
just because you are saying "this proves 2 exists"
doesn't mean you have proven it is the same thing.
the next person can be saying 2 = something false
Like how Hollie says Christian God = made up mythical bogeyman that is used to scare people into following along

You think this doesn't matter?

A. what about people whose beliefs what God or Allah is
will kill in the name of "God's will"

Just proving "God exists by definition"
is not enough to establish a consistent understanding of God.
So what is the purpose?

You can run around telling kids in school who are struggling to use
math to get the right answers "Hey everyone! math exists! by using
symbols, we prove by definition it has value and meaning so it is real!"'
but what good does that do for students trying to learn to use the math?

I can see you using your approach to help kids who are AFRAID of
math and are rejecting it, but you show math is neutral and is just
the symbolism for Quantities that exist ANYWAY. Not everyone needs
your approach to get over the fear of math and to focus on the quantities it represents.

I think that same concept can be taught and shared without going into such deep argumetns.
Not everyone needs that.

B. Do you have any idea what is BLOCKING people
from understanding the concept you present?

You remind me of teachers who present the material
but ignore the PROCESS the students have to go through to get it and follow.

What is blocking people are conflicts in A above.

Because people have seen God = something negative
they get emotionally blocked.

MD until you address the HUMAN factor you are preaching at deaf ears or blank walls.

We have to first address what causes the rejection
of religion and God to heal the hurts causing walls and barriers!

MD can you imagine if you are trying to teach a rape victim
not to be afraid of men who remind that person of the attacker?

Do you just keep PREACHING hey you idiot
NOT ALL MEN are rapists! the science shows this.
look at the stats. More men are NOT rapists.
Not all men of that description are bad!

MD you can preach all the logic you want,
state all the stats, and that poor rape victim
is still going to avoid making contact with
people who trigger traumatic response
while they are healing from the attack.

these are human beings you are dealing with.
not machines
not math calculators

Human beings with emotional responses
who have seen much religious abuse
and have been insulted and attacked for
not understanding God and Christianity
given how this is twisted into very negative abusive mob behavior.

Can you please consider the psychology
of the people who are processing the information?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.



Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!

And of course ....



> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. *Hence, You lose*.



... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!

I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
> 
> By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
> If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
> If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.
> 
> If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
> The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
> and punishment.
> 
> If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
> This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
> when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.
> 
> This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
> Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
> and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with any of that, but there is no justice without truth.  Many will never accept truth, but will always lie.  Lying is very much like murder. Those who will lie about objective truths or lie about the nature of other's ideas, would murder those who stand for truth had they the power to do so with impunity. That's what I know about human nature and the nature of things, and that's why the followers of Christ are sheep for the slaughter.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. *Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
> 
> By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would add that Jesus represents Justice, so this can align with concepts people already have.
> If they don't believe Justice will ever come, they don't see how Jesus can be real and Salvation can ever happen.
> If they have faith that we SHOULD seek Justice, then that's the same as seeking Jesus even though we've never seen this, we still believe it is a driving force and should be reconciled with.
> 
> If people believe in retributive justice they use authority to smash and punish and reject people.
> The majority of Christians complained about are the ones that use religion for Retributive Justice, judgment
> and punishment.
> 
> If people believe in Restorative Justice they seek to reconcile, correct and make peace with people for truth and justice.
> This approach is criticized for being too soft, for forgiving wrongs which looks like enabling,
> when actually the point is to move toward correction and restitution, and using forgiveness and healing for that purpose.
> 
> This is misunderstood but Restorative Justice is the spirit of Christ Jesus.
> Most people attack the Retributive Justice approach and focus on blame for problems,
> and miss the Restorative Justice which brings healing and solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that, but there is no justice without truth.  Many will never accept truth, but will always lie.  Lying is very much like murder. Those who will lie about objective truths or lie about the nature of other's ideas, would murder those who stand for truth had they the power to do so with impunity. That's what I know about human nature and the nature of things, and that's why the followers of Christ are sheep for the slaughter.
Click to expand...

Preach it, brotha'.

Isn't martyrdom fun?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Behold, m.d. thinks that the law of identity can be said to BE god by.
> ........
> 
> 
> Mere assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> And said assertion NEEDS to be true for the TAG to work,
> 
> 
> Hence the tag is not a good rational argument for GOD because it begs the question and mpta is NOT an axiom, it is.an assertion.



It's both an axiom and an assertion.  Axioms are assertions.  Assertions may or may not be axioms, like your subject assertion or opinion stated like an absolute axiom, which flies in the face of an objective fact of reality.  And Rawlings is not arguing a divine law of identity as something that is scientifically verified.  He's arguing that the principle of identity is universally hardwired biologically.  That's an intuitive and scientific fact of neurological structure and chemistry.  He's also pointing out that this fact and the fact that the MPTA is logically true in classical logic points to God's existence.  It's just some of the evidence for God's existence.  If you don't believe this objectively derived evidence is sufficient for a belief in God nobody's holding a gun to your head, but you don't have the right to make up your own facts and pretend you don't know what he's actually saying.  Stop lying and tell the truth.  Neither Rawlings nor I have ever said that our personal conclusions from the evidence about the ultimate identity of this principle can be scientifically verified.  Mulberry tree.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.
> 
> Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
> 
> Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic _Rawling’isms”_ is:
> “_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> 
> Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what _M. Pompous Rawling_ rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
> 
> I’ve noticed that _M. Pompous Rawling_ is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
> 
> 
> This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
> 
> 
> Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
> 
> 
> The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie!*  THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE.  I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS!  IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.
> 
> *LOGICAL PROOFS  ≠  SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!
> 
> AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY.  IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.
> 
> ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE  DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.
> 
> THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.
> 
> IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.
> 
> FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gargantuan text? Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to actually compose a coherent argument.
> 
> And once again, you feel a need to make these childish pronouncements that you know more than anyone else. That's typically a clue that the one making the pronouncement is actually an ignorant blowhard.
> 
> You and your Jehovah's Witness clone buddy should take a clue that your personal credibility has been used up.
Click to expand...


It shows that you are wrong about everything.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
Click to expand...


All of you, you, Boss, dbalck, G.T. have abandoned logic and rationality, making up your own rules of logic as you go along always asserting personal, subjective opinions based on no arguments that hold up against anything objective.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> there should be a consensus for the definition of the God for it to be irrefutable as MD claims using logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, Hollie has never thought it through.  GT has and knows what I'm saying is true, but is now fibbing about it.  I know this is true because he attempted to craft an argument against it only to be shown that he had in fact logically proved it to be true by his very own argument.  At one point, GT did finally concede that, only to turn around later and fib about it just like he did again in the above.  Either GT doesn't care about telling us the truth or perhaps he's changed his mind for some reason.  In any event, you don't have to take my word on it.  Just think it through.  Anyone can see that it's true.  It's a logical proof, not a scientific proof.
> 
> In the meantime, of course, I am not the first person to understand this is true and why.  It is a well-known, centuries-old fact of human cognition in the philosophical cannon.  It's objectively and universally  true for all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind.  It's an axiom.  The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness simply do not allow us to logically deny their be any substance behind the idea of God without contradiction under the terms of the organic/classical laws of thought.  That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Hollie has thought it through. Hollie has thought it through enough to point out your dishonest attempts proving your gods with bad analogies, false comparisons and utterly silly justifications for your alleged “logical” pwoofs.
> 
> Among my favorite absurdities of yours are the laughable demonstrations of circular reasoning.
> 
> Among the moments of comedy gold that are classic _Rawling’isms”_ is:
> “_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> 
> Classic! We’re to accept that any argument contrary to what _M. Pompous Rawling_ rattles on with regarding his gods is actually an argument in support of his gods.
> 
> I’ve noticed that _M. Pompous Rawling_ is befuddled regarding his own inability to even proffer a consistent argument. He will alternately and carelessly waffles back and forth, stumbling over his confusion regarding a “logic” argument vs. a “philosophical” argument. He generally retreats to the “philosophical” weasel when his alleged logical arguments are pointed out as being amateurish and self-refuting.
> 
> 
> This is why religious fundamentalists such as Rawling tend to run screaming from actual discussion regarding the hard science and evidence they are unable to provide for their claims to magical gods and supernatural realms and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.
> 
> 
> Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.
> 
> 
> The standards of rationality, evidence and fact are the only benchmark by which we discriminate those beliefs that hold validity towards acceptance from those that do not. When we abandon these standards, when we consider them unimportant, then we will be at the mercy of any nonsensical claim that happens to come our way. We will have no standards by which to distinguish that which maintains an analog of consistency from that which does not. The result is we succumb to being at the mercy of one quasi-intellectual fad after another. This is quite common nowadays. You see people going from one cult of Eastern mysticism to a cult of psychology to later trying one of the larger organized religions and back and forth, careening off of one intellectual dead end to another. This is the logical consequence when reason is abandoned. There is no longer a grounding-point or a means of discriminating between fact and self-serving / viciously circular claims such as: "_it is readily demonstrable that any argument asserted against God's existence is in actuality a premise for an argument that invariably proves God's existence, albeit, under the terms of the fundamental laws of organic/classical thought”_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie!*  THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT IS AN AXIOM OF HUMAN COGNITION, JUST LIKE 2 + 2 = 4; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A SCIENTIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KEEP THINKING I'M SAYING.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE.  I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS!  IF I'M NOT SAYING THAT, AND I'M NOT, THEN EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IN THE ABOVE IS WRONG.
> 
> *LOGICAL PROOFS  ≠  SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!
> 
> AND SCIENCE IS CONTINGENT ON PHILOSOPHY, ONLY MORONS DON'T KNOW THAT; INDEED, EVERYTHING IN YOUR POST IS PHILOSOPHY.  IT'S BAD PHILOSOPHY, STUPID PHILOSPHY, THE PHILOSOPHY OF A RAVING LUNATIC, BUT PHILOSOPHY JUST THE SAME.
> 
> ONLY MORONS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPTUALIZATIONS (MATHEMATICAL, GEOMETRIC, LINGUISTIC . . . ) ARE NOT DERIVED FROM SCIENCE, BUT ARE DERIVED FROM THE CONTENTS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, THAT THEY NECESSARILY PRECEDE SCIENCE, THAT WE CANNOT DO SCIENCE WITHOUT THESE RATIONAL AXIOMS AND THE POSTULATES AND THEOREMS THEREOF, THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE AND DELINEATE THE METAPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF EXISTENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY PRECEDE THE  DEFINITION AND DELINEATION OF THEIR MATERIAL PROPERITES,THAT PHILOSOPHY IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH WE DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH RATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC TERMS, THAT SCIENCE ITSELF IS NECESSARILY PREMISED ONE PHILOSPHICAL APRIORITY OR ANOTHER IN TERMS OF ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS.
> 
> THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IS METHDOLOGY, NOT AGENCY; AGENCY NECESARILY PRECEDES METHDOLOGY.
> 
> IF MORONS LIKE YOU WERE THE UNIVERSAL NORM, WE’D STILL BE LIVING IN CAVES.
> 
> FURTHER NOT ONLY DO I UNDERSTAND THE NATUE OF PHILOSOHY AND SCIENCE, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, BUT I KNOW INFINITELY MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOWN ABOUT THE PERTINENT FORMAL, PHYSICAL, BIOLOGICAL, ASTRONOMICAL AND COSMOLOGICAL SCIENCES.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gargantuan text? Is that supposed to compensate for your inability to actually compose a coherent argument.
> 
> And once again, you feel a need to make these childish pronouncements that you know more than anyone else. That's typically a clue that the one making the pronouncement is actually an ignorant blowhard.
> 
> You and your Jehovah's Witness clone buddy should take a clue that your personal credibility has been used up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shows that you are wrong about everything.
Click to expand...

If you say so.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, m.d. thinks that the law of identity can be said to BE god by.
> ........
> 
> 
> Mere assertion,
> 
> 
> 
> And said assertion NEEDS to be true for the TAG to work,
> 
> 
> Hence the tag is not a good rational argument for GOD because it begs the question and mpta is NOT an axiom, it is.an assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's both an axiom and an assertion.  Axioms are assertions.  Assertions may or may not be axioms, like your subject assertion or opinion stated like an absolute axiom, which flies in the face of an objective fact of reality.  And Rawlings is not arguing a divine law of identity as something that is scientifically verified.  He's arguing that the principle of identity is universally hardwired biologically.  That's an intuitive and scientific fact of neurological structure and chemistry.  He's also pointing out that this fact and the fact that the MPTA is logically true in classical logic points to God's existence.  It's just some of the evidence for God's existence.  If you don't believe this objectively derived evidence is sufficient for a belief in God nobody's holding a gun to your head, but you don't have the right to make up your own facts and pretend you don't know what he's actually saying.  Stop lying and tell the truth.  Neither Rawlings nor I have ever said that our personal conclusions from the evidence about the ultimate identity of this principle can be scientifically verified.  Mulberry tree.
Click to expand...

Pom Pom flailing.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
Click to expand...


He's not and you're not right.  You've been shown over and over again why what you're saying can't be right or makes any sense at all.  But then again hey just go with your subjective make it up logic and pretend formal logic doesn't exist and use your "prejudiced perceptions."  So just ignore the objective facts Rawlings showed you and just make up your own facts. Great. That’s work. Not.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!
Click to expand...


You start with indefensible preconceptions that are purely subjective and think your right and say you're absolutely right. What's the difference?  We're just supposed to take your word on your crap?  The funny thing about all this is that you never back anything you say with things like facts, logic, arguments, science.  Ya got nothing like that anywhere.  All you got is misrepresentations of what Rawlings and I have said because apparently you're scared of telling the truth.  Oh, and you sneer while you say stupid things. You quote a factual statement. That quote is true.  What's the problem?


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence do exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start with indefensible preconceptions that are purely subjective and think your right and say you're absolutely right.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> If you say so.



I know so.  You're wrong about everything.  Wrong, wrong, wrong. . . .  Nothing you said in that post made any sense at all.  Do the mathematical constructs, axioms and theorems of geometry, algebra, trigonometry and calculus, and the metaphysical-ontological constructs, axioms and theorems of logic, definition, differentiation and so on......have to be established first in order to do science, before any coherent scientific methodology can be developed or established.  Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Who defined science and it's structure?  Do we get the rules of justification and inference from science? No, no, no, no, no, no. Where does all that happen? Philosophy. Philosophers did all that. The first job of philosophy is the mathematics and semantics of thought and the rules of thought that work so we don't think stupid things like you or get stupid stuff from science like you. And lots of times in history it was philosophers who detected faulty theories and badly intuited hypotheses in the physical sciences and in the biological and social sciences especially that would have otherwise wasted lots of time and energy on losers.  And what are the philosophers of science doing today? They continue to develop new mathematical paradigms and new theorems used by scientists. They also produce new forms and theories of logic to enhance scientific methodology. They also check scientists' homework to make sure faulty correlations are not being mistaken for actual cause-and-effect relationships. Scientists didn’t develop chaos theory or the mathematical foundation for quantum physics which alerted the scientists who did develop it scientifically to the possibilities. Philosophers of mathematical and conceptual theory did that. Scientists don’t do those things. Philosophers do.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. *Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit*!
Click to expand...



And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.

So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement _A_ is falsified by this: *"Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!  And of course ...."*

And empirically verifiable statement _B_ is falsified by this:  *"... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!  I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"*

I do see error of my ways though.  What's been falsified here is this statement of mine:  *"And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."*

That's all wrong.  It should read:  *"And I see the lack of  the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."*


----------



## G.T.

"God is the source of knowledge" is not objective.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know so.  You're wrong about everything.  Wrong, wrong, wrong. . . .  Nothing you said in that post made any sense at all.  Do the mathematical constructs, axioms and theorems of geometry, algebra, trigonometry and calculus, and the metaphysical-ontological constructs, axioms and theorems of logic, definition, differentiation and so on......have to be established first in order to do science, before any coherent scientific methodology can be developed or established.  Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Who defined science and it's structure?  Do we get the rules of justification and inference from science? No, no, no, no, no, no. Where does all that happen? Philosophy. Philosophers did all that. The first job of philosophy is the mathematics and semantics of thought and the rules of thought that work so we don't think stupid things like you or get stupid stuff from science like you. And lots of times in history it was philosophers who detected faulty theories and badly intuited hypotheses in the physical sciences and in the biological and social sciences especially that would have otherwise wasted lots of time and energy on losers.  And what are the philosophers of science doing today? They continue to develop new mathematical paradigms and new theorems used by scientists. They also produce new forms and theories of logic to enhance scientific methodology. They also check scientists' homework to make sure faulty correlations are not being mistaken for actual cause-and-effect relationships. Scientists didn’t develop chaos theory or the mathematical foundation for quantum physics which alerted the scientists who did develop it scientifically to the possibilities. Philosophers of mathematical and conceptual theory did that. Scientists don’t do those things. Philosophers do.
Click to expand...

Did you realize that none of tirade makes any sense?


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. *Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.
> 
> So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement _A_ is falsified by this: *"Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!  And of course ...."*
> 
> And empirically verifiable statement _B_ is falsified by this:  *"... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!  I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"*
> 
> I do see error of my ways though.  What's been falsified here is this statement of mine:  *"And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."*
> 
> That's all wrong.  It should read:  *"And I see the lack of  the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."*
Click to expand...


Hehe.... Don't piss yourself there, Rawly. I'm not saying "that empirically verifiable statement _A_ is falsified by ..."   I'm saying, you're a douchebag. I gave up on having an intelligent conversation with you several days ago.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.



Excuse me. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots. Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots? My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. *Boss* doesn’t fall into that category, by the way. Boss sincerely believes what he believes; notwithstanding, when he's wrong about things that are empirically verifiable, I will tell him so. I don't lie to people or pretend that subjective mush is absolute truth.  And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in _real _logic, the logic of God. Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate. Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off. Always has, always will. That's just the way it is.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me. But this nanny stuff in the face of the arrogance of liars and snots is tiresome.  I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots.  Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots?  My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in _real _logic, the logic of God.  Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate.  Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off.  Always has, always will.   That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

So, basically, you're just incensed that all your efforts at proselytizing have been a waste of time.

Your masters at Kingdom Hall are going to be very upset.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  *See how that works?*  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!
> 
> And of course ....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. *Hence, You lose*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!
> 
> I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I see the lack of the intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is personal bullshit out of nowhere.
> 
> So you're saying that empirically verifiable statement _A_ is falsified by this: *"Yeah, yeah. I think I'm beginning to see the genius of this approach. You start with the premise that you are right. And then, you are the winner!  And of course ...."*
> 
> And empirically verifiable statement _B_ is falsified by this:  *"... anyone who disagrees with you loses. It's brilliant!  I'm gonna start my own Church. TAG is the shit!"*
> 
> I do see error of my ways though.  What's been falsified here is this statement of mine:  *"And I see the lack of intellectual integrity of a womanish, limp-wristed, shrewish old lady whose responses to things that are obviously objectively logical, historical and academic, not subjective opinion, and therefore, things that may be empirically verified is personal bullshit."*
> 
> That's all wrong.  It should read:  *"And I see the lack of  the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hehe.... Don't piss yourself there, Rawly. I'm not saying "that empirically verifiable statement _A_ is falsified by ..."   I'm saying, you're a douchebag. I gave up on having an intelligent conversation with you several days ago.
Click to expand...




So a douchebag is someone who is being civil to you, allowing that your definitions are fine, respectfully answers your questions, and gives you credit for having more expertise than him about the philosophy of mind?  And the guy who out of nowhere goes postal Hollie and calls him a "fucking idiot" because he couldn't understand something is not the douchebag.  Yeah, that makes sense.  I wanted to get into that with you as well and see what you could teach me too but not after seeing that.  You are one messed up dude.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest whatsoever in convincing liars and snots.  Let them be liars and snots. As Justin pointed out earlier, who in their right mind wastes any time on trying to convince liars and snots?  My comments to the liars and snots only goes to exposing them to be liars and snots from time to time when it suits my purpose. And there is in fact poetry and music and beauty and passion in _real _logic, the logic of God.  Subjective mush is the garbage of pride and arrogance and deceit and hate.  Garbage in, garbage out, and the exposure of people's garbage pisses them off.  Always has, always will.   That's just the way it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically, you're just incensed that all your efforts at proselytizing have been a waste of time.
> 
> Your masters at Kingdom Hall are going to be very upset.
Click to expand...




The only ones incensed around here are the free thinking atheists who like to think of themselves being superior to everyone and don't like a theist proving  that theism is rational and atheism is irrational.  Yeah I get that psychology. Look on this thread and what you see is hateful atheists who talk about very little else but personal garbage.


----------



## LittleNipper

From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004: A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's _Philosophy Now_ magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," [atheistic webpage author Richard] Carrier said [infidels.org]... A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.


----------



## LittleNipper

*God* *created* *man* in His own *image*, in *the image of God* He *created* him; male and female He *created* them.

Every painting has a painter. Every sculpture has s sculptor. Every book has a author. Every cake has a baker. Every clock has a maker. Every machine has an engineer/designer.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

LittleNipper said:


> From: Associated Press, "Famous Atheist Now Believes in God", ABC News, 9 December 2004: A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives... "[God] could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification"... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew... Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's _Philosophy Now_ magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote... Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," [atheistic webpage author Richard] Carrier said [infidels.org]... A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.



Yep. Abiogenesis is pipedream:  Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
Click to expand...


Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth. 

This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris. 

I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> That's all wrong.  It should read:  *"And I see the lack of  the intellectual integrity of a perpetual little boy, albeit, a girlish, petulant little snot still in diapers whose responses to things that are objectively logical, historical, academic and, therefore, empirically verifiable is the baby talk of tizzy fits."*




what is distressing is that then you and Davis revert to your Christianity with the same furver of irrationality you accuse everyone else of.


proving God  =/=  Christianity

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
Click to expand...




emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
Click to expand...


The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.

The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.

An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.

Word.

And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.

Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.

But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
Click to expand...


It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> *The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline.*


QFT


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.



Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.



> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.



You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?

We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.   
But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.

But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems. 

There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.

There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!

In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.

Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.

Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!

Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.



So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
Click to expand...

I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.

I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.

I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.

I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
Click to expand...


You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.

Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.

The only thing that can *know* truth is God.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
Click to expand...


And, Zeus as god of the gods will lead us to ultimate twoof.


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
> 
> You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?
> 
> We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see that dogs are getting A LOT smarter?  It is no surprise.  Not only do the smarter dogs do better as far as breeding goes, it only makes sense that their intelligence would be accelerated because they live so close with us intelligent humans.  They watch us, listen to us give them commands and they understand them.  How long before dogs can talk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dogs can talk now. I have a friend who's dog says "Roll Tide!" when Alabama scores. Clear as day, I've seen it dozens of times. Crows can describe to another crow (through crow language) what an individual posing a danger looks like and the other crow consistently avoids these individuals they have never even seen before.
> 
> Again, my point remains intact. All kinds of living organisms are supposedly evolving in this natural cycle of evolution, intelligence, sentience, ability... they all have their share. Cognizance, reasoning, rationalization... many of them have that as well. Big brains, big cerebral cortex? Some have that as well. All the ingredients are there in the same primordial soup, but of all the billions of life forms ever to exist, humans are unique and different. There is no evidence it "evolved" into us, it has always been present in humankind.
> 
> Yes, dogs are going to become "smarter" and so is every other life form, if you believe in anything Darwin theorized at all. And I think most everyone can agree this is so, but until I see dogs attending Sunday School or leading mass, I don't think they have achieved the same level of spiritual awareness (inspiration for humanity) as humans... (sorry Breeze, I know you disagree with this.) Humans continue to have something that other living things don't have, and that is our spiritual foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what you fail to recognize boss is the Lions Spirit has evolved accordingly with its founding whereas your Spirit has evolved to a disposition of self interest - as per religious order the Lion has the ( natural ) affinity for Admission to the Everlasting that humanity has  lost.
> 
> Spiritually speaking boss, you are bankrupt.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I always say if horrible humans get to go to a heaven, why not sweet innocent loving dogs and cats? 

I think the reason is that back in the day when primitive man was making all this god and religion stuff up someone must have asked what happens to the animals "souls" and the guy making it all up had to explain it away so he said god put the animals on earth for us.

Soooooo obviously man made up the whole fucking thing.  I'm not mad or angry or evil about it.  I just like telling people the truth when they don't know it.  It's like knowing a secret and wanting to tell everyone.  But not a secret that is harmful to others.  I'm sure theist don't think their cult is harmful in fact they get great joy out of going and think heaven awaits after.  What a great scam!  Like a Fraternity.  They promise friendship and everlasting membership.  For life at least.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, Zeus as god of the gods will lead us to ultimate twoof.
Click to expand...


Boss says it is because we have always believed in "something" that this something must be true.  

Do you see how little evidence they need?  Then he'll go off on basically a tangent that since we don't know everything, his wild and crazy theories have some merit.  Yet Christians all disagree.  They may agree with the overall premise that a god(s) exist, but they don't agree with anything he's saying.  Boss can't even show me one site where someone other than him uses his logic.  

Yet notice how Boss is just as sure as the Muslim, Jew & Christian?

But that's ok because no one has ever killed over generic god.  The only problem is these puny humans believe the Mo, Jo & Jesus stories from the past.  They are still only using a very small portion of their brains obviously.  

I believe as more atheists and generic god believers exist the more the dummy/religion gene is going to be bred out of us.  I hope anyway.  The bible belt remember just 20 years ago they all had that red neck hick accent?  It's almost gone now.  You hardly ever hear a red neck talkin hicky anymore.  Maybe their stupid religion will become outdated too.  I mean they are Americans.  They do have the net.  They can't be that far behind us.  

Anyways, Boss' argument is just a little more intelligent and thought out than my 70 year old dad's argument that anyone who thinks all this happened by itself is stupid.  Ok dad.  I'll listen to you and your ancestors and not science.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.










I agree with Rawlings - the Apex of Knowledge is assailable and correctly accomplished foretells the acceptance into the Everlasting - as judged by the Almighty.

including the necessary physical attributes for ascension.

.


----------



## Treeshepherd

Justin Davis said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doctrine is one aspect of religion.
> 
> IMO, the most important aspect of religion is practice. Practice, first and foremost. The whirling dance of the Sufi, the Zen Koan, the many paths of Yoga, contemplative prayer, chanting of scripture, etc... Contrary to this notion that religion is all about filling the mind with dogma, practice is designed to empty the self. These practices can short-circuit our habitual patterns of thought, and allow for the demolition of the biased mental constructs (ego-self) we have erected over the years. Practice can open up the heart, and make the self vulnerable, and receptive to esoteric truth.
> 
> It's interesting (to me anyway) that the oldest extant scrap of NT scripture is a tiny fragment with two readable words on it: Pilate and Veritas (Truth). Therefore, we know that this is from the Gospel of John, where Pilate asks Christ, "What is Truth?"
> Jesus stand before him, and remains silent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only other person I've encountered who perceived the significance of Jesus's silence in the face of Pilot's question.  I can hear the sound of the pin dropping in the that moment of silence all over again. I'm sure others have heard "the sound" the pin makes as well, for it's rocket science after all.  But it is a "sound"  that one must slow down long enough to "hear."
> 
> By the way, Jesus is the universal Principle of Identity, the Logos, the ground of the logic and the wisdom in our minds to which I am speaking.
Click to expand...


I'm very interested in the concept of Logos'. The Word. It's sort of like before life existed on Earth, there already existed an instruction for life to exist, and then it became matter in the physical form of DNA strands. 

The Word Incarnate. You can think of God as an instruction. Let there be light, and it was so, and most importantly, it was good!  

The Cosmic Christ, the Tao, Dharma, Logos, that's good stuff. 

And then you've got Mythos, which would pertain to your Christianity, and my Druidic path. 

St Augustine once wrote that the City of God  is built with temporary scaffolding. The scaffolding (culture and religion) will ultimately be removed when the law is written on our hearts. He is saying that the end game of Christianity is a harmonious anarchy. 

Man is not yet man. But the future of man is shaped by a temporary scaffolding, whether that be cast in atheism, or Christianity, or paganism, or otherwise. 

The atheist seeks salvation in science and technology, and is more inclined toward transhumanism.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
Click to expand...


Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?  

I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?  

P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.

And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.

Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.  

More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.

There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
Click to expand...


Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.

What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
due to people or conflicts from the past.

You and I may be able to put that aside.
But some people need more time,
and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.

One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.

We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.

I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.

MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
to focus on these points.

But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.

You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
But to get there, we NEED to go through this
emotional hashing out.

You are doing it, too.

I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.

So if that is the role you play, that's fine.

Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.

We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.

You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.

I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.

What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.

MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?

You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.

You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.

Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
by working with them?

Maybe that's not your gift, MD.

Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.

Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
steps to let go and resolve objections.

My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.

MD it may take longer than you think.

Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride.  Things I say
that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
cause us both to yell at each other.

And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.

We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.

MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
we need to be and we're not there yet.

How is frustration going to help?

The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.

So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
to become "more objective"
and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.

How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
with a bunch of people who don't know each other?

Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.

If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.

Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
where we can improve and hear each other better!

Take care,
With love and respect,
Yours truly, Emily


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
> This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.
> 
> What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
> all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
> due to people or conflicts from the past.
> 
> You and I may be able to put that aside.
> But some people need more time,
> and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.
> 
> One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
> HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
> demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
> he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.
> 
> We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.
> 
> I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
> I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.
> 
> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.
> 
> But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
> because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.
> 
> You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
> But to get there, we NEED to go through this
> emotional hashing out.
> 
> You are doing it, too.
> 
> I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
> and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.
> 
> So if that is the role you play, that's fine.
> 
> Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.
> 
> We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.
> 
> You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.
> 
> I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.
> 
> What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
> and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.
> 
> MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
> It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?
> 
> You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.
> 
> You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
> But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
> or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
> I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.
> 
> Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
> by working with them?
> 
> Maybe that's not your gift, MD.
> 
> Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.
> 
> Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
> steps to let go and resolve objections.
> 
> My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
> and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
> what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
> not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.
> 
> MD it may take longer than you think.
> 
> Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
> to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride.  Things I say
> that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
> cause us both to yell at each other.
> 
> And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
> And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.
> 
> We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.
> 
> MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
> including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
> we need to be and we're not there yet.
> 
> How is frustration going to help?
> 
> The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
> We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.
> 
> So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
> to become "more objective"
> and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.
> 
> How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
> with a bunch of people who don't know each other?
> 
> Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
> time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
> coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.
> 
> If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
> maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.
> 
> Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
> where we can improve and hear each other better!
> 
> Take care,
> With love and respect,
> Yours truly, Emily
Click to expand...


So what the preacher apologized?  What did he apologize for?  Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back?  Why would anyone want to go back?  So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing.  LOL.


----------



## sealybobo

Don't you hate those math or music teachers who don't understand that you are not getting it?  I run a music school and this teacher one day was trying to explain how there are only 7 notes, a, b, c, d, e, f, g and how that means something!  I was like, "really?  what?"  

I understand there are only 7 chords, but what is the "ah hah! moment?  I don't get it.  And I saw him trying to explain it to some kids and I don't think they got it either however we all just nodded and said we got it and he seemed to be pleased.  But like the math teacher, how many of his pupils are just nodding because they don't want to admit they don't really get it?


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> proving God  =/=  Christianity
> 
> .



Dear Breezewood:
Yes and no.
Although proving God by consensus on meaning is not limited to Christianity,
the FORGIVENESS taught in Christianity and the Spiritual HEALING
are the central key to resolving conflicts standing in the way.

As Hollie brought up, she pointed to the issue of TRUST.
So as we forgive and heal of trust issues in the past, and we rebuild trust
with each other, the truth will come to resolution among us, working it out.

We can't get there if we don't forgive and work with the process to establish
truth and restore good working relations as part of the same process.

Breezewood, since you do not seem to have experience with Christian Spiritual Healing,
may I send you the books (Healing by Francis MacNutt and The Healing Light by Agnes Sanford)
that explain how spiritual healing is natural and the way our minds and bodies are designed, to self-heal.

The books explain that to unlock the process, the key is to find obstructions that are blocking
the mind and body from receiving natural healing energy that normally flows and circulates.
So that is why we have the 12 step recovery and therapy after traumas to heal these blockages.
That is why the Christians teach deliverance and generational healing to stop passing down
things like racist hatred or cycles of addiction or abuse from one generation to the next "in the spirit."

Can I send you these references?

Since you are coming from a neutral position where you do not favor or push Christianity,
I think it would help to see how you respond to this, and how you would explain it to others
who are not Christian and have no interest, belief or favor/bias toward Christianity.

My friend Daron HATES Christianity, does not trust anyone with that "agenda"
and yet the spiritual healing freed him from chronic rage from abuse from his father and grandmother.
He still have to go through more stages to fully heal on all levels, but at least the demonic rage is gone
that prevented him from moving forward.

I'd like your opinion on this, since you seem open to the more universal levels of
spirituality.

I find that the concepts and principles in Christianity ARE key to healing humanity,
one relationship at a time, but the process is so universal that it is not limited to just the
Christian way of teaching it. 

The same process of establishing truth, peace and justice (which God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit represent)
still work by Forgiveness and Healing even if you are an Atheist like my friend Daron.

My friend Ray Hill also teaches "abundance of free grace" and forgiveness to heal the mind and stay sane,
and he is an Atheist. He works WITH Christians who can deal with him, but if they can't, he doesn't push it
but stays away.

So the same CHRISTIAN concepts are central to the process,
but the language and expression can vary, such as in Buddhism, Atheist and other Nontheistic views and approaches.

So the process of reaching a consensus on God and Jesus
still relies on Christianity, but it is not the end in itself.

You cannot "magically" get there just by being Christian, saying you are,
saying magic words or performing rituals.

the key is FORGIVENESS and each person has a different path for doing that.
Christ Jesus represents the fulfillment of this path, but it will not be expressed
in Christian terms for people like Daron, Ray and others who are secular Gentiles and understand natural laws.

I hope you can understand this Breezewood.

The Bible says the gate of righteousness is very narrow, and few shall find it.

For some reason it is a hard concept for people to understand:
how can Christianity be the one way, central to all people,
and yet also fulfill all paths
where ALL ways lead to the Kingdom of God or spiritual peace and truth?
So all ways are MADE right, and they all will work,
yet Christ is the one way that allows this to come about.

how can it be both?
If you can understand, that is the key.

I hope you get it, Breezewood, because if you do,
I think you will be able to explain to more people better than I can.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
> This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.
> 
> What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
> all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
> due to people or conflicts from the past.
> 
> You and I may be able to put that aside.
> But some people need more time,
> and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.
> 
> One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
> HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
> demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
> he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.
> 
> We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.
> 
> I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
> I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.
> 
> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.
> 
> But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
> because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.
> 
> You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
> But to get there, we NEED to go through this
> emotional hashing out.
> 
> You are doing it, too.
> 
> I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
> and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.
> 
> So if that is the role you play, that's fine.
> 
> Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.
> 
> We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.
> 
> You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.
> 
> I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.
> 
> What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
> and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.
> 
> MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
> It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?
> 
> You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.
> 
> You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
> But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
> or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
> I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.
> 
> Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
> by working with them?
> 
> Maybe that's not your gift, MD.
> 
> Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.
> 
> Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
> steps to let go and resolve objections.
> 
> My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
> and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
> what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
> not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.
> 
> MD it may take longer than you think.
> 
> Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
> to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride.  Things I say
> that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
> cause us both to yell at each other.
> 
> And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
> And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.
> 
> We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.
> 
> MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
> including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
> we need to be and we're not there yet.
> 
> How is frustration going to help?
> 
> The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
> We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.
> 
> So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
> to become "more objective"
> and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.
> 
> How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
> with a bunch of people who don't know each other?
> 
> Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
> time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
> coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.
> 
> If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
> maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.
> 
> Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
> where we can improve and hear each other better!
> 
> Take care,
> With love and respect,
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what the preacher apologized?  What did he apologize for?  Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back?  Why would anyone want to go back?  So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing.  LOL.
Click to expand...


There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.

The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.

The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.

If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.

The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."

He has to go through it himself.

So it is best he work alone.

I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.

Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.

We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
or talk past each other.  But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
and picking them apart one by one.

My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection.  He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.

I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!

I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.

(What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.

Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
Click to expand...


Dear Sealybobo:
Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?

Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> "God is the source of knowledge" is not objective.



Dear GT and Sealybobo:
Are you OK with God's truth = sum or collective set of all knowledge and laws in the universe?

Is that neutral enough, to talk about the collective set of all truths = universal truth?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, Emily, they think its about winning an argument rather than following the truth.  I person who will not follow the truth of the logical wisdom God has given us, whether he thinks God put it into us or just nature, cannot be trusted.  That person is useless.  He is bore as long as he continues to lie to himself and others.  Read post 2020.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
> This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.
> 
> What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
> all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
> due to people or conflicts from the past.
> 
> You and I may be able to put that aside.
> But some people need more time,
> and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.
> 
> One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
> HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
> demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
> he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.
> 
> We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.
> 
> I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
> I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.
> 
> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.
> 
> But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
> because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.
> 
> You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
> But to get there, we NEED to go through this
> emotional hashing out.
> 
> You are doing it, too.
> 
> I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
> and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.
> 
> So if that is the role you play, that's fine.
> 
> Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.
> 
> We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.
> 
> You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.
> 
> I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.
> 
> What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
> and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.
> 
> MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
> It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?
> 
> You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.
> 
> You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
> But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
> or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
> I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.
> 
> Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
> by working with them?
> 
> Maybe that's not your gift, MD.
> 
> Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.
> 
> Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
> steps to let go and resolve objections.
> 
> My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
> and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
> what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
> not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.
> 
> MD it may take longer than you think.
> 
> Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
> to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride.  Things I say
> that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
> cause us both to yell at each other.
> 
> And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
> And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.
> 
> We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.
> 
> MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
> including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
> we need to be and we're not there yet.
> 
> How is frustration going to help?
> 
> The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
> We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.
> 
> So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
> to become "more objective"
> and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.
> 
> How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
> with a bunch of people who don't know each other?
> 
> Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
> time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
> coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.
> 
> If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
> maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.
> 
> Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
> where we can improve and hear each other better!
> 
> Take care,
> With love and respect,
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what the preacher apologized?  What did he apologize for?  Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back?  Why would anyone want to go back?  So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
> He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.
> 
> The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
> His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.
> 
> The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
> but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
> other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.
> 
> If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.
> 
> The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
> a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
> healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
> not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."
> 
> He has to go through it himself.
> 
> So it is best he work alone.
> 
> I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.
> 
> Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
> is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.
> 
> We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
> or talk past each other.  But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
> and picking them apart one by one.
> 
> My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
> has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
> as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
> hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection.  He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.
> 
> I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
> it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!
> 
> I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.
> 
> (What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
> to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.
> 
> Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)
Click to expand...


What I don't like about theists is they think I need to work something out when I don't.  So I get the feeling maybe Daron is just fine.  All he needs to do is stay away from churches.  LOL.

What issues does Daron have?  Please don't say he's angry or bitter because so are a lot of religious people.  

And does Daron believe in god but just doesn't like organized religions?  Many people say they are "atheists" but what they are is mad at god because someone in their family died or because their prayer wasn't answered.

I had some bad experiences with organized religions.  I admit it helped me shape my belief or opinion that there is no god.

That's right righties I said it is my belief or opinion!  Sue me.  LOL.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie yes and no.
> 1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
> 2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
> a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
> b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
> this CAN be proven to work
> c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
> and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile
> 
> Hollie, where "faith" steps in
> A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
> one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice
> 
> Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
> before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
> you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!
> 
> But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
> until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
> But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
> before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!
> 
> B. For forgiveness
> Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
> each case is different.
> 
> In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
> they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.
> 
> They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
> If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
> it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
> So it will fail.
> 
> All the cases I have seen that worked
> the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
> for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.
> 
> They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
> so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
> counterintuitive!
> 
> They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
> and then used that higher state of letting go
> in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"
> 
> So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
> We have to believe it is the better step to take
> in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
> we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.
> 
> Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
> that is why it requires some faith
> to even try this step to see if it helps!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
> 
> Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by _M. Pompous Rawling_. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by _M. Pompous Rawling_, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging _ad absurdum_. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to _reason_ that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.
> 
> This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.
> 
> Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes _knowledge_, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.
> 
> What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the _possible_ versus the _probable_, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.
> 
> There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it _probable_? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with _trust_. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do _not_ have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.
Click to expand...


Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
up and entangled ourselves in.

A. RE: *Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off! *
If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.

I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of  just blaming angry Christians in general
which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.

BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
I think that is good enough.
I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.

We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
thanks for this!

B. as for TRUST issues
how can we help MD to TRUST the process
and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.

Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.

He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.

Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?

Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.

MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!

Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that, 
something is wrong with those people!

obviously some processing going on....

Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
but ALSO cannot be disproven.

If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin Davis.
> This problem is different for each person, but basically yes, people get so caught up in defending
> the part they KNOW is true, they step on the people they are trying to convince of this
> and wonder why they aren't being receptive.
> 
> 1. With MD I see his points are correct, but you can't well go around insulting other
> people or their viewpoints and expect them to respect you or yours.
> MD is like a logical machine that misses the human factor.
> 
> You can be the best mathematician in the world, but if you can't reach your students
> or people can't understand your books, your points are lost to them.
> 
> That is one version of this problem.
> 
> 2. with some people the emotionalism and rejection of the opposition just gets out of hand.
> 
> I think Hollie is so caught up in reacting to "angry Christians"
> she can't even talk about solutions. She is still venting and protest the problem.
> 
> My friend Daron is like this. He just wants to harp and rail against
> Conservative Christians he blames for being dangerously imposing, mean and screwing things up
> where he doesn't care if he screws things up the same way,
> or his Democrat Party screws things up, he just takes that side and
> uses it to HAMMER the opposition.
> 
> It's not about winning or solving anything,
> it's about beating down the other side. period.
> 
> 3. There are those who only see their opposition is correct,
> but don't see, understand or believe in a bigger solution that could work at the same time.
> 
> So instead of pushing the solution, they just focus on their part of the answers
> and hammer that away.
> 
> This is okay in correcting PART of the problem as long as they
> don't make the mistakes in #1 and #2 above and chase away
> or shut down the very people you are trying to share this knowledge or insight with!
> 
> So some of it is just not seeing the bigger picture.
> Some people can make this mistake but don't have the
> emotional barriers going on as in scenario #1 and #2.
> 
> If we can fix the problems by approaching it as #3 then we don't
> have to place judgment on people, criticizing them for being emotional
> and driving people away.
> 
> People like Hollie and Daron my friend don't see any benefit
> in working WITH the people they are opposed to.
> 
> So they have no motivation to change how they present their views.
> All they want to do is hammer at the opposition.
> 
> I don't think that approach can change.
> 
> I think the key is finding people like maybe you and I think
> MD is workable with, if Boss can help who is workable with,
> and try to WATCH how we say things, REMEMBERING that
> people are human, and will defend their honor and their beliefs.
> 
> If MD and Boss did not come across so insulting to other people,
> they might make their points better. So the human connection
> factor is missing. The points are there but are lost because
> MD and Boss come across as telling people they are wrong and need to change.
> 
> The internet is very hard to communicate through without coming across
> as imposing. So that is another factor we are up against.
> 
> It has taken years, but  have managed to connect with people even
> though online communication isn't perfect and we come across wrong.
> 
> I hope you can help work with Boss and MD so we
> can connect personally. If we can develop that trust
> that we have good points to make and something is lost
> in communication, we can fix all those problems in the process.
> 
> But we need that connection first!
> 
> And we can't connect if we are calling each other
> * boring or useless
> * impossible to work with
> * too angry or too irrational to listen to reason
> etc.
> 
> I hope we can connect and build on that
> to address all these points that are being
> lost talking past each other and in circles.
> 
> I am sure, without a doubt, everyone here has valid
> points and objections or we wouldn't be trying so hard to make them!
> 
> I will ask you and dblack to please help me work with
> MD and Boss so we can communicate. And maybe
> GT who seems to respond when something makes sense,
> without having to attach insult or judgment to it.
> 
> PratchettFan and Asaritis seem to stay objective,
> and Derideo_Te and Sealybobo understand that
> I am not trying to be negative or rejecting but
> include and work with people. Hollie doesn't get that
> yet but they do. So we can build a connection,
> and then use that to address these points
> without insulting each other or coming across that way.
> 
> It's very hard online, so anything we can do is quite an accomplishment!
> Please don't give up on MD and Boss, as they have good points
> and just come across poorly compared to the content they have to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem I have with this, Emily, is that _objectivity_ means _objectivity_. It goes to the discipline of being able to back out of one's personal paradigm so that one can accurately apprehend what another believes and why, from premise to conclusion, and, in this case, apprehend the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin without bias as they come at one.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that very few people have that discipline, and atheists are notoriously dogmatic. The reason for that is that atheism is sheer dogma from its irrational premise to its science-distorting conclusion.
> 
> An objective assessment of "The Five Things," for example, clearly demonstrates that they all hold true, but one cannot fully appreciate the objective fact of *number 4*, the necessity of an infinitely and absolutely perfect divinity and, therefore, apprehend the subsequent ramifications of the principle of identity, until one is willing to openly and honestly concede that (1) the laws of thought hold that atheism is irrational and that (2) the idea of God is in the atheist's mind _because_ of the fact of the cosmological order's existence and for no other reason whatsoever. In other words, the idea of God is held to be a rational potentiality by the atheist in his own right. And the unflinching acknowledgment of these two facts of human cognition must be fully embraced by one (whether one be a theist, an agnostic or a atheist) if one is to have an unobstructed view of reality via the logical principle of identity.
> 
> Word.
> 
> And because persons like Pratchett, in spite of what you mistakenly believe to be true about him, Hollie, dblack, G,.T., Derideo_Te, Sealybobo, Boss and others . . . refuse to unflinchingly acknowledge the totality these facts of human cognition, they keep going around and around and around the mulberry tree.
> 
> Pratchett is _not_ a person of the discipline of objectivity at all. None of these people are. Pratchett utterly refuses to understand that the cosmological order _is_ the evidence for God's existence.  That's lunacy!  He insists that there is no objective evidence for God's existence, though he never once defined what, according to him, objective evidence is. Apparently, the idea of God he kept going on about is in our minds for no reason at all.  It's clear, however, that he thinks objective evidence is physical evidence, in spite of the fact that commonsense and any unabridged dictionary demonstrates that objective evidence can be either rational or empirical.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that everyone of these people know these two things are true, but refuse to acknowledge them because that acknowledgement destroys everything they've always held to be true, and virtually everything they claim to believe in this regard is sheer subjective mush stated as if it were from on high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MD. Your arguments are fine, and yes the issue is objectivity and I see you have whittled this down to the core.
> This is good, and I am not trying to dismiss or say any of this is not important as key points.
> 
> What I'm saying is even when we KNOW what we need to do,
> all people have personal pet peeves and feelings about these things
> due to people or conflicts from the past.
> 
> You and I may be able to put that aside.
> But some people need more time,
> and it makes it worse to jump on them for it.
> 
> One of my closest friends, who depends on me as the only person he can discuss these things with
> HATES Christianity because of the group abuse he went through with a local church that
> demonized him in front of everyone. Even when the pastor reached out and apologized afterwards,
> he was TOO AFRAID to go back there.
> 
> We all know it is better to reconcile and heal, but sometimes people can't handle that.
> 
> I don't know the stories of all the people here, but some seem so sensitive about right and wrong,
> I'm sure the wrongs done in the name of religion are going to be a sore spot, just like my friend Daron.
> 
> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.
> 
> But please do not reject that response as obstructionist
> because it is NECESSARY to talk this out.
> 
> You think the endpoint is the goal, and that's fine.
> But to get there, we NEED to go through this
> emotional hashing out.
> 
> You are doing it, too.
> 
> I asked you to "drop the fear and recognize the process"
> and you still feel "more comfortable" HAMMERING your points out.
> 
> So if that is the role you play, that's fine.
> 
> Maybe my role is to walk with each person through their own process.
> 
> We will end up on an agreeable point when we finish.
> 
> You see your points and I agree those do need to be focused on.
> 
> I also see PercySunshine and GT agree on a key point and that's great.
> 
> What I can offer is to help us all through this "hashing out" process
> and try not to kick anyone off the jousting beam.
> 
> MD: It is ONE thing to point out "people are not being objective"
> It's ANOTHER thing to talk through what is the cause of the block?
> 
> You don't seem to recognize that is a valid part of the process.
> 
> You remind me of math teachers who just wanted everyone to get the right answer.
> But if there were kids in class who still used the handwritten math and not calculators,
> or they used an abacus or some other means of working out the steps,
> I say to let each person work it out their way because they have the right to their process.
> 
> Maybe you don't trust people to get to the same place
> by working with them?
> 
> Maybe that's not your gift, MD.
> 
> Please stick to your points, and keep working with me and others who are with you on that.
> 
> Please do not be frustrated if people have to go through more
> steps to let go and resolve objections.
> 
> My friend Daron has been working on this issue for years,
> and some steps take 10 YEARS to get to where he already knew
> what the answer was. But he had to get there on ALL LEVELS,
> not just knowing the answer but accepting and working WITH it.
> 
> MD it may take longer than you think.
> 
> Some people like Daron may NEVER get over their aversion
> to Christians, so I just have to take that in stride.  Things I say
> that should have been taken objectively hit a sore spot and
> cause us both to yell at each other.
> 
> And we are good friends who have known each other since 1991 I think.
> And we still cannot talk about this stuff O B J E C T I V E L Y.
> 
> We have to go through a process, and it is gradual.
> 
> MD please know, these people on here are the finest I have found,
> including you. You are frustrated because you know and you see where
> we need to be and we're not there yet.
> 
> How is frustration going to help?
> 
> The more I push and yell at my friend Daron, he clams up or yells back to defend himself.
> We generally don't disagree, we just aren't ready for the same steps.
> 
> So if it takes us 5 to 10 years to get through each step of "letting go"
> to become "more objective"
> and we KNOW each other and trust each other's intentions to be honest.
> 
> How do you expect to suddenly get somewhere overnight
> with a bunch of people who don't know each other?
> 
> Sorry MD. I hope you can learn to have more patience, and use this
> time to try to listen to what other people are saying and GET where THEY are
> coming from, right or wrong, that's their frame of reference.
> 
> If you can try to understand what other people are saying,
> maybe they will try harder to let go and understand you.
> 
> Don't give up, but let go and let the process show us
> where we can improve and hear each other better!
> 
> Take care,
> With love and respect,
> Yours truly, Emily
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what the preacher apologized?  What did he apologize for?  Sorry the members in my church are all assholes please come back?  Why would anyone want to go back?  So either your friend can go find another church and hope they aren't kooks or he can do the right thing and just forget the whole religion thing.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a huge travesty between Daron and someone close to one of the ministers.
> He would not apologize, because it involved him and the other person, and he did not feel he owed anything to anyone else.
> 
> The pastor and church basically denounced Daron as Satan or Antichrist himself.
> His actions were deplorable, but he is redeemable and that did not encourage any steps in the right direction.
> 
> The pastor or minister/preacher offered to apologize and mend the relations
> but of course Daron does not trust any church that is convinced they have the ONLY way and all the
> other churches, Christians, Catholic Church, nonchristians, etc. are lost and wrong.
> 
> If you ask me, they BOTH have issues.
> 
> The issues run so deep they need to handle them separately and it is a disaster to try to go through
> a process together when their paths are so different. Daron uses a mix of Buddhism and secular type
> healing and logic to go through his steps of agreeing to let go. He is not going to respond to anyone,
> not even me a good friend he respects and trusts to have his best interests at heart, "telling him what to do or think."
> 
> He has to go through it himself.
> 
> So it is best he work alone.
> 
> I have other friends who can only work alone, or they clash with people pushing.
> 
> Even though online communication isn't perfect, one advantage it offers
> is hashing things out with people who need to work things out logistically on their own, their own way.
> 
> We can still use it for that, and just have to forgive when we step on each other
> or talk past each other.  But it's great for spelling out multiple issues that stack up,
> and picking them apart one by one.
> 
> My friend Daron uses music with very poetic lyrics, though some of the venting songs are hard metal harsh language,
> has written a short script to spell out all his issues in one rant so he can act it out through film (and not really go off in real life
> as he wanted to use it for a stage performance, for therapy to get it out of his system, his anger at religious fundamental
> hypocrites telling people to go to hell when they are the very epitome of that), and has a book he wants to write on his open ended views, similar to Buddhism, but he hasn't totally let go yet. He still fights for conditions that he wants met, and isn't totally detached or objective but still reacting because he still has forgiveness and trauma issues from past abuses that may never fully heal. They may always have some sensitive scar tissue, so any pushing at all, even when he knows I am not like the people he hates, is going to trigger those defense mechanisms and rejection.  He may always be that way, like a Pit Bull who can go off at any moment and cannot help if there is a trigger insider.
> 
> I think he can heal but it has to be on his terms. So whatever books or films he wants to produce,
> it has to be his way and nobody can tell him "he needs to edit or change this" or he'll blow up!
> 
> I think that is his best course of self-therapy to talk it out and heal it as he expresses his grievances and lets go.
> 
> (What MD cannot understand is how people need to do this, to go through their own process on their terms
> to get to a better place. You can't rush the process. They need to take the steps themselves when it's time for that.
> 
> Like telling a kid to quit crying, but maybe that kid NEEDS to cry, to release the stress first.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I don't like about theists is they think I need to work something out when I don't.  So I get the feeling maybe Daron is just fine.  All he needs to do is stay away from churches.  LOL.
> 
> What issues does Daron have?  Please don't say he's angry or bitter because so are a lot of religious people.
> 
> And does Daron believe in god but just doesn't like organized religions?  Many people say they are "atheists" but what they are is mad at god because someone in their family died or because their prayer wasn't answered.
> 
> I had some bad experiences with organized religions.  I admit it helped me shape my belief or opinion that there is no god.
> 
> That's right righties I said it is my belief or opinion!  Sue me.  LOL.
Click to expand...

There are so many levels, not sure I can list them all.
Here are some, which stacked on top of each other over years and years of not resolving any of these:

1. Daron went through childhood and spiritual abuse from a VERY sick grandmother who was like Exorcist movie evil.
2. He suffered some criminal attacks on him that could have resulted in homicide because he could not control his rage this caused him.
3. He took out his rage during the 80s in a death metal band, and went through all the drugs, wild women, dark influences,
etc. that goes with that cultural time period. He should have been dead as most of his buddies have lost their health,
and he is in recovery where his doctors wonder how he is still alive with all the damage and toll on his body, mind and health.
4. He joined a church that had him memorize the Bible and teach THEIR way which is very exclusive.
It is a smaller group of a few thousand members worldwide, not JW, not any of the major ones like LDS or Church of Christ etc. but it was enough to make him give up and reject it when he decided it was all for naught.
(however, my friend Ray Hill who gave up preaching Baptist Christianity as a preacher at 19 who went atheist
has NO problem teaching forgiveness and grace, and working with Christians. he memorized the Bible also, and has no problem with people being whatever path they are. He follows Buddhism and is more detached and at peace than Daron.)
5. bad relations - he went through some very bad traumas with his dad's death and his ex-wife and his daughter.
So all this stacked on top of the others.

So telling him "he needs to forgive" is easier said than done.
The damage was on so many levels, it will take healing all those levels, which can take years.

Once you unplug the sink, there's still all the plumbing that needs to be cleared out also.

I think if people KNEW how hard it was to make these changes,
they'd have more respect.

They wouldn't call anyone names, for sure!

If MD think these people need to let go, maybe he should try NOT thinking negative
thoughts of these people. if he can't let go for two seconds to think NEUTRALLY toward others,
how can he preach to people who will need YEARS of steps and stages before they can let go?

Not fair to judge people.
Lot harder than you think.


----------



## dblack

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie yes and no.
> 1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
> 2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
> a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
> b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
> this CAN be proven to work
> c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
> and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile
> 
> Hollie, where "faith" steps in
> A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
> one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice
> 
> Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
> before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
> you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!
> 
> But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
> until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
> But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
> before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!
> 
> B. For forgiveness
> Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
> each case is different.
> 
> In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
> they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.
> 
> They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
> If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
> it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
> So it will fail.
> 
> All the cases I have seen that worked
> the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
> for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.
> 
> They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
> so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
> counterintuitive!
> 
> They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
> and then used that higher state of letting go
> in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"
> 
> So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
> We have to believe it is the better step to take
> in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
> we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.
> 
> Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
> that is why it requires some faith
> to even try this step to see if it helps!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
> 
> Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by _M. Pompous Rawling_. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by _M. Pompous Rawling_, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging _ad absurdum_. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to _reason_ that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.
> 
> This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.
> 
> Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes _knowledge_, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.
> 
> What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the _possible_ versus the _probable_, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.
> 
> There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it _probable_? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with _trust_. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do _not_ have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
> If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
> up and entangled ourselves in.
> 
> A. RE: *Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off! *
> If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
> If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.
> 
> I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of  just blaming angry Christians in general
> which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.
> 
> BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
> I think that is good enough.
> I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.
> 
> We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
> be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
> thanks for this!
> 
> B. as for TRUST issues
> how can we help MD to TRUST the process
> and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.
> 
> Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
> even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
> you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.
> 
> He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
> And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.
> 
> Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?
> 
> Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
> and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.
> 
> MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
> He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
> This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!
> 
> Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that,
> something is wrong with those people!
> 
> obviously some processing going on....
> 
> Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
> that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
> God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
> but ALSO cannot be disproven.
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
Click to expand...


I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.

Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
Click to expand...


What do you mean?


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God is the source of knowledge" is not objective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and Sealybobo:
> Are you OK with God's truth = sum or collective set of all knowledge and laws in the universe?
> 
> Is that neutral enough, to talk about the collective set of all truths = universal truth?
Click to expand...


I'm ok with Truth it's when you call it God's truth that I have a problem.  Stop putting god in the sentence and we can discuss these truths.  What are they?


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie yes and no.
> 1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
> 2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
> a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
> b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
> this CAN be proven to work
> c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
> and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile
> 
> Hollie, where "faith" steps in
> A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
> one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice
> 
> Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
> before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
> you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!
> 
> But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
> until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
> But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
> before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!
> 
> B. For forgiveness
> Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
> each case is different.
> 
> In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
> they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.
> 
> They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
> If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
> it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
> So it will fail.
> 
> All the cases I have seen that worked
> the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
> for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.
> 
> They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
> so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
> counterintuitive!
> 
> They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
> and then used that higher state of letting go
> in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"
> 
> So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
> We have to believe it is the better step to take
> in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
> we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.
> 
> Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
> that is why it requires some faith
> to even try this step to see if it helps!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
> 
> Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by _M. Pompous Rawling_. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by _M. Pompous Rawling_, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging _ad absurdum_. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to _reason_ that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.
> 
> This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.
> 
> Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes _knowledge_, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.
> 
> What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the _possible_ versus the _probable_, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.
> 
> There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it _probable_? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with _trust_. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do _not_ have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
> If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
> up and entangled ourselves in.
> 
> A. RE: *Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off! *
> If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
> If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.
> 
> I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of  just blaming angry Christians in general
> which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.
> 
> BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
> I think that is good enough.
> I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.
> 
> We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
> be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
> thanks for this!
> 
> B. as for TRUST issues
> how can we help MD to TRUST the process
> and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.
> 
> Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
> even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
> you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.
> 
> He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
> And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.
> 
> Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?
> 
> Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
> and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.
> 
> MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
> He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
> This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!
> 
> Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that,
> something is wrong with those people!
> 
> obviously some processing going on....
> 
> Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
> that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
> God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
> but ALSO cannot be disproven.
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.
> 
> Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.
Click to expand...


Maybe because they see how "they" use god to manipulate and keep the masses down?  Or how they use it to divide us.  

And you THINK they are definitely real "things"?  You don't seem so sure to me.  

And do I have to believe or go to hell?  If not no big deal that I don't believe in gods, right?

Your reply is exactly the level of thought most people who believe in generic god put into it.  No different from our primitive superstitious and uneducated ancestors who made it up in the first place.  

Then "they" took the concept of god and formed churches and wrote books full of lies to use on us and they have been successful for thousands of years. 

Maybe we do view religions as the enemy.  That's why we attack the source of their stupidity.


----------



## Treeshepherd

We've talked a bit about Logos and Mythos. Logos could be described as creative will, order from chaos, Providence, destiny,etc. 

Mythos would be cosmology. 

The third element would be Oikos. The is where we derive the prefix -eco, as in 'ecology' and 'economy'. Literally, Oikos is home, but much more than just a location, or place to stash our stuff. Oikos pertains to having a sense of place, and belonging, deep identification, something sacred, as represented by The Shire in the LotR.

Logos is connected to Oikos, which is connected to Mythos and each of these 3 elements have a simultaneous relationship with the other two.

Absolute truth 'exists', unmanifest, in Logos. In the manifest realms of Oikos and Mythos, truth is not absolute, nor relative, but relational. 

In the nativity story, we have the diviners of mythos, the wise men, and also the tenders in the wilderness, the shepherds, all of them following the star of Bethlehem, becoming witness to the Word Incarnate. That story describes this vertical truth I'm getting at. 

The linkage between Logos, Oikos and Mythos, we call the Great Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, or The Force if you're some kind of badass Jedi. 

Is that a syllogistic argument? It isn't a proof. There is no proof. There is faith and experience. There is knowledge, which is merely a tool for predicting what will happen if I add 2 and 2, or iron and oxygen. Knowledge deals with making predictions in the profane world, and Mythos deals with what we can say about the sacred.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.
> 
> Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because they see how "they" use god to manipulate and keep the masses down?  Or how they use it to divide us.
> 
> And you THINK they are definitely real "things"?  You don't seem so sure to me.
Click to expand...


I'm not. What's your point?



> And do I have to believe or go to hell?  If not no big deal that I don't believe in gods, right?



Yep. No big deal.



> Your reply is exactly the level of thought most people who believe in generic god put into it.  No different from our primitive superstitious and uneducated ancestors who made it up in the first place.



Exactly?



> Maybe we do view religions as the enemy.  That's why we attack the source of their stupidity.



Seems that way.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.
> 
> Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because they see how "they" use god to manipulate and keep the masses down?  Or how they use it to divide us.
> 
> And you THINK they are definitely real "things"?  You don't seem so sure to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do I have to believe or go to hell?  If not no big deal that I don't believe in gods, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. No big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply is exactly the level of thought most people who believe in generic god put into it.  No different from our primitive superstitious and uneducated ancestors who made it up in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we do view religions as the enemy.  That's why we attack the source of their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems that way.
Click to expand...


My argument isn't with people like you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.



No. I understand you perfectly. I always have. So you figured wrong. *I'm able to be objective*. Your beliefs are held in sincerity, with a good heart and a good intent. But many of them are still wrong, especially this notion of yours *that I reject your idea *that "individuals have individual perspectives", that different people "believe 'proof' in different ways", though your expression of the latter idea is unclear. People routinely regard alleged proofs differently, due to any number of factors, including ignorance*:* a lack of understanding, a lack of thought, a lack of information, a lack of intellectual honestly. Also, they might be.

Individuals believe/understand things in different ways, *but that does not mean that we don't also recognize the very same, objectively self-evident imperatives regarding the problems of existence and origin. These imperatives are universally understood because we all do in fact have the same fundamental understanding of these things and many other things via objective logic, evidence and proof, which overturns the bulk of what you have been mistakenly arguing on this thread!*

We all recognize and hold that the intuitive, fundamental axioms and tautologies of human cognition are necessarily true. Don't tell me that's not true. It _is_ true. That is a fact of human cognition: for example, *2 + 2 = 4*.

It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else imagines that this idea is not ultimately true outside of our minds. That is not the issue and never has been!

That's why even the atheists on this thread are looking at you cross-eyed, wondering what in the world is wrong with you, even though they themselves lose sight of this pertinent distinction about virtually everything else.

It doesn't matter if you or anyone else imagines that when one puts two apples in a basket in the world one believes to exist outside one's mind and then puts two more apples in that same basket and sees that one now has four apples in that same basket that none of this is ultimately real or not. What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!

That is just one of the innumerable convictions of human consciousness that is universally held to be objectively true as based on the very same foundation of logic, evidence and proof.

The fact of the matter is that this latest post of yours more accurately describes the reality of things than the others who have written so far.

It is _not_ correct to equate logic with knowledge, is it? Logic is a tool, something used to extract knowledge. Logic is _not_ the knowledge extracted.
The apprehension of the laws of thought *is* knowledge. However, the idea that knowledge and logic are the same thing is false, which is something you had been saying/thinking in the past, and this thinking confused your understanding of things.

Nevertheless, this false notion of yours that we can only believe truths, but not know truths, remains nonsensical and is in any event irrelevant to what matters to us. 

To be continued. . . .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Boss says it is because we have always believed in "something" that this something must be true.
> 
> *Do you see how little evidence they need*? Then he'll go off on basically a tangent that since we don't know everything, his wild and crazy theories have some merit. Yet Christians all disagree. They may agree with the overall premise that a god(s) exist, but they don't agree with anything he's saying. Boss can't even show me one site where someone other than him uses his logic.



Actually, what he's saying is that we can only _believe_ truths; we cannot _know_ truths. He's not saying that what one might believe about any given thing must necessarily be true just because it's true to one. I _know_ in _truth_ what he's trying to say, but the way he's _thinking_ and _expressing_ a certain truth is false and, therefore, incoherent and contradictory. This confusion is causing him to miss the totality of the truth he _does_ rightly understand. Justin grasps the essence of Boss' logical error when he says that Boss is so very close to the realities of human cognition, yet misses the mark.

Ultimately, what Boss is really saying is that individual humans perceive or experience the various aspects of existence differently, that there is always a subjective element regarding the things experienced by all. Also, there are things that individuals have perceived or experienced that others have not. That is obviously *true, *ironically, something Boss not only *believes* to be true, but *knows* to be true!

We all *believe* and *know* this to be true!

See the problem? He remains confused: the obvious contradiction—the inherent and obvious negation!—in what he keeps saying.

This truth regarding the intimately *subjective* aspects of human experience from individual to individual *does not* negate *the fact *that there remains a host of things that we all *believe* and *know* to be *objectively* true: things that are *absolutely* and *universally* true, including the understanding that there is a subjectively experiential element of human cognition from individual to individual.

What is the essence of Boss’ confusion that Justin gets at a glance?

Boss tells us what it is in his own words: "The only thing [or person] that can *know* truth is God."

No. This is obviously not true. Boss is actually thinking _God would be the only One Who could possibly know everything and this is why we, finite minds, often get things wrong_. But we all *believe* and *know* that the reason this sometimes happens for us is not because our logic is necessarily wrong, but because our data is wrong or incomplete.

In other words, it does not follow that just because we don't know everything that we can't know anything. Non sequitur. For the fact that we *know* we *don't know *everything is proof positive that we do in fact *know* something: we *know* we *don't know* everything. That is something we all *believe* to be true and we all *know *to be true, and there are many, many other things we all *believe* to be trueand we all *know* to be true.

*Boss*, snap out of it! You’re freaking us all out. You know you're wrong about this. Just let it go, drop it. Be free of it. Put down that glass of Kool-Aid, and step away from that substance. Turn around and walk away. Instead, get milk. Drink that, unless you're lactose intolerant. If so, get water. Drink whatever you like, but don't drink that Kool-Aid anymore.

If in some unimaginably coherent way or another the things we universally *believe* and *know *to be true are, ultimately, not true, so what? We wouldn't know any better.  That's just the way it is!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Boss says it is because we have always believed in "something" that this something must be true.
> 
> *Do you see how little evidence they need*? Then he'll go off on basically a tangent that since we don't know everything, his wild and crazy theories have some merit. Yet Christians all disagree. They may agree with the overall premise that a god(s) exist, but they don't agree with anything he's saying. Boss can't even show me one site where someone other than him uses his logic.



I ignored the rest of your post about a claim you think can be easily dismissed without having any real knowledge about the historical or theological facts or without making a coherent counterargument.  There are good reasons to believe that Jesus is the Christ, God incarnate, but for the moment that is not the material issue before us.

_*Your*_ acknowledgement of the fact that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated demonstrates that (1) you *know* the existence of the cosmological order is *the* pertinent evidence for God's existence, that (2) you *know* this is the basis for the idea of God that is in *your* mind, that (3) you *know*, though most atheists refuse to openly and honestly admit the obvious, that atheism is, therefore, an irrational assertion from the jump.

You think to deny that there be any substance behind the idea of God that's in *your *mind because of the cosmological order's existence with the very same logic that tells you *why* the potentiality of the substance behind this idea that is in *your* mind cannot be logically ruled out.

The atheist contradicts himself every time he asserts anything about the idea of God that is in *his* mind because of the cosmological order's existence, or absolutely asserts something about anything else for that matter. So the same logic atheists think to use, though incoherently, is the very same logic that negates the cogency of their premise. Got milk? Got "the derp-derp logic" (G.T.) of special pleading?

It is these obvious, logically derived truths of human cognition that makes *dblack* call me a "fucking idiot", not that I am, of course, rather, because he doesn't like the fact that his ultimate belief, as opposed to *his beliefs* about the idea of God and *why* it's in his mind, are based on something that is irrational; that is, I piss him off because I'm the guy who keeps pointing out to him that this obvious fact of human cognition is logically true, the thing he refuses to emphatically acknowledge sans all the evasive or dissembling rhetoric.

The atheist demands that we all abide by the imperatives of the fundamental laws of human thought (the principle of identity, comprehensively), just like you demand that Boss abide by them in the above, and rightly so, but refuse to emphatically acknowledge certain things accordingly.

This theist has no problem with emphatically stating what the fundamental laws of thought tell us as applied to the contents of human consciousness—wherever these things may lead, without bias—and, as you say, most Christians do not agree with Boss' notion that human consciousness has primacy over existence*:* so who are these *they* you're talking about? On the contrary, it would appear that *they* (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in *their* heads.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.
> 
> Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because they see how "they" use god to manipulate and keep the masses down?  Or how they use it to divide us.
> 
> And you THINK they are definitely real "things"?  You don't seem so sure to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not. What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do I have to believe or go to hell?  If not no big deal that I don't believe in gods, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. No big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reply is exactly the level of thought most people who believe in generic god put into it.  No different from our primitive superstitious and uneducated ancestors who made it up in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe we do view religions as the enemy.  That's why we attack the source of their stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My argument isn't with people like you.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, though I wouldn't say I'm necessarily on your 'side'. I've known 'born-again' atheists, and I'm sympathetic the anger and resentment that many of them feel. Especially if they've been raised with the arguably delusional beliefs of many modern religions.

But I think it's a mistake to write off gods and religious faith as fiction. At the very least, gods are powerful ideas that inspire and work their "will" in the minds of followers. That's not nothing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*


*Emily and Boss:*

I have already proven what we all *believe *to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.

* 
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
*3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
*5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.

*(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)*

The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal *beliefs* that are held to be necessarily true about reality as *knowledge*.

The only item on that list that has raised some eyebrows is *number 4*, insofar as the details of divine attribution are concerned. While I have already demonstrated why *number 4 *logically holds, I'm step-by-step responding to Emily's concerns, beginning with the fact that God’s existence _is_ proven by the organic/classical laws of thought! In other words, there _does_ exist an absolute logical proof that is not merely an evidentiary proof predicated on the existence of the universe or on the axioms of modal logic, which is the logic of possibility and necessity.
.
All of the other classical proofs for God’s existence are evidentiary in nature. That does not mean that they fail as so many, including the OP, mistakenly believe. Even some theists, unaware of the incontrovertible nature of the Transcendental Argument, have assumed that these arguments fail just because the voices of the maddening crowd of popular culture say so. The understanding behind those voices is based on the misconception that only absolute proofs in terms of ultimacy matter. Wrong! Every one of the classical arguments are compelling evidentiary proofs that support the conclusion that God must be, and the Transcendental Argument _is_ both an evidentiary proof and an absolute proof. It's the only one that is both. Hence, it is the most powerful.

That *(1)* God's existence cannot currently be verified by science, which is what some of you are actually thinking or actually mean when you say that God's existence *cannot be proven or disproven*, is _not_ the same idea that *(2)* God's existence cannot be proven! This is an example of folks tricking themselves into believing something that is not necessarily true or does not necessarily follow.

The Transcendental Argument holds absolutely!  It cannot be refuted or relegated to the status of an indirect or evidentiary proof!

It proves that God exists!  Period.  End of thought.

When some of you say that this is not an ultimate proof (as I have said in the past, in truth, in order to move some toward an epiphany they were not ready to embrace), what some are really saying is that *(1)* the absolute proof with an incontrovertible truth value in organic/classical logic is a fact of human cognition after all, just like *2 + 2 = 4*, and *(2)* is a valid, albeit, might or might not be true proposition in constructive/intuitionistic logic, while *(3)* science is limited to the data of the phenomenal realm of being.

See how we sometimes talk ourselves into believing things that aren't really there?

(Of course, some are still telling themselves that it is I who has talked himself into believing something that's not true, in spite of the fact that the understanding that the TAG is an absolute proof in organic logic is a well-established doctrine in the literature and that they themselves could see why this is true if only they would allow themselves to think through!)

In other words, we know something organically that neither alternate-world forms of logic nor science divulges with absolute certainty. Yes, I know, folks want to scoff without bothering to think the TAG through to it's inescapable conclusion or contemplate on this fact of human cognition. But let us consider the implications for a moment. We don't merely have an organic impression about God as Creator that cannot be logically ruled out, but an organic axiom that God _does_ exist!

Now onto concerns about infinity, perfection, eternity and so on. . . .


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*
> 
> 
> *Emily and Boss:*
> 
> I have already proven what we all *believe *to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
> 
> *(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)*
> 
> The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal *beliefs* that are held to be necessarily true about reality as *knowledge*.
> 
> The only item on that list that has raised some eyebrows is *number 4*, insofar as the details of divine attribution are concerned. While I have already demonstrated why *number 4 *logically holds, I'm step-by-step responding to Emily's concerns, beginning with the fact that God’s existence _is_ proven by the organic/classical laws of thought! In other words, there _does_ exist an absolute logical proof that is not merely an evidentiary proof predicated on the existence of the universe or on the axioms of modal logic, which is the logic of possibility and necessity.
> .
> All of the other classical proofs for God’s existence are evidentiary in nature. That does not mean that they fail as so many, including the OP, mistakenly believe. Even some theists, unaware of the incontrovertible nature of the Transcendental Argument, have assumed that these arguments fail just because the voices of the maddening crowd of popular culture say so. The understanding behind those voices is based on the misconception that only absolute proofs in terms of ultimacy matter. Wrong! Every one of the classical arguments are compelling evidentiary proofs that support the conclusion that God must be, and the Transcendental Argument _is_ both an evidentiary proof and an absolute proof. It's the only one that is both. Hence, it is the most powerful.
> 
> That *(1)* God's existence cannot currently be verified by science, which is what some of you are actually thinking or actually mean when you say that God's existence *cannot be proven or disproven*, is _not_ the same idea that *(2)* God's existence cannot be proven! This is an example of folks tricking themselves into believing something that is not necessarily true or does not necessarily follow.
> 
> The Transcendental Argument holds absolutely!  It cannot be refuted or relegated to the status of an indirect or evidentiary proof!
> 
> It proves that God exists!  Period.  End of thought.
> 
> When some of you say that this is not an ultimate proof (as I have said in the past, in truth, in order to move some toward an epiphany they were not ready to embrace), what some are really saying is that (1) the absolute proof with an incontrovertible truth value in organic/classical logic is fact of human cognition after all, just like 2 + 2 = 4, and (2) is a valid, albeit, might or might not be true proposition in constructive/intuitionistic logic, while (3) science is limited to the data of the phenomenal realm of being.
> 
> See how we sometimes talk ourselves into believing things that aren't actually there?
> 
> In other words, we know something organically that neither alternate-world forms of logic nor science divulges with absolute certainty. Yes, I know, folks want to scoff without bothering to think the TAG through to it's inescapable conclusion or contemplate on this fact of human cognition. But let us consider the implications for a moment. We don't merely have an organic impression about God as Creator that cannot be logically ruled out, but an organic axiom that God _does_ exist!
> 
> Now onto concerns about infinity, perfection, eternity and so on. . . .



_ M. Pompous Rawling_ also commands the French forces at Waterloo when he's not busy pwoofing gawds with the silly, and thoroughly discredited TAG argument.


----------



## dblack

All shall yield before the holy wrath of the five things!


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> What I don't like about theists is they think I need to work something out when I don't.  So I get the feeling maybe Daron is just fine.  All he needs to do is stay away from churches.  LOL.
> 
> What issues does Daron have?  Please don't say he's angry or bitter because so are a lot of religious people.
> 
> And does Daron believe in god but just doesn't like organized religions?  Many people say they are "atheists" but what they are is mad at god because someone in their family died or because their prayer wasn't answered.
> 
> I had some bad experiences with organized religions. * I admit it helped me shape my belief or opinion that there is no god.*
> 
> That's right righties I said it is my belief or opinion!  Sue me.  LOL.



But, sealybobo, surely you appreciate the problem with allowing irrelevant factors to shape a belief about such an important thing or about any thing for that matter.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*
> 
> 
> *Emily and Boss:*
> 
> I have already proven what we all *believe *to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
> 
> *(Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)*
> 
> The fact that virtually everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal *beliefs* that are held to be necessarily true about reality as *knowledge*.
> 
> The only item on that list that has raised some eyebrows is *number 4*, insofar as the details of divine attribution are concerned. While I have already demonstrated why *number 4 *logically holds, I'm step-by-step responding to Emily's concerns, beginning with the fact that God’s existence _is_ proven by the organic/classical laws of thought! In other words, there _does_ exist an absolute logical proof that is not merely an evidentiary proof predicated on the existence of the universe or on the axioms of modal logic, which is the logic of possibility and necessity.
> .
> All of the other classical proofs for God’s existence are evidentiary in nature. That does not mean that they fail as so many, including the OP, mistakenly believe. Even some theists, unaware of the incontrovertible nature of the Transcendental Argument, have assumed that these arguments fail just because the voices of the maddening crowd of popular culture say so. The understanding behind those voices is based on the misconception that only absolute proofs in terms of ultimacy matter. Wrong! Every one of the classical arguments are compelling evidentiary proofs that support the conclusion that God must be, and the Transcendental Argument _is_ both an evidentiary proof and an absolute proof. It's the only one that is both. Hence, it is the most powerful.
> 
> That *(1)* God's existence cannot currently be verified by science, which is what some of you are actually thinking or actually mean when you say that God's existence *cannot be proven or disproven*, is _not_ the same idea that *(2)* God's existence cannot be proven! This is an example of folks tricking themselves into believing something that is not necessarily true or does not necessarily follow.
> 
> The Transcendental Argument holds absolutely!  It cannot be refuted or relegated to the status of an indirect or evidentiary proof!
> 
> It proves that God exists!  Period.  End of thought.
> 
> When some of you say that this is not an ultimate proof (as I have said in the past, in truth, in order to move some toward an epiphany they were not ready to embrace), what some are really saying is that (1) the absolute proof with an incontrovertible truth value in organic/classical logic is fact of human cognition after all, just like 2 + 2 = 4, and (2) is a valid, albeit, might or might not be true proposition in constructive/intuitionistic logic, while (3) science is limited to the data of the phenomenal realm of being.
> 
> See how we sometimes talk ourselves into believing things that aren't actually there?
> 
> In other words, we know something organically that neither alternate-world forms of logic nor science divulges with absolute certainty. Yes, I know, folks want to scoff without bothering to think the TAG through to it's inescapable conclusion or contemplate on this fact of human cognition. But let us consider the implications for a moment. We don't merely have an organic impression about God as Creator that cannot be logically ruled out, but an organic axiom that God _does_ exist!
> 
> Now onto concerns about infinity, perfection, eternity and so on. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ M. Pompous Rawling_ also commands the French forces at Waterloo when he's not busy pwoofing gawds with the silly, and thoroughly discredited TAG argument.
Click to expand...


It is not  pompous to point out objective facts of thought that belong to us all.  It's as if you're saying he's claiming to be the cause of these things.  I think it's pompous to imply that you are the creator of something that does not and cannot make these things go away.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. It's best we abandon logical connections and rational approaches to  examination of natural processes. In fact, we need to abandon a great many conventions of reason and rationality to accept magic, supernaturalism and spirit realms.
> 
> Just believe what I tell you is true. I'm here to help, protect and guide you. Really, I am. And for your belief (plus a monetary gift that will allow me and the gods to look favorably on you), I can guide you to everlasting salvation and "heaven".
> 
> You just need to "believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hollie yes and no.
> 1. we use the proof system that MD presents to deal with that level of logic
> 2. we use the scientific proof to address what we can prove, such as
> a. spiritual healing using the very methods taught in Christianity
> b. healing effects on political and religious institutions in the real world
> this CAN be proven to work
> c. proof of the correlation between forgiveness in healing and reconciliation
> and the correlation between unforgiveness and inability to heal or reconcile
> 
> Hollie, where "faith" steps in
> A. in order to SEEK justice and carry it out,
> one must BELIEVE it is possible first or you wouldn't try to establish justice
> 
> Another example: One must BELIEVE there is a right answer to a math problem
> before you set out to get there; if you didn't BELIEVE a problem could be solved,
> you wouldn't bother in the first place. So of course you'd never solve it!
> 
> But TECHNICALLY you do not always KNOW or PROVE it can be solved
> until AFTER you solve it and show the answer.
> But you couldn't get that answer if you waited on proof it existed first
> before you took the steps to prove it! You would go in circles!
> 
> B. For forgiveness
> Even though it has been SHOWN That forgiveness allows healing and correction,
> each case is different.
> 
> In each case that someone forgave first, so they could solve the problems afterwards,
> they had to act on FAITH that the forgiveness would work and would not be abused.
> 
> They couldn't know this in advance, before they chose to forgive.
> If the forgiveness is "dependent" on the condition that X Y or Z results,
> it doesn't work. it is conditional forgiveness and not real forgiveness and letting go.
> So it will fail.
> 
> All the cases I have seen that worked
> the person took a Leap of Faith and forgave in advance,
> for the sake of healing in itself, and then got the answers afterwards.
> 
> They did not get the answers first, and then forgive afterwards.
> so it is not always logical but can seem backwards or
> counterintuitive!
> 
> They forgave first, restored their peace of mind,
> and then used that higher state of letting go
> in order to solve the problems "after they forgave"
> 
> So forgiveness takes a leap of faith.
> We have to believe it is the better step to take
> in order to ask for it; and then afterwards
> we see the reasons and logic that follow from there.
> 
> Because it seems backwards or counterintuitive
> that is why it requires some faith
> to even try this step to see if it helps!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off!
> 
> Firstly, We clearly don't use the "pwoof" system used by _M. Pompous Rawling_. Those are not pwoofs at all but as admitted to by his pom pom flailing groupie, explicit admissions of promoting fundamentalist Christian dogma. If you have read through the Pwoofs of gods offered by _M. Pompous Rawling_, you'd see pretty quickly it's question begging _ad absurdum_. Begging the question already destroys the argument, because one must demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before one can appeal to it to supply a rationale for something to be in effect.
> 
> In clear and sharp contrast to regurgitating fundie dogma, It is precisely our ability to _reason_ that brings the mysterious to understanding. You may have eternal "faith" in the sun rising and travelling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.
> 
> This brings us to the next level of the fundamentalists' argument, which is that truth is arbitrary in any event-- ultimately, one must have faith in a particular, partisan version of god(s) to have knowledge, or ability to perceive knowledge in the first place.
> 
> Rebutting the latter assertion is easy, because no one can claim with any hope of being taken seriously that there is ultimately no such thing as knowledge. The assertion itself contradicts its own premise, since if it's true, then it becomes _knowledge_, and the assertion dies. If it is not true, then it needn't be considered.
> 
> What is comically tragic about the lies and deceit furthered by the two, primary apologists in this thread is the twisted and skewed basis for their claims to magic and supernaturalism. Many apologists have grappled long and hard on the issue of faith, and ultimately none of them have worked out the inherent dilemma that faith is, in fact, the acceptance of assertions regardless of factual evidence. What they have done instead is focused on the _possible_ versus the _probable_, and this has confused the issue to a degree that many philosophers, both theists and rationalists, can no longer define the difference.
> 
> There has long been the argument that unless we have a totality of knowledge (i.e., omniscience), we cannot know for sure whether their is a god or not, or whether there are realms of existence other than our own. Are such things possible? Well, since we don't have omniscience, we are forced to say, "yes, they are possible." The question is not whether something as irrational as god is possible, but is it _probable_? Given the evidence of all of nature that surrounds us, the answer is no.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I think you trample the divide that separates faith and trust. What we must understand about faith is that it is often confused with _trust_. The theist usually argues that we have faith in things all the time; for example, we have faith that gravity will keep us from flying off the planet, or we have faith in friends, or doctors, etc. We do _not_ have faith in these things, we have trust in them, and we have trust in them as long as they continue to warrant that trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie: Thank you for your reply. I think you hit the nail on the head with the TRUST issue.
> If we can even overcome TRUST issues here, that process is enough to unravel these other knots we've tied
> up and entangled ourselves in.
> 
> A. RE: *Emily. Please stop being so gawd-damn nice. It's pissin' me off! *
> If I'd rather make you mad for that reason, rather than offend you for other reasons.
> If I offend you for any reason, will you please point out specifically so I can correct the problem.
> 
> I would like to be as specific as possible, and not this business of  just blaming angry Christians in general
> which does address where and what is going wrong. I really do want to address and correct each point.
> 
> BTW as long as we can connect on this level, talking personally one to one,
> I think that is good enough.
> I think anything else can be addressed within that connection.
> 
> We won't agree on a lot of things, but if there is anything that CAN
> be corrected, it will be by connecting on a personal level where we really hear each other.
> thanks for this!
> 
> B. as for TRUST issues
> how can we help MD to TRUST the process
> and TRUST people to be following along and working out the steps.
> 
> Hollie can you find some points in MD lists that you CAN agree to address,
> even one, and just focus there? If he practices talking with you on something
> you both agree with, maybe start with that before taking on other points more complicated.
> 
> He and also Justin "don't trust" that you intend to follow any logic or something like that.
> And I know you don't trust them except to push their agenda.
> 
> Can we start with something we DO trust is true and a universal point of focus?
> 
> Even if it is just a commitment to answer and address each other SPECIFICALLY
> and not go off on calling people derogatory adjectives.
> 
> MD is still doing that, so obviously he still needs to vent before being objective!
> He is not completely neutral himself if he has to attach negative remarks.
> This is why I cannot understand why he can't get that other people need to vent too!
> 
> Why is it okay for HIM to vent off topic, but if other people do that,
> something is wrong with those people!
> 
> obviously some processing going on....
> 
> Hollie can I ask you to look past that, and find just 1-2 points
> that you agree with. Even GT and PercySunshine's point that
> God can neither be proven nor disproven. Are you okay with that,both ways, not just can't be proven
> but ALSO cannot be disproven.
> 
> If we can even agree with MD that God cannot be Disproven that's better than nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd even go further than that. I think gods are very definitely real things. It's just a question of accurately perceiving their nature.
> 
> Folks like MD and Justin seem to be looking for enemies and I don't get that.
Click to expand...


You're playing shell games on yourself again, imagining things that aren't there.  These objective truths of logic belong to all of us, not just to me.  Saying that people are looking for enemies over things that belong to all of us just doesn't make any sense.  How can we fight over things we all have?


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
Click to expand...


You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> You're playing shell games on yourself again, imagining things that aren't there.  These objective truths of logic belong to all of us, not just to me.  Saying that people are looking for enemies over things that belong to all of us just doesn't make any sense.  How can we fight over things we all have?



OK


----------



## Justin Davis

Treeshepherd said:


> We've talked a bit about Logos and Mythos. Logos could be described as creative will, order from chaos, Providence, destiny,etc.
> 
> Mythos would be cosmology.
> 
> The third element would be Oikos. The is where we derive the prefix -eco, as in 'ecology' and 'economy'. Literally, Oikos is home, but much more than just a location, or place to stash our stuff. Oikos pertains to having a sense of place, and belonging, deep identification, something sacred, as represented by The Shire in the LotR.
> 
> Logos is connected to Oikos, which is connected to Mythos and each of these 3 elements have a simultaneous relationship with the other two.
> 
> Absolute truth 'exists', unmanifest, in Logos. In the manifest realms of Oikos and Mythos, truth is not absolute, nor relative, but relational.
> 
> In the nativity story, we have the diviners of mythos, the wise men, and also the tenders in the wilderness, the shepherds, all of them following the star of Bethlehem, becoming witness to the Word Incarnate. That story describes this vertical truth I'm getting at.
> 
> The linkage between Logos, Oikos and Mythos, we call the Great Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, or The Force if you're some kind of badass Jedi.
> 
> Is that a syllogistic argument? It isn't a proof. There is no proof. There is faith and experience. There is knowledge, which is merely a tool for predicting what will happen if I add 2 and 2, or iron and oxygen. Knowledge deals with making predictions in the profane world, and Mythos deals with what we can say about the sacred.



I can see the various themes you're talking about in the Bible, though it uncompromisingly puts all these things into God as the ground for the alignment of our logic with the happenings of the cosmos.  God is the unifier, and the organic rules of thought do prove God exists.  The only way someone can say they don't is to say that science can't verify what the rules of human thought hold to be true.  Uh-oh.  That doesn't work.  That understanding about science doesn't tell us that what the rules of thought hold to be true isn't true or don't prove God's existence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
Click to expand...




Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
Click to expand...


There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence.

Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*
> 
> 
> *Emily and Boss:*
> 
> I have already proven what we all _believe _to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
> 
> (Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
> 
> The fact that *virtually* everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal _beliefs_ that are held to be necessarily true about reality as _knowledge_.



*Virtually?* Huh... how about *actually?* Let's do a poll:

Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?

*M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
*Justin Davis: *What he said!
*Hollie:
Boss:
Emily:
GT:
dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
*sealybobo:
Treeshepherd:
Breezewood:
*
Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> On the contrary, it would appear that *they* (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in *their* heads.




there is no dependency for anyone to accomplish the goal of Admission to the Everlasting, if in part to be an Atheist is to forgo that goal for their belief it is no different than the Christians use of their Bible as being the same purposeless endeavor with the outcome as being identical - both have lost their way.

at any rate there no representation of the atheist present in this thread as above mentioned, give example if otherwise so what is the reason for the post other than your self directed and hollow conclusion ?

agnostic atheism, agnosticism etc. are what are alternatives for their beliefs and if coupled with a goal for Admission to the Everlasting are no different than theism.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
Click to expand...


But you seem to be making everything subjective.  That just can't be and that's all I been trying to tell you like Rawlings.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*
> 
> 
> *Emily and Boss:*
> 
> I have already proven what we all _believe _to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
> 
> (Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
> 
> The fact that *virtually* everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal _beliefs_ that are held to be necessarily true about reality as _knowledge_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Virtually?* Huh... how about *actually?* Let's do a poll:
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo:
> Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
Click to expand...


What are the five things?


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it would appear that *they* (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in *their* heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no dependency for anyone to accomplish the goal of Admission to the Everlasting, if in part to be an Atheist is to forgo that goal for their belief it is no different than the Christians use of their Bible as being the same purposeless endeavor with the outcome as being identical - both have lost their way.
> 
> at any rate there no representation of the atheist present in this thread as above mentioned, give example if otherwise so what is the reason for the post other than your self directed and hollow conclusion ?
> 
> agnostic atheism, agnosticism etc. are what are alternatives for their beliefs and if coupled with a goal for Admission to the Everlasting are no different than theism.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by goal for Admission to the Everlasting


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)



Updated:

Totals:

Yes: 2
No:
WTF??: 2


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, it would appear that *they* (atheists) don't require anything rational or any evidence whatsoever to support the notion that there is no real substance behind the idea of God that is in *their* heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no dependency for anyone to accomplish the goal of Admission to the Everlasting, if in part to be an Atheist is to forgo that goal for their belief it is no different than the Christians use of their Bible as being the same purposeless endeavor with the outcome as being identical - both have lost their way.
> 
> at any rate there no representation of the atheist present in this thread as above mentioned, give example if otherwise so what is the reason for the post other than your self directed and hollow conclusion ?
> 
> agnostic atheism, agnosticism etc. are what are alternatives for their beliefs and if coupled with a goal for Admission to the Everlasting are no different than theism.
Click to expand...


I have looked at my societies main organized religion and decided it is bullshit.  Some people who do what I do turn to Hindu, Budda, Muslim, Jew (Sammy Davis Jr.) Mormon, Born agains.  We want to be religious.  We want there to be a god.  

And if my societies organized religion is made up, what does it matter if I don't believe in god?  They say I'll go to hell.  They are fucked up and stupid and hypocrites.  If there is a god he would reward my intelligence not your stupidity.  Sorry, tough love.  

Only a god can say he is 100% an atheist because he would have to be able to be in all places at one time.  A god basically.  So we admit not to be certain.  But certain your gods don't exist?  That we are.  So we are atheists when it comes to your god, not a generic one.


----------



## sealybobo

I love this.  The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you seem to be making everything subjective.  That just can't be and that's all I been trying to tell you like Rawlings.
Click to expand...


Seems like you are a Rawlings lapdog.  Are you the one always quoting him?  I was wondering who you were talking about.  Do you worship him?


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Continued from Post #2186:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/*
> 
> 
> *Emily and Boss:*
> 
> I have already proven what we all _believe _to be true, what everyone on this thread has acknowledge to believe regarding the problems of existence and origin: *The Five Things! * And these Five Things are as axiomatically true as *2 + 2 = 4*.
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
> 
> (Note: I have simplified the expression of The Five Things so as to make them more emphatically clear.)
> 
> The fact that *virtually* everyone on this thread has acknowledged that these Five Things are necessarily true, that they are among the first principles of existence, that these things are in fact universally known by all humans upon reflection or once they are properly presented to them: belies your claim, Boss, that there are no objectively absolute and universal _beliefs_ that are held to be necessarily true about reality as _knowledge_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Virtually?* Huh... how about *actually?* Let's do a poll:
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo:
> Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
Click to expand...


But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.



Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
Click to expand...


I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's actually right, and this is where you and I differ.
> 
> Think about those terms... logically proven or logically disproven. What does that mean? It is our human prejudice of understanding logic which prevents realization of truth. We assume proof through logic, both of these are concepts we've defined and they conform to our comprehension of them.
> 
> "Logical proof" is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is "logically proven" it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wrote:  *"[t]he existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven."*
> 
> In both classical logic and in constructive logic, for example, the major premise of the transcendental argument (MPTA) is a proposition that, in and of itself, is assigned a truth value, as it is inhabited by its own demonstrable proof of direct evidence; and in classical logic the metaphysical conclusion that _God exists!_ is, of course, a logical proof that _God exists!_  The conclusion is held to be true, as any counterargument against the MPTA is in actuality a premise for an argument that *logically proves it to be true*.  In other words, propositionally, the MPTA is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, the substantive Object of which is a logically proven truth in classical logic.  If that were not the case, the MPTA would not have this historically well-established reputation in the cannon of philosophical literature.
> 
> I just gave you an example in formal logic that proves what he wrote is false. Therefore, he is wrong, ill-informed, ill-educated, ignorant.  See how that works?  He apparently does not know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.
> 
> It's either that or he just made up his own logical paradigm out of thin air that uses non-standard rules of justification. If that's the case, and it does appear to be the case, then I have no idea what logical paradigm he's alluding to, and I don't see how you could know what logical paradigm he's alluding to.
> 
> Is this logical paradigm something you guys have talked about in the past, in-depth and at great length? Is this logical paradigm something you guys developed?  Have you guys published anything on it? Has it been peer reviewed?  Can I find anything about it on the Internet?  Do you have a link?  I'd like to study it
> 
> In the meantime, under the historically well-established and -defined standards of formal logic (you know, real logic, with objective standards of justification, not subjective, made-up-bullshit standards, used for the expressional, mathematical and scientific proofs of academia), there exist logically justifiable proofs for God's existence.
> 
> You write:  *" 'Logical proof' is a wholly inadequate criteria to place on God because we simply do not know what that means with regard to truth. We can assume that if something is 'logically proven' it means something, but it may not. It may not be logical or proven, that could simply be our prejudiced perception."
> *
> Once again, logically justifiable proofs for God’s existence _do_ exist, and this evinces that the construct of God is sufficiently defined by the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, as, indeed, the idea of God as the uncreated Creator of everything else that exists is universally understood. Hence, I’m right. Hence, you’re wrong. Hence, You lose.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> On a cold and frosty morning.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush.
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning.​
> Bottom line: if you wish to remain a cave dweller, that is, live in the Kafkaesque world of dreams wherein subjective opinions asserted as absolutes from on high prevail in spite of the objectively demonstrable facts of human cognition and academia, have at it. Keep going around and around that same mulberry tree of banalities for the rest of your life. However, should you ever choose to explore the infinitely limitless possibilities of reality, then recognize and embrace the ramifications of the universal principle of identity and move on to ever-higher apprehensions of truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you seem to be making everything subjective.  That just can't be and that's all I been trying to tell you like Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like you are a Rawlings lapdog.  Are you the one always quoting him?  I was wondering who you were talking about.  Do you worship him?
Click to expand...


Of course not.  As I already said before, I'm a Christian too and have always believed what the Bible says about the principle of identity or about the Logos, which is Jesus.  Also, he's not the only one who understands this stuff.  I've been reading a few books that explain these things in scripture.  So I already understood what he was saying all along.   I've been studying on the same things he's talking about for months but he's way ahead of me or was. I'm catching up with him from what he's telling us. I've learned a lot from him that I didn't have before.  Gobs I didn't have.  Why would a student try to do more than the teacher?  I'm busy trying to learn it as he goes along, though I am trying to help others see the objective facts too where I can.  These things belong to all of us.  That's all he's talking about, nothing mysterious.  You see the five things, everybody does.  Besides it was me not Rawlings who first tried to explain the subjective thing to Boss.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
Click to expand...


Five things:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 110 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
Click to expand...



I found them!

*1.* We exist.  Yes
*2.* The universe exists?  Yes
*3.* The possibility that God exists.  Yes
*4.* No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe.  If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment.  Or maybe he is?  Who knows?  
5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.  

None of this proves a god exists.  We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing.  Why give kids cancer?  No son he is not perfect.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five things:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 110 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


I thought they were these:

*.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
*3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
*5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
Click to expand...


Its bullshit.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
Click to expand...


Just stick to the five things.  Those you get. The idea about God's existence being proven is based on something else, not the five things.  That's all.  It's the laws of thought, identity, contradiction, excluded middle (together, the principle of identity) that prove God's existence.  Remember?  We can see that in the transcendental argument, which is an entirely different thing from the five things.  Don't confuse them. But you won't think the transcendental argument through, so yeah that's the part you don't get.  Anyone can see it, you just won't let yourself see it.


----------



## sealybobo

_“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Five things:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 110 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought they were these:
> 
> *.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.
Click to expand...


They are.  That's them.


----------



## dblack

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found them!
> 
> *1.* We exist.  Yes
> *2.* The universe exists?  Yes
> *3.* The possibility that God exists.  Yes
> *4.* No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe.  If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment.  Or maybe he is?  Who knows?
> 5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.
> 
> None of this proves a god exists.  We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing.  Why give kids cancer?  No son he is not perfect.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stick to the five things.  Those you get. The idea about God's existence being proven is based on something else, not the five things.  That's all.  It's the laws of thought, identity, contradiction, excluded middle (together, the principle of identity) that prove God's existence.  Remember?  We can see that in the transcendental argument, which is an entirely different thing from the five things.  Don't confuse them. But you won't think the transcendental argument through, so yeah that's the part you don't get.  Anyone can see it, you just won't let yourself see it.
Click to expand...


Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its bullshit.
Click to expand...


That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not.  How's is any of that bullshit?  You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence.  dblack just all confused.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not.  How's is any of that bullshit?  You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence. * dblack just all confused.*
Click to expand...


You can say that again. None of this bullshit makes any sense to me.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not.  How's is any of that bullshit?  You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence.  dblack just all confused.
Click to expand...


Well I could give you 5 absolutes and you would have to agree with them too.  1 Your bible could be completely made up.  2 God maybe never talked to Adam and the Noah Story could be made up.  3.  You can't explain to us how a virgin gave birth.  4.  Your bibles could have been corrupted by the Popes during the Dark Ages.  5.  Ok I can only give you 4 but I have to go.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found them!
> 
> *1.* We exist.  Yes
> *2.* The universe exists?  Yes
> *3.* The possibility that God exists.  Yes
> *4.* No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe.  If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment.  Or maybe he is?  Who knows?
> 5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.
> 
> None of this proves a god exists.  We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing.  Why give kids cancer?  No son he is not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.
Click to expand...


The five things are not the proof!  Hello!  Stop repeating dback's confusion.  Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?

A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.

You  come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not  wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go _gluck, gluck, gluck_ without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there you go again, changing what he said.  You're playing shell games on yourslef.  The five things and what the rules of thought prove are two different things.  All the five things tells us are the basic facts of the situation.  He isn't saying they prove God exists at all.  The rules of thought come after the recognition of what they mean comprehensively, the principle of identity. Looks like you're intentionally trying to avoid something by changing things and conflating things. Why is that? You don't really believe he's making an argument like that, do you?  Also, I imagine he said "virtually" because Hollie has never understood anything and Boss is or was saying that everything is subjective about evidence. But we all know that Boss just isn't thinking clearly.  So if he said actually or absolutely that wouldn't be accurate.  At first I was stumped by "virtually" too and then I went "oh, that's right, Hollie and Boss."  See?  I willing to bet that's what he means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not.  How's is any of that bullshit?  You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence.  dblack just all confused.
Click to expand...


This very basic primitive logic is how our ancestors came up with god.  Science says you are wrong or you don't have enough evidence to decide yet but still you insist god exists.

In fact your wild stories of virgin births and floods fascinated me as a young boy but then I GREW UP!  I have to go.

I really enjoy USMB.  Good  night.  Vote Democratic everyone!


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> _“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams



Yeah and of course theists don't think like that at all, but I guess that's the security blanket Adams needs to make himself feel all warm in cozy in his shrinking world of no God, otherwise he'd have to really look at the facts and what theists actually believe and why.  Can't do that.  The delusions are more  comforting.  Gluck, gluck, gluck.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence.
> 
> Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Let us known when you want to stop thinking about irrelevancies, which amount to saying God doesn't exist over and over to yourself, and get back to the objective truths about existence and origin.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. well, I confess, I have no fucking clue what you two are hawking. If I erred, please accept my apologies and change your votes as is appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you a fucking question.  What are the 5 things?  You seem to be having an inside joke only you are in on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know. Apparently it's M.P.Rawlings' version of the Transcendental Argument for God. The point is, Rawlings/Davis claims that "virtually everyone on this thread" has acknowledged that the five things are true. It just sounded like more bullshit, so I wanted to see if it was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That we and the universe exist, that God as the creator can't be logically ruled out, that God would have to be greater than anything created by Him and that science can't verify if God exists or not.  How's is any of that bullshit?  You know it's not, and Rawlings isn't saying those are the things that prove God's existence.  dblack just all confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This very basic primitive logic is how our ancestors came up with god.  Science says you are wrong or you don't have enough evidence to decide yet but still you insist god exists.
> 
> In fact your wild stories of virgin births and floods fascinated me as a young boy but then I GREW UP!  I have to go.
> 
> I really enjoy USMB.  Good  night.  Vote Democratic everyone!
Click to expand...


Science says no such thing.  Only ill-educated ninnies spout such pseudoscientific gluck, gluck, gluck.  And only silly people pretend that the five things aren't true.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found them!
> 
> *1.* We exist.  Yes
> *2.* The universe exists?  Yes
> *3.* The possibility that God exists.  Yes
> *4.* No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe.  If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment.  Or maybe he is?  Who knows?
> 5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.
> 
> None of this proves a god exists.  We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing.  Why give kids cancer?  No son he is not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The five things are not the proof!  Hello!  Stop repeating dback's confusion.  Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?
> 
> A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.
> 
> You  come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not  wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go _gluck, gluck, gluck_ without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.
Click to expand...


Clear as mud.


----------



## BreezeWood

sealybobo said:


> I have looked at my societies main organized religion and decided it is bullshit.  Some people who do what I do turn to Hindu, Budda, Muslim, Jew (Sammy Davis Jr.) Mormon, Born agains.  We want to be religious.  We want there to be a god.
> 
> And if my societies organized religion is made up, what does it matter if I don't believe in god?  They say I'll go to hell.  They are fucked up and stupid and hypocrites.  If there is a god he would reward my intelligence not your stupidity.  Sorry, tough love.
> 
> Only a god can say he is 100% an atheist because he would have to be able to be in all places at one time.  A god basically.  So we admit not to be certain.  But certain your gods don't exist?  That we are.  So we are atheists when it comes to your god, not a generic one.




I disagree with " So we admit not to be certain " as being an impediment for the individual to accomplish the goal of Spiritual existence post physiology - whether there is an Almighty or not is irrelevant in accomplishing the goal first that itself will either answer the question or by its sucess make the answer answerable. -

engineering life must be a multispiritual endeavor, the possibility certainly exist to join the effort, doubt is the seed for failure.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since percysunshine GT and me seem to agree and get this point,
> how can we get MD on the same page?
Click to expand...


You can't get me on that page because it's not true!  The laws of organic/classical thought entail a rationally direct and absolutely incontrovertible proof for God's existence, formally known as the Transcendental Argument. This centuries-old proof, expounded in the Book of Job and formally iterated by Kant in a syllogism cannot be refuted on any grounds whatsoever!  That's an academic fact of human cognition and an uncontested doctrine in the philosophical cannon.  The silly things spouted by the post-modern denizens of popular culture is sheer ignorance, historical and literary ignorance.  Ultimately, it's the ignorance of persons who have never thought the matter through or have never realized what the organic laws of thought prove to us all.  The proof is incontrovertibly self-evident.  It is not like any of the other classical arguments for God's existence.  The other proofs are evidentiary proofs, which support the conclusion that God must be for sure, but are not direct proofs; rather, they are indirect, rational and/or empirical proofs.

I trust that you understand this from the detailed posts on the alleged objection of begging the question which is in fact fallacious, as the major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an absolute axiom of human cognition.  It holds just like* 2 + 2 = 4* holds.  It cannot be denied.  But more importantly, see *Post #2190*, which explains the truly profound significance of this: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009974/*

You guys need to get on the page of the organic/classical laws of human thought that are biologically hardwired by nature.  It's an axiom!  Axiomatic proofs cannot be overturned.  I will eventually get to this argument specifically and show why it is an axiom as soon as I address your _proven-unproven dichotomy,_ which is rationally _and_ scientifically fallacious in general, and the problem with what you're saying about things like infinity, eternity and perfection. 

Trust me.  You've got these things wrong. 

Also, please read these posts:  
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009327/
#2186
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009400/
#2187
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10009472/
#2188


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.



Emily, I know this.  I understand the psychology.  I'm a former Army NCO.  I understand leadership, motivation, cooperation and the dynamics of team work and group think.  Have more faith that there's rhyme to my reason. 

The hardest folks to reach are hardcore religionists, which has nothing to do with formal religious affiliation or non-affiliation; rather it's the religion of _belief_ in the things of the material world and not the belief in the inner truth of the mind, that still small voice of God. We are all entangled in this religion to some degree or another, some more than others. The key is understanding this so that one may get free of it, systematically shed the dead weight of it.

As I have written elsewhere:
.   

Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, _for_ the universe, not of it. He is the transcendent Principle of Identity contingent on nothing.

He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He _is_ the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.

The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged. God is talking to us all the time. It's that still small voice heard in the objectively uncluttered quite of the principle of identity. "I AM! I'm hear! Listen to Me! Stop listening to the baby talk of subjective mush that leads to nowhere. Stop going around and around that mulberry tree." --Rawlings​
Please read my posts from today.  Tomorrow I will return to your post that I started to address regarding *number 4* of The Five Things, which gets at your proven-disproven dichotomy, and things like infinity, eternity, perfection. . . .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I found them!
> 
> *1.* We exist.  Yes
> *2.* The universe exists?  Yes
> *3.* The possibility that God exists.  Yes
> *4.* No the thing that created us doesn't have to necessarily be perfect in fact there are a whole host of problems athiests/science has with this god supposedly being perfect yet so much is not perfect with the universe.  If a god exists, no he probably isn't perfect and everywhere at every moment.  Or maybe he is?  Who knows?
> 5 No we can't prove the imaginary invisible man you believe exists is not real.
> 
> None of this proves a god exists.  We exist, the universe exists, a god could exist, if the god you describe exists, he would be "perfect", but then again we'd have a lot of questions to ask him if he was perfect and all knowing.  Why give kids cancer?  No son he is not perfect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I know. But we're too stupid to understand the subtleties of this brilliant, irrefutable proof. That's why I put us down for "WTF???" in the poll. Feel free to edit your response if you have a different take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The five things are not the proof!  Hello!  Stop repeating dback's confusion.  Nobody but dblack is thinking that the five things are supposed prove God's existence. Do you people not read and think for yourselves?
> 
> A guy in a red shirt with a stolen purse runs by. And there's a street camera on the scene.
> 
> You  come along later and someone tells you that the guy who ran by with the stolen purse was not  wearing a red shirt, but a white shirt, and you go _gluck, gluck, gluck_ without looking at the video or in this case without reading what Rawlings actually wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clear as mud.
Click to expand...


The Five Things are crystal clear.  Don't worry about the rest for now. Just see the posts I wrote to Boss, sealybobo and Emily (10/20/2014) sans the reference to the TAG and the thing about the voice of God.  The rest I know you can understand.  I will explain why *number 4* of the Five Things holds too tomorrow.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
Click to expand...


Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go? 

My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.


----------



## G.T.

No serious rational person accepts the TAG as  good argument, sorry. Its presuppositional horse hooey that begs the question.

Uses the word inside of its definition.

Is retarded.

Also, 2 & 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go?
> 
> My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.
Click to expand...

Saying that about his mom is both against the rules here, and also a jerk move.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
Click to expand...

My vote is definitely WTF??


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.
Click to expand...


Not drunk at all. A clear, focused mind is all that's needed to see flaws, logical errors and fraud that is being perpetrated by you and Rawling as a veneer for your proselytizing.

Secondly, you should have noticed that I divorced emotion from _reason_ in my prior comments. _Reason_ does not automatically lead us to _The Five Things_™ pwoof of your gawds which you insist it does. Further, the pointless (Christian fundamentalist), bible thumping that you and Rawling are performing is an embarrassment.

Your fawning, doe-eyed, worshipping at the altar of Rawling is a little creepy, dude.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
Click to expand...


The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?

IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.


----------



## emilynghiem

1. 





M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD I'm SORRY that people cannot be magically perfect
> and drop their emotions and associations that are negative
> to focus on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I know this.  I understand the psychology.  I'm a former Army NCO.  I understand leadership, motivation, cooperation and the dynamics of team work and group think.  Have more faith that there's rhyme to my reason.
> 
> The hardest folks to reach are hardcore religionists, which has nothing to do with formal religious affiliation or non-affiliation; rather it's the religion of _belief_ in the things of the material world and not the belief in the inner truth of the mind, that still small voice of God. We are all entangled in this religion to some degree or another, some more than others. The key is understanding this so that one may get free of it, systematically shed the dead weight of it.
Click to expand...


1. GREAT! I'm SO GLAD to hear this.
In addition to what you are saying which is GREAT to hear,
I'm glad you're a Veteran. I wanted to do the 10 million dollar fundraising project to buy historic land and housing for
Vets to build a campus. And Spiritual Education and Healing is part of the outreach to facilitate and cut the costs of health care. So this ties together!

In ADDITION to what you are saying about understanding change and dynamics, and hard core personalities.
AGREED

(in case you missed the long msgs, I propose a 10 million dollar bet to prove a consensus on God can be reached by proving spiritual healing, and to prove that political and religious conflicts can be resolved, and social justice/world peace can be accomplished in real life examples of healing, by applying restorative justice which is the meaning of Christ Jesus
and which brings spiritual healing which is receiving the holy spirit and restoring the human spirit collective to reunite humanity as one)

2. The one point about change I'm not sure you and I are on the same page with:
Do you GET that change is mutual?
That to reach these hard headed types, people like you and I often have to make the first move and first concession.
I may have to be the one who gives a little, makes a little more room for the approach or bias the Other Person has,
if I want them to trust me with my bias they don't have either. Do you get this is a mutual tradeoff to establish trust?

It's one thing to understand what needs to change and why it isn't changing.
Like person A is stuck because they are strongly opposed to C but can tolerate group B,
or C is stuck because they can't stand people of group A and don't trust B who seem to enable them, etc.

It's ANOTHER thing to get that we all have our biases and ways
and have to trust each other, which means letting go equally, NOT giving up or compromising our points or beliefs,
but letting go emotionally so the other person leaves space for us also.

Do you understand the mutual dynamics of change
as happening "in tandem"? Some changes happen  hierarchically, if the top guy changes the policy,
then all the followers in rank follow in turn.

Between equals, we interact and mutual influence each other to open up to understand
the other person's points they have to contribute as well.

MD do you understand that for everything new YOU give to someone else to expand their worldviews,
like conservation of energy or equal and opposite reaction, they have something larger to share with YOU in return?

I'm saying if you open yourself up to receive their gift to you, they can receive your gift to them.
We don't have to fear this change as combative or some competition to make someone wrong so the other is right.

We are like "trading cards" -- if you have a 10 to give someone to complete their set,
they have a 2 to give you that matches something in your hand you needed a card for.

We just have to find out who has what, and lay out our hands and play openly to
match up all the cards we are holding among us. And the deck gets organized in sets!

=============================

3. 





			
				MD said:
			
		

> As I have written elsewhere:
> .
> 
> Yes. God is the first principle, albeit, _for_ the universe, not of it. He is the transcendent Principle of Identity contingent on nothing.
> 
> He is the ground for all existence, and, of course, the universal principle of identity (the comprehensive expression of the rational and moral laws of thought) endowed by God to man, is grounded in Him, as He _is_ the fullness of that principle. The fundamental laws of thought are reliable for this reason. The comprehensive expression/principle of the rational and moral laws of thought are stamped by God on our minds. This is His image and what sets us apart from all other creatures of the terrestrial order. It's His name, put on us as His property.
> 
> The voice we hear as our own in our minds when we faithfully apply the comprehensive principle of identity (the logic of God) to any given problem is in fact His voice speaking the wisdom thusly divulged. God is talking to us all the time. It's that still small voice heard in the objectively uncluttered quite of the principle of identity. "I AM! I'm hear! Listen to Me! Stop listening to the baby talk of subjective mush that leads to nowhere. Stop going around and around that mulberry tree." --Rawlings​
> Please read my posts from today.  Tomorrow I will return to your post that I started to address regarding *number 4* of The Five Things, which gets at your proven-disproven dichotomy, and things like infinity, eternity, perfection. . . .



Yes, I can follow this because I'm already there with you.
I'm Okay with people Understanding God as Nature, God as Wisdom, God as Creation, God as Love.

And Collectively, all these things come from the same SOURCE. So you are talking about the SOURCE,
but people aren't there yet. I think you are jumping ahead, which is part of the process.

It pushes teh process forward to show where we are heading.

But one step at a time.

Even to work with people to equate God with Love or God with Wisdom
takes some forgiveness and letting go of the ENgrained negative concept of "God as a madeup bogeyman
for angry Christians to manipulate or scare others"

MD, you keep pushing God as teh SOURCE, maybe that's your job as the head guy in the pack over other ranks.

Maybe I am like the troop Recruiter who is matching people to their local commands.

Which people respond to God as Truth or Wisdom.
Which people need to connect on the level of Justice and understanding Jesus or Restorative Justice
brings equal justice or socials justice: which people understand if they focus on real life peace and justice/social
issues to see how this "forgiveness and healing" applies.

MD not all people will go through the process of forgiveness (and thus letting go of past negative perceptions of God)
if the end motivation is to "prove that God is the Source".
That can be the end goal, but it may not motivate people!
In fact, it may turn people off and AVOID change because they don't BELIEVE in the goal.

Maybe some people will go through the "forgiveness" process (again to let go of negative concepts)
by working on peace and justice issues that require the same level of healing to make it work.

so they will get there another way.

if you are the Army guy used to keeping the ranks in line, that may well be your job.
Salute to you! I totally agree to let you be in charge.

Let me also do my job of finding out where everyone else falls in their ranks.

Hollie may be able to work with other Atheists on this idea of proving
Spiritual Healing which is a HUGE step.

That same healing with get RID of a LOT of this negative division between
nontheistic Science and theistic religion.

So it will break down barriers on all sides, fundamentalists in religion, also.

This medical proof of spiritual healing will also stop the divide between
JW and Church of Christ who are both opposed to spiritual healing as demonic
and this is dividing the church denominations until it is proven as natural science.

This is GREAT!!!!

MD you are perfect, and I see God is calling us to fall in our respective ranks.

Everyone has a job to do that nobody else can do to handle their part of the service and purpose.

I will keep doing my job, to find out who needs to be on what team focused on what
and checking which person from going too far. Maybe we need to pair up in opposites
so we can help each other work with others of the opposite biases?

I can head up the women's team because I think there is a chance of
connecting there and supporting some of the men who tend to clash with each other
due to pecking order patterns. If all the men hve their own teams and projects to head up
or work on, as part of the proof of spiritual healing to reach a consensus on God (or
peace and justice to reach a consensus on Jesus and Restorative Justice),
then there won't be such a fight to one up each other. Everyone is equally needed and important.

We just need to organize in ranks!

4. Here's the website project I was going to rally around
and try to raise 10 million to buy historic houses and land for real estate development
to teach Veterans to run their own housing and health care campus , both for
financial independence and help for disabled Vets and also to train Vet leaders
for public office: Freedmen s Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

Once this campus model is proven to work sustainably
I propose to replicate campus communities a cross the border for security
and to create viable development in jobs, education and service internships
to solve the immigration issue and issues with drug, human, and gang/cult related trafficking:
Earned Amnesty

MD if you are ready for change, I already WROTE to Allen West
about having his foundation to be in charge of the historic model
campus in Freedmen's Town. Another buddy online referred his son,
they are both vets, to help with this project.


----------



## BreezeWood

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand and acknowledge the five things as necessarily true?
> 
> *M.P. Rawlings: * It proves that God exists! Period. End of thought.
> *Justin Davis: *What he said!
> *Hollie:
> Boss:
> Emily:
> GT:
> dblack: *My local used car salesman is more compelling.
> *sealybobo: *What are the five things?
> *Treeshepherd:
> Breezewood:
> *
> Let's get a roll call. Add your opinion. (apologies to anyone I left off the list - feel free to add)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Totals:
> 
> Yes: 2
> No:
> WTF??: 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My vote is definitely WTF??
Click to expand...

.
*
3.* *The possibility* that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, *cannot be logically ruled out!

The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!*

because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.

*
... including the cosmological order*

I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.

all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...


GT makes sense at the same level as MD the _Proselytizer_, -

amen.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
Click to expand...


Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> .
> *
> 3.* *The possibility* that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, *cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.
> 
> *
> ... including the cosmological order*
> 
> I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.
> 
> all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...
> 
> 
> GT makes sense at the same level as MD the _Proselytizer_, -
> 
> amen.
> 
> .



"because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."

Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?   So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?

Amen.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
Click to expand...

I've noted consistently that,

1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,

2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof. 

If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *
> 3.* *The possibility* that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, *cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.
> 
> *
> ... including the cosmological order*
> 
> I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.
> 
> all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...
> 
> 
> GT makes sense at the same level as MD the _Proselytizer_, -
> 
> amen.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."
> 
> Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?   So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to assume your particular version of gawds are the "true" or the only gawds?

You are promoting that you know with certainty things you cannot know with certainty. Therefore, we can assume that Vishnu, Zeus, Osiris and a host of other conceptions of gawds are just as likely as your gawds.

So you agree with it, right?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not drunk at all. A clear, focused mind is all that's needed to see flaws, logical errors and fraud that is being perpetrated by you and Rawling as a veneer for your proselytizing.
> 
> Secondly, you should have noticed that I divorced emotion from _reason_ in my prior comments. _Reason_ does not automatically lead us to _The Five Things_™ pwoof of your gawds which you insist it does. Further, the pointless (Christian fundamentalist), bible thumping that you and Rawling are performing is an embarrassment.
> 
> Your fawning, doe-eyed, worshipping at the altar of Rawling is a little creepy, dude.
Click to expand...



The five things are not a proof for God's existence.  The facts of the principle of identity (the rules of organic thought) are. I already knew that before I ever joined this forum.  I don't need Rawlings to tell me that and you don't need Rawlings to tell you that, nobody needs a human being to tell them that.  That part is self-evident.  You keep saying that what we're saying is illogical but you never tells why its illogical because you can't, because the five things are obviously true.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not drunk at all. A clear, focused mind is all that's needed to see flaws, logical errors and fraud that is being perpetrated by you and Rawling as a veneer for your proselytizing.
> 
> Secondly, you should have noticed that I divorced emotion from _reason_ in my prior comments. _Reason_ does not automatically lead us to _The Five Things_™ pwoof of your gawds which you insist it does. Further, the pointless (Christian fundamentalist), bible thumping that you and Rawling are performing is an embarrassment.
> 
> Your fawning, doe-eyed, worshipping at the altar of Rawling is a little creepy, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The five things are not a proof for God's existence.  The facts of the principle of identity (the rules of organic thought) are. I already knew that before I ever joined this forum.  I don't need Rawlings to tell me that and you don't need Rawlings to tell you that, nobody needs a human being to tell them that.  That part is self-evident.  You keep saying that what we're saying is illogical but you never tells why its illogical because you can't, because the five things are obviously true.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not drunk at all. A clear, focused mind is all that's needed to see flaws, logical errors and fraud that is being perpetrated by you and Rawling as a veneer for your proselytizing.
> 
> Secondly, you should have noticed that I divorced emotion from _reason_ in my prior comments. _Reason_ does not automatically lead us to _The Five Things_™ pwoof of your gawds which you insist it does. Further, the pointless (Christian fundamentalist), bible thumping that you and Rawling are performing is an embarrassment.
> 
> Your fawning, doe-eyed, worshipping at the altar of Rawling is a little creepy, dude.
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems _M. Pompous Rawling_ is getting quite desperate. If seems anyone who disagrees with his fundamentalist beliefs is suddenly the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So say the denizens of the one-dimensional reality, who apparently never really have anything of real interest to say about anything, just nasty things about those who don't conform to the trappings of their small, cramped minds.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it comical that you denizens of magical spirit realms believe you're in a position to condemn those who reject your nonsensical claims to utterly unsupported supernaturalism.
> 
> I think that the problem you religious extremists have with rationality is that you perceive it doesn't address human intangible issues such as fear, emotions, superstitions, thus you feel _reason_ is somehow inadequate. I take a very different view. The keystone of our perception of existence *must* be reason, otherwise, humanity would never have left Dark Ages thinking that people like you have never let go of.
> 
> I'm put in mind of the story of the Director of the US Patents Office under President Taft who declared in the early part of this century: "No more new patents need be issued; everything mankind can possibly invent, he already has." Of course, Taft fired him, because of course, that Director was wrong. You're like that. You're close-minded and ignorant and with little imagination, you're left to living in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> I don’t see that accepting _reason_ as the criteria for perception is stripping away anything. Human fears and emotions have always had their source in natural instincts. We simply have added a vast array of texture to emotions that simpler animals do not. So I don’t see that accepting rationality strips life of anything-- in fact, it enhances it. That you religious zealots choose to see existence as governed by magic and supernaturalism is an unfortunate throwback and a disservice to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you drunk?  Never  mind, of course you're are.  Rawlings is using nothing but logic and you are reacting to that with nothing but emotion, as clearly you're not bothering to think about his posts at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not drunk at all. A clear, focused mind is all that's needed to see flaws, logical errors and fraud that is being perpetrated by you and Rawling as a veneer for your proselytizing.
> 
> Secondly, you should have noticed that I divorced emotion from _reason_ in my prior comments. _Reason_ does not automatically lead us to _The Five Things_™ pwoof of your gawds which you insist it does. Further, the pointless (Christian fundamentalist), bible thumping that you and Rawling are performing is an embarrassment.
> 
> Your fawning, doe-eyed, worshipping at the altar of Rawling is a little creepy, dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The five things are not a proof for God's existence.  The facts of the principle of identity (the rules of organic thought) are. I already knew that before I ever joined this forum.  I don't need Rawlings to tell me that and you don't need Rawlings to tell you that, nobody needs a human being to tell them that.  That part is self-evident.  You keep saying that what we're saying is illogical but you never tells why its illogical because you can't, because the five things are obviously true.
Click to expand...

_The Five Things_™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle. 

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds. 

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
Click to expand...


There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic and math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
Click to expand...

I see. So the point is, your sole purpose is to proselytize, to thump your bibles and avoid any attempt to address issues with which you have a prior commitment to dogma.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
Click to expand...


Right on, Justin!  That's the problem with the things that Boss and Emily are saying about proofs, or about things that can't be proven or disproven.  Ultimately they're talking about scientific verification or falsification, and I'm going to address why what Emily is saying about things like eternity and infinity and perfection do not hold up in logic or math or science, for that matter, precisely because of her misuse of these terms.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> No serious rational person accepts the TAG as good argument, sorry. Its presuppositional horse hooey that begs the question.
> Uses the word inside of its definition.
> Is retarded.
> Also, 2 & 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question.



I'm sorry.  You must have missed this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/

But never fear.  I've been waiting for a post just like this one in order to put the final nail in the coffin for the corpse of yours and QW's philosophical bullshit. . . .

Oh, no, of course not, no one takes the transcendental argument seriously. It's never happened, could never happen. The very idea is ridiculous, absurd . . . retarded. It's all balderdash, poppycock, hooey and the like.

*There's only been thousands of articles and hundreds books written on the Transcendental Argument in particular, entailing an innumerable number of exegeses on the conventions, structures and apriorities of various other kinds of transcendental propositions in general.*

All these people don't exist or never existed: the prophets and apostles of the Bible, Immanuel Kant, George Berkeley, William Craig, James Anderson, Herman Dooveweerd, Peter Strawson, Jonathan Bennett, J. P. Moreland, Barry Stroud, Kenneth Westphal, Adrian Bardon, Moltke Gram, A.C. Genova, Quassim Cassam, Anthony Brueckner, Bernard Lonergan and, of course, many, many others. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head from my own reading.

As for begging the question, actually, because, in truth, like the atheistic, know-nothing ninnies of post-modern popular culture on the Internet whose silliness you tout as one who is as philosophically and historically illiterate as they: *2 + 2 = 4*, according to your logic, _*does*_ beg the question!

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, not kind of like or sort of like, but _just_ like* 2 + 2 = 4*! The MPTAG is intuitively and, therefore, axiomatically true. It's cogency cannot be logically denied or refuted. It's a cognitively direct and absolute proof.

Not even its critics from the perspective of epistemological skepticism asserting the conventions of modal logic challenge its organic validity, but rather its veracity strictly on the basis of metaphysical ultimacy, for it cannot be doubted on any other basis, doubted, mind you, not logically denied or refuted!

In other words, they know that under any form of logic, due to the inescapable imperative of the principle of identity, its validity cannot be logically denied or refuted. No serous scholar of academia questions its cogency as an apparently indispensable first principle of organic logic, a necessary enabling condition of human cognition. No serious scholar of academia, therefore, argues that it formally begs the question, you idiot!

Accordingly, for this reason, even its professional critics of peer-reviewed academia, you know, real scholars, appreciate the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions in general, insofar as they are axiomatically well-founded, are legitimate presuppositions that can and are used in the mathematical and scientific proofs of classical, intuitionistic and modal logic for the purpose of analyzing the constituents of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, the empirical phenomena of the material realm of being and the veracity of scientific hypotheses, laws or theories.

In fact, the normatively transcendent, presuppositional exegencies of human cognition are the ultimate bases for our apprehension of where and how Newtonian physics and the physics of special and general relativity break down!

In other words, the only real objection of serious scholars goes to the metaphysical nature of the MPTAG's Object. They merely hold that while it is in fact an indispensable first principle of organic logic, its substance cannot currently be scientifically verified. That's all!  Whoop de doo.  Everybody knows that.

*Let's cut to the chase. The fact of the matter is that it is you and people like you who are the buffoons, the pseudo-philosophical and pseudoscientific yahoos making baby talk on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia. Only radical, untutored materialists, irrantionalists and the lunatics of Ayn Rand's Objectivism rail against the incontrovertible axioms of presuppositionalism as they necessarily negate their very own premises in doing so.*

Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!


----------



## G.T.

"The major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, not kind of like or sort of like, but _just_ like* 2 + 2 = 4*! The MPTAG is intuitively and, therefore, axiomatically true. It's cogency cannot be logically denied or refuted. It's a cognitively direct and absolute proof."

Umm, no - it's a mere opinion of yours and apologetics.

I dont care if every Religious person in the history of man wrote about it, it is not sound reasoning and is not any more "incontrovertible" than "knowledge just is," hence it's poor to use as a premise for a proof. It's not absolute, it's not an axiom and it's damned well begging the question.

2+2=4 does not beg the question.

2 is not presupposed, it is observable.

Jeebus.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No serious rational person accepts the TAG as good argument, sorry. Its presuppositional horse hooey that begs the question.
> Uses the word inside of its definition.
> Is retarded.
> Also, 2 & 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> 
> But never fear.  I've been waiting for a post just like this one in order to put the final nail in the coffin for the corpse of yours and QW's philosophical bullshit. . . .
> 
> Oh, no, of course not, no one takes the transcendental argument seriously. It's never happened, could never happen. The very idea is ridiculous, absurd . . . retarded. It's all balderdash, poppycock, hooey and the like.
> 
> *There's only been thousands of articles and hundreds books written on the Transcendental Argument in particular, entailing an innumerable number of exegeses on the conventions, structures and apriorities of various other kinds of transcendental propositions in general.*
> 
> All these people don't exist or never existed: the prophets and apostles of the Bible, Immanuel Kant, George Berkeley, William Craig, James Anderson, Herman Dooveweerd, Peter Strawson, Jonathan Bennett, J. P. Moreland, Barry Stroud, Kenneth Westphal, Adrian Bardon, Moltke Gram, A.C. Genova, Quassim Cassam, Anthony Brueckner, Bernard Lonergan and, of course, many, many others. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head from my own reading.
> 
> As for begging the question, actually, because, in truth, like the atheistic, know-nothing ninnies of post-modern popular culture on the Internet whose silliness you tout as one who is as philosophically and historically illiterate as they: *2 + 2 = 4*, according to your logic, _*does*_ beg the question!
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, not kind of like or sort of like, but _just_ like* 2 + 2 = 4*! The MPTAG is intuitively and, therefore, axiomatically true. It's cogency cannot be logically denied or refuted. It's a cognitively direct and absolute proof.
> 
> Not even its critics from the perspective of epistemological skepticism asserting the conventions of modal logic challenge its organic validity, but rather its veracity strictly on the basis of metaphysical ultimacy, for it cannot be doubted on any other basis, doubted, mind you, not logically denied or refuted!
> 
> In other words, they know that under any form of logic, due to the inescapable imperative of the principle of identity, its validity cannot be logically denied or refuted. No serous scholar of academia questions its cogency as an apparently indispensable first principle of organic logic, a necessary enabling condition of human cognition. No serious scholar of academia, therefore, argues that it formally begs the question, you idiot!
> 
> Accordingly, for this reason, even its professional critics of peer-reviewed academia, you know, real scholars, appreciate the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions in general, insofar as they are axiomatically well-founded, are legitimate presuppositions that can and are used in the mathematical and scientific proofs of classical, intuitionistic and modal logic for the purpose of analyzing the constituents of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, the empirical phenomena of the material realm of being and the veracity of scientific hypotheses, laws or theories.
> 
> In fact, the normatively transcendent, presuppositional exegencies of human cognition are the ultimate bases for our apprehension of where and how Newtonian physics and the physics of special and general relativity break down!
> 
> In other words, the only real objection of serious scholars goes to the metaphysical nature of the MPTAG's Object. They merely hold that while it is in fact an indispensable first principle of organic logic, its substance cannot currently be scientifically verified. That's all!  Whoop de doo.  Everybody knows that.
> 
> *Let's cut to the chase. The fact of the matter is that it is you and people like you who are the buffoons, the pseudo-philosophical and pseudoscientific yahoos making baby talk on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia. Only radical, untutored materialists, irrantionalists and the lunatics of Ayn Rand's Objectivism rail against the incontrovertible axioms of presuppositionalism as they necessarily negate their very own premises in doing so.*
> 
> Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
Click to expand...




Boom shakalaka boom!  I heard that last nail go in all the way from Alabamy.  I think the noise of it broke the sound barrier.   My ears hurt. Dovotee of Ayn Rand.    Yeah I've read some of her stuff.  She's okay on some of her first principles but then she goes off the rails into la-la land.  It's like reading a two-old trying to talk about a theory of everything about a pile of nothing.


----------



## G.T.

^cheerleading 


where's your pom poms, yo!?!?!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
Click to expand...

_It's The Five Things_™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.


Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
Click to expand...


For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc. 

As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. _The Five Things_™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle. 

There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds. 

Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?

Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _It's The Five Things_™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc.
> 
> As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. _The Five Things_™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
Click to expand...


I think he would better understand if you wrote it in crayolas and glitter glue and followed it up by "rah rah zeus our man, if he cant do it, noone m.d. can!"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Boom shakalaka boom!  I heard that last nail go in all the way from Alabamy.  I think the noise of it broke the sound barrier.   My ears hurt. Dovotee of Ayn Rand.    Yeah I've read some of her stuff.  She's okay on some of her first principles but then she goes off the rails into la-la land.  It's like reading a two-old trying to talk about a theory of everything about a pile of nothing.



That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective.  LOL!

"Existence exists!" she says.  "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says.  No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over _all_ of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow?  From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term _idiot savant_. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science

Also, on a more serious note:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boom shakalaka boom!  I heard that last nail go in all the way from Alabamy.  I think the noise of it broke the sound barrier.   My ears hurt. Dovotee of Ayn Rand.    Yeah I've read some of her stuff.  She's okay on some of her first principles but then she goes off the rails into la-la land.  It's like reading a two-old trying to talk about a theory of everything about a pile of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective.  LOL!
> 
> "Existence exists!" she says.  "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says.  No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over _all_ of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow?  From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term _idiot savant_. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science
> 
> Also, on a more serious note:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason
Click to expand...

It appears that you and your Pom Pom flailer have more in common with Ayn Rand than you would hope to admit. 

You two rattle on with your silly_ FiveThings_™ pwoofs followed by stuttering and mumbling tirades attempting to use "Logic" in utterly pointless attempts to pwoof your partisan gawds.

If you two weren't such caricatures of unreasonable, unthinking fundamentalist zealots, you wouldn't be so comically tragic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> "The major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) is an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, not kind of like or sort of like, but _just_ like* 2 + 2 = 4*! The MPTAG is intuitively and, therefore, axiomatically true. It's cogency cannot be logically denied or refuted. It's a cognitively direct and absolute proof."
> 
> Umm, no - it's a mere opinion of yours and apologetics.
> 
> I dont care if every Religious person in the history of man wrote about it, it is not sound reasoning and is not any more "incontrovertible" than "knowledge just is," hence it's poor to use as a premise for a proof. It's not absolute, it's not an axiom and it's damned well begging the question.
> 
> 2+2=4 does not beg the question.
> 
> 2 is not presupposed, it is observable.
> 
> Jeebus.




Of course 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't beg the question, you idiot.  That's the point.  Only a few of those men are Christians.  The rest are secular philosophers.  Nobody of peer-reviewed academia holds that the MPTAG formally begs the question. We don't say that intuitive absolutes (axioms or tautologies) beg the question, you dunce.   The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom _just_ like 2 + 2 = 4.  But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?

And, no, the number *2* as such or any of the other rational constructs, axioms, postulates or theorems of mathematics are observable entities of physical substance. LOL!  Has the cheese slid off your cracker?  Show me the number 2 that exists in nature outside the confines of human consciousness.  Is it attached to a low-hanging branch of a tree  in your backyard?  Maybe it's on the Moon or hanging off a star?  Or are you're talking about a number *2* written on a piece of paper as extracted from the contents of human consciousness and tacked to a wall?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _It's The Five Things_™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc.
> 
> As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. _The Five Things_™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.

And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.

Dork.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> 2 is not presupposed, it is observable.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective.  LOL!
> 
> "Existence exists!" she says.  "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says.  No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over _all_ of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow?  From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term _idiot savant_. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science
> 
> Also, on a more serious note:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason



You're killing me, smalls.  That's funny!

Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of coffin nails a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity.”​
"Eight balls of pure N."  

I get the allusions, but who is Bumbalough?


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *
> 3.* *The possibility* that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, *cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.
> 
> *
> ... including the cosmological order*
> 
> I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.
> 
> all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...
> 
> 
> GT makes sense at the same level as MD the _Proselytizer_, -
> 
> amen.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."
> 
> Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?   So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?
> 
> Amen.
Click to expand...




> So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?



no, it is the state for existence and will always be -

continuing to exist Spiritually would have been an accomplishment for the Creator first and is possible for whatever may attempt the feat, the Everlasting - what comes afterwards can be anything.

"your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?

.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _It's The Five Things_™ is pwoof of of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all your sidestepping and evading, it's obvious you're befuddled. You were able to cobble together one accurate statement in that science makes no absolute claims. However, you then go on to state that "logic" can and does verify "spiritual" things. I suppose that's good to know because we can then use logic to verify Zeus, Osiris, Jupiter, etc.
> 
> As I noted before, "logic" is much a pwoof for your versions of gods as it is for all the other gods. _The Five Things_™ is pwoof of nothing and won't help you sidestep and waffle.
> 
> There is no reason to accept that your partisan version of gawds are the only gawds. There could be a unionized syndicate of available gawds.
> 
> Why are you trying to sidestep such an acknowledgement?
> 
> Why is Zeus any more or less a candidate for title of Gawd, the Big Cheese than your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You should note that I didn't really expect you would try and address the obvious implication of what you proposed. That would have taken some personal integrity and honesty on your part.

It was a simple exercise but also an exercise in futility dealing with religious extremists.  Gag a zealot. Shake a shiny object before his crazed eyes to get his attention. Calmly delineate in simple declarative sentences of user-friendly monosyllables a logical progression of concepts for competing gawds that the zealot uses to pwoof his gawds.  Nod reassuringly. Slowly remove the gag. It is inevitable that the zealot will defiantly screech and sputter something as cogent as ...


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gawds tell us no such thing. Once again, as you're thumping your bibles in desperate efforts to sell your religion, you come across as just another bad example of religious zealotry. Do you by chance wear a plaid, polyester suit?
> 
> IMHO, the search for meaning is at the heart of the religious impulse. We are driven by the despair of our own existential anxieties to generate meaning and purpose for ourselves. I think this is all the result of the unavoidable psychological conflict between our basic instinct for survival and the intellectual realization of our own mortality. We find meaning in self transcendent acts and concepts. By reaching out beyond ourselves to find connections to larger communities and realities we somehow escape our own mortalities, at least symbolically. If our creative efforts, or our children, or our communities, or our species, survive our own personal mortality, we gain a symbolic sense of immortality through our connections to these things. If the rigorous pursuit of scientific knowledge through _reason_ contributes to the health of the planet and the survival of our species, it is profoundly meaningful, much more so than caving in to fear and superstition as you choose to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science holds that God doesn't exist?    Okay, I'll bite. Give us the link for this theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noted consistently that,
> 
> 1) science cannot investigate the supernatural, and,
> 
> 2) no gawds have ever made themselves known in a way that meets a standard of proof.
> 
> If the gawds are "telling us they're here", why don't you give us something more than what you have offered so far (which is nothing) so we can come to our own conclusions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no standard of proof in science.  Science holds laws and theories that have been upheld in repeated experimentation  to be working facts until they are partially or totally falsified.  Newtonian physics were held to be the universal working facts of the cosmos until as such they were partially falsified.  Only in propositional statements and mathematics does the word "proof" apply.  Science doesn't formally use the word "proof" or "disproof". Those are informal words that when used without understanding are misleading.  We say that informally when what we really mean scientifically is a revisable granting of verification or falsification. You really don't know what you're talking about.  All you're saying is that science cannot verify spiritual things.  So what?  Go bark at moon, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. Logic can and does.  I don't accept your confused, made up definitions and religious doctrines about logic, math and science.  I don't drink  Kool-aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on, Justin!  That's the problem with the things that Boss and Emily are saying about proofs, or about things that can't be proven or disproven.  Ultimately they're talking about scientific verification or falsification, and I'm going to address why what Emily is saying about things like eternity and infinity and perfection do not hold up in logic or math or science, for that matter, precisely because of her misuse of these terms.
Click to expand...


Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.

I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
we cannot prove that level.

We can prove representations and work within that framework
but God of course is beyond the scope of man.

I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.

My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.

He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.

You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
either 0% getting the car or 100%.

Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"

So it could never be proven in real life to him.

He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
were smarter than people with common sense.

So that was blocking him from understanding the math
or accepting the answer.

The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.

(NOTE: even when  a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.

so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)

Sorry to get off track, MD

I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
but just not the way you or I may think it happens.

MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
(Heck, I can't even prove to MYSELF what I dreamed last night, or what
anyone else dreams, and we have to take THAT on faith, though we can
prove scientifically that are brains go into dream states, etc.)

You and I are at  peace with that understanding, 
some people are and some people aren't. Most are still searching
and this has been the classic struggle of man since becoming self-aware:
how to reconcile our own will and perceptions with that of others and the collective whole.

My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God (But doesn't get the Christian approach AT ALL) and can't explain his own secular approach
to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.

I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.

Each proof can work in itself, but each person may have to experience it and
reach an understanding in their own way. just like that car-goat-goat/3 doors problem.
Some people figure it out mathematically, some by live trials, and one person had to
do both and still couldn't reconcile why his mind was stuck on 50/50 and the answer
he KNEW was correct was 2/3 1/3. I thought that was fascinating, and this guy
was TRYING to resolve it and KNEW the answer was right, but his brain wasn't following.

My friend Nirmaldasan is convinced the 2/3 answer is wrong, because he is emotionally and socially opposed to the elitist academia. So I was focusing on building trust to resolve that issue, while everyone else was yelling about the math and calling him names, which didn't help.

The most I could explain is YES you do get 50/50 results when you treat the two doors as equal 50/50 chances and just pick one. So there IS a way to show how both Nirmaldasan was right, and also the mathematical answer that if you follow the history of the doors and don't treat them as equal choices of 50/50 then you get the 2/3 1/3 probability instead.

It was terrible that the one trial we ran, he got the car, so he explained it was because his chances were 50/50 not 2/3 that he got it right in one trial. The only chance I thought we had to explain how it is right to get 2/3 1/3 is to explain that both he and the others are right:
A. if you treat the two doors as equal 50/50 choices and ignore the history, if you pick completely randomly, then you will get 50/50 chance of either the car or the goat behind the remaining doors.
B. if you do as Marilyn and the mathematicians suggest, and switch to the other door,
your chances are weighted higher at 2/3 for the remaining door to have the car.

If I tell Nirmaldasan yes, there is a way you are right also, I have a better chance of getting through to him than if I tell him NO you are WRONG. 

There IS a way to get 50/50 results. If I can explain without insulting him, maybe he would listen and eventually understand both answers.

Marilyn vos Savant bull View topic - Game Show Problem


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the hook, the obvious first principles that no one denies, followed by a heaping pile of subjective mush that's supposed to be objective.  LOL!
> 
> "Existence exists!" she says.  "Consciousness presupposes existence!" she says.  No you-know-what, Sherlock, so exactly how does the incoherent gibberish that existence necessarily has primacy over _all_ of consciousness, which begs the question to get rid God, follow?  From thereon out it's all down hill, sheer idiocy. In fact, I'm going to edit my post in the above, insert the term _idiot savant_. By the way, if you want a good laugh read this from my blog:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science
> 
> Also, on a more serious note:  Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're killing me, smalls.  That's funny!
> 
> Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of coffin nails a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity.”​
> "Eight balls of pure N."
> 
> I get the allusions, but who is Bumbalough?
Click to expand...


He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum. 

I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.   

But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
> I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.
> 
> I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
> we cannot prove that level.
> 
> We can prove representations and work within that framework
> but God of course is beyond the scope of man.
> 
> I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.
> 
> My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
> But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.
> 
> He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
> Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.
> 
> You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
> either 0% getting the car or 100%.
> 
> Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
> he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
> but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"
> 
> So it could never be proven in real life to him.
> 
> He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
> were smarter than people with common sense.
> 
> So that was blocking him from understanding the math
> or accepting the answer.
> 
> The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
> and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.
> 
> (NOTE: even when  a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
> and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
> his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
> and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.
> 
> so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
> there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)
> 
> Sorry to get off track, MD
> 
> I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
> but just not the way you or I may think it happens.
> 
> MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
> You and I are at  peace with that, some people are and some people aren't.
> 
> My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God but can't explain
> it to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.
> 
> I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
> my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
> everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.



Well, we can't scientifically verify the substances of certain logical conceptualizations about God only because, well, He's not material. That's all. But apprehending the various attributes that would necessarily apply to the construct of an ultimate, transcendent ground for existence without begging the question is no sweat, as the construct of infinity is readily conceivable and, therefore, readily expressible in linguistic or mathematical symbology. So I think we're actually on the same page. Just bear in mind these _are_ actual proofs. Science doesn't do proofs.  It does the experimental affirmations of verification and falsification just like Justin explained.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.
> 
> And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.
> 
> Dork.



No.  It's not described in nature either.  It's cogency may be _demonstrated_ in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.

And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!



I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...

Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...


Frankly, it was shocking to read *QW*, of all people, insinuating that the organic, universally indispensable principle of identity breaks down in alternate forms of logic, which, of course, is impossible; but then to see *dblack*, a man who I initially respected for his profound insights regarding the mind-body dichotomy, a man who struck me as someone of some expertise, a man who _does_ grasp the necessity of philosophy's primacy over science, go all postal atheist on me and sneer at something he obviously doesn't understand as he unwittingly puts himself in the same company of rank irrationalists and idiot savants like Ayn Rand. . . .


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?
Click to expand...


You mean your imaginary, contingently anthropomorphological friends of mythology?  How could they be immutably and indivisibly transcendent or ontologically supreme?  I thought you were just being sarcastic again.  You mean you've  been serious about this idiocy all this time?   You just get  and   with each new  post.  Your world just gets smaller and smaller.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of denying the obvious, why are you such a coward that you chose to sidestep and dodge the obvious implications of the very "logic" you claim proves your gawds that also proves all the other gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean your imaginary, contingently anthropomorphological friends of mythology?  How could they be immutably and indivisibly transcendent or ontologically supreme?  I thought you were just being sarcastic again.  You mean you've  been serious about this idiocy all this time?   You just get  and   with each new  post.  Your world just gets smaller and smaller.
Click to expand...

Yep. Deny you're a coward. Such self-deceit is a common.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.
> 
> And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.
> 
> Dork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not described in nature either.  It's cogency may be _demonstrated_ in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.
> 
> And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.
Click to expand...

2 is the descriptOR, idiot

Also my argument is not negatable. Knowledge may have NO SOURCE, and I kno w the junk religious answer to that but you can save it. Not having to have a source =\= not existing. You can think on that, with your dogmatic pseudo philosophy.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...

Actually, religion is on the retreat.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!


I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> The five things are not a proof for God's existence.


Ok. Something we can agree on.



> The facts of the principle of identity (the rules of organic thought) are.


What are "the rules of organic thought"?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
Click to expand...


Hi Justin
i find my world gets bigger the more people I connect with and learn how they look at the world.
it always opens up new doors and avenues for me.
And yes, it narrows down some issues and makes them workable.

The solutions get more inclusive and focused when we agree point by point with more people
to locate points of intersection and agreement.

The problems get narrowed down to things we can actually solve!

this is not a bad thing.

When we start seeing how we are made different to serve a good purpose,
it's actually a great thing, a tremendous gift.

Each person adds good things, and yes, by resolving things and narrowing it down
we eliminate a bunch of needless conflict and wasted energy. 

It seems you and MD and I can agree on our part of the puzzle.
And if GT Percy and me can agree on another part, we can fit this together.

It's like a jigsaw puzzle, finding out where all the Blue Sky pieces go, the Green Grass pieces,
getting the corners and frame/edge together, and then grouping the other parts to fill in everywhere else.

Justin if you believe God's plans are so great there is already a design and perfect purpose for
every soul, then you would  celebrate how this is coming together, including everyone. Wow!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a devotee of Objectivism and a contributing writing for the official Objectivist website.  I had some correspondence with him when I was researching Objectivism for my article, which has been published in an apologetics pamphlet. We moved off the official site so that we could communicate directly  via a privately owned blog configured much like this forum.
> 
> I had already done the background research, but before I wrote the article from my notational outline I wanted to speak directly with one of the organization's higher ups.  It's not easy.  It's like a cult, akin to Scientology.  These guys are really paranoid about direct communications with skeptics.  I was even advised to upgrade my firewall before going to the blog as my article was not going to be a positive review. It turned out fine though as I did learn that I had a few incidentals misconstrued from my conversation with him, so I was able to revise my notes on those and do more reading to confirm.
> 
> But it did get a little weird when he asked me about my person religious beliefs.  I let him know I was a Christian and he started getting a bit condescending.  I ignored that, pretended not to notice, because my goal was to get what I needed and move on.  But that only made him more condescending as he clearly got the idea that I wasn't merely being diplomatically obtuse but was actually stupid. I just let him go on with his silliness about the nature of chemical composition, the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy of the Heisenberg principle and the like. . . .   When he got done with all that I asked him a few pointed questions in the light of certain facts about these things, and he terminated the conversation.  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that the worlds of atheists get smaller and smaller with each new absurdity they assert to deny the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, religion is on the retreat.
Click to expand...


Yes and no. i think we are moving away from the old school approach of laying down the law and having followers follow the leaders. SAme with how govt is evolving toward more self-governmnet and localized management by teaching communities to be more independent: starting with independent states, then breaking down into independent cities, and now independent districts or townships within counties.

With religion also we are getting away with the old school authority figure type relationship.

so that role of religion is moving into another stage, where people are independent mature adults.
We are no longer children or teens who need to be "spanked or grounded" by our parents.

People outgrow their parents, like the colonies outgrew their parent country.

It is time that we graduate and move out to be self-governing and not rely on some authority figure to tell us what to do or else.

The Reformation movement reformed the church and people no longer were bound to Catholic authority as the one way to Salvation but could invoke the laws directly.

The State is going through this now, with people denouncing false govt that the people do not need to blindly follow, especially if govt officials are violating and abusing the law. So you see people invoking the Constitutional laws
directly and reclaiming the authority of the people to direct the govt (not the govt directing the people) the same way the people ARE the church body (not the church as an elite group of elders herding the people around as followers) People = Church body People = Govt
When we embrace the law, we ARE that body of people being represented under contract or agreement between us.

So the laws remain what they are, the spirit of the laws don't change.

But our relationsihp to authority figures and Collective Institutions of Church and State are CHANGING.

this is a wonderful good thing, but the change is such impact and requires so much
responsibility on the part of the people, it can seem frightening.

liek running off and running your own household, your own city or state
and having 1000 times more responsibilities than you can handle on your own.

We need to work in teams to manage it.

So part of the evolutionary process is to prepare us, both internally with our own readiness for change
and social responsibility, and logistically to work with others to handle the physical changes in society,
as our very social institutions will be transformed from the inside out, from the grassroots up.

Starting with us and then affecting the collective level from there. It will be exponential.
it has been happening over a long time, so if you see how much work it has taken to build
it isn't an overnight change and isn't so scary but a long process over many centuries
that has been building to a climax, to critical mass we are reaching currently.

We cannot afford any more waste or wars.

We really have no choice but to start cleaning up after old messes and conflicts
and quit repeating more!

it will take everyone working together at maximum capacity, so it won't be so scary
when we realize we're all in it together. There is no time for "them vs. us" conflicts.
it's more like "what part is  yours and what is mine, how can I help you do that better
so we can all be most effective" -- if you've ever seen people work together after a
natural disaster or crisis hits, there is no time to fight, everyone just helps each other
because otherwise they're all stuck. If anyone panics it will mess up everyone's ability to
focus and help. So they just focus on doing what needs to get done, no questions asked.

It will be like that, just focusing on what can we do most effectively and how do we
organize our best minds and ideas and resources in teams and networks?

how do we get away from fighting over what the rules or plans are,
and figure out what works and how to get it going to prove it so more people can follow good models as examples?

it will be more positive that negative.

you may see it as the old religion  falling into disuse.
but others will see it as the teachings and message being fulfilled.

When the rocket launches, it may render unusable parts the launch pad and booster gear
that is designed to get it to a certain stage and that's it. that is not a bad thing to let go of that part of the rocket.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.
> 
> And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.
> 
> Dork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not described in nature either.  It's cogency may be _demonstrated_ in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.
> 
> And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 is the descriptOR, idiot
> 
> Also my argument is not negatable. Knowledge may have NO SOURCE, and I kno w the junk religious answer to that but you can save it. Not having to have a source =\= not existing. You can think on that, with your dogmatic pseudo philosophy.
Click to expand...


You do realize, of course, that you just shifted from the metaphysical substance of the mathematical value of two to a tautological expression concerning the value 2, something about a descriptORidiot?  You might as well just run it all together, given that gibberish is gibberish. A = A.

And that argument (_snicker_) of yours:  knowledge presupposes a knower.  Hence, for that argument (_snicker_) of yours, the rest is down hill from there.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that makes sense.  So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.

I noticed that you asked Justin about the laws of thought.  They are the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle.  You just violated all three in that post.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.  So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.
> 
> I noticed that you asked Justin about the laws of thought.  They are the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle.  You just violated all three in that post.
Click to expand...

Awesome! Which post?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about what the number two describes, clown shoes.
> 
> And again, knowledge needing a source is not maxi magic, knowledge COULD just be, go ahead and prove that it couldn't, absolutely.
> 
> Dork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It's not described in nature either.  It's cogency may be _demonstrated_ in nature outside of our minds, albeit, only as ultimately apprehended in our minds.
> 
> And I've already shown you what real academicians already know: your argument is self-negating, futile. That will be abundantly clear again when I show it to Emily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 is the descriptOR, idiot
> 
> Also my argument is not negatable. Knowledge may have NO SOURCE, and I kno w the junk religious answer to that but you can save it. Not having to have a source =\= not existing. You can think on that, with your dogmatic pseudo philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do realize, of course, that you just shifted from the metaphysical substance of the mathematical value of two to a tautological expression concerning the value 2, something about a descriptORidiot?  You might as well just run it all together, given that gibberish is gibberish. A = A.
> 
> And that argument (_snicker_) of yours:  knowledge presupposes a knower.  Hence, for that argument (_snicker_) of yours, the rest is down hill from there.
Click to expand...

You have to be able to delineate between logic, and what logic describes.

Logic is simply a descriptor, it does not exist in the physical sense - what it describes exists. What it describes does not need logic there to describe it, in order for it to exist.

Same with knowledge. Knowledge does not exist physically - just what is known and knowable - such as logic.

In order to describe things accurately (logic) or know the (knowledge), does not require a supreme mind that began everything in order to ground those physical things being described.

What you call the law of identity for example. A=a doesn't mean a god had to make it so because other possibilities NOT proven to be ruled out exist.

That is what tag fails to show, and why it begs the question. Begs it hard as fuck, because it can not as a proof rule out OTHER POSSIBILITIES - which means itself as a proof FAILS.


----------



## G.T.

Knowledge requires a knower.
Sentient brains exist.
Knowledge exists.

What knowledge describes does not require a knower.

"It just is" is not debunked.
"It always was" is not debunked. Our particular universe is not even necessarily all of existence, there could be infinite others and the whole string of 'existence" period may have NO beginning. Not debunked.
"I am the only person that exists," not debunked.
"We are inside a computer program made by some dork from Wisconsin, he made an exact replica of his real world except that time was completely fabricated, just for his program" is not debunked. 


Etc etc etc.



Until you rule out EVERY OTHER POSSIBILITY in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, then saying "knowledge requires god" cannot be used as PROOF of anything.

Tag is bunk for those reasons. And its irrational form, begging the question.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Logic is simply a descriptor, it does not exist in the physical sense - what it describes exists.



Nothing that follows from the above in your post works because you start out with things that are _not _logically or definitively true.  

Logic (in and of itself, not the word _logic_) is _not_ a descriptor.  Logic as such doesn't describe!  Everybody knows that.

Logic is a tool used by humans to make the necessary distinctions/delineations between and about the various things that exist in order for humans to define or describe them. 

Human apprehension or human consciousness using the tool of logic defines/describes, and the _name_ or the _identity_ _assigned_ to the thing defined/described _is_ the descriptor.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Knowledge requires a knower.
> Sentient brains exist.
> Knowledge exists.



This proves that the existence of knowledge presupposes the existence of consciousness or the existence of a knower.  In other words, as you say, there has to be a knower for knowledge to exist.  Since we know that humans exist, beings with a sentient brain, we know that knowledge exists.  That doesn't debunk anything at all; it proves something that's true:  knowledge exists!  Period.  End of thought.

The assertion of the MPTAG doesn't dispute anything in that syllogism, let alone the conclusion.  The premises are true.  The conclusion is true.  There's no dispute or basis of contention between your syllogism and that of the TAG.  Neither debunks the other.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.  So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.
Click to expand...


I think you probably missed my point. Which, to be fair, wasn't very clear. 

My son has tried to convince me that our beliefs, even beliefs that are highly articulated, are never fundamentally rational at their core - and I'm beginning to think he's right. He says that they are adopted to satisfy deeply embedded emotional needs and we use reason to justify them or, far more rarely (almost never for most of us), challenge them. The thing is, it's the emotional strength of our beliefs that drives us to justify them rationally. And the more powerful the belief, the greater work we're willing to do to justify it.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> Even if we cannot prove there is a SOURCE of all knowledge.
> What about the SET of all knowledge, laws, facts, events, thoughts that have occurred in the world?
> 
> Doesn't that exist as a collective SET of all things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove it.  No one can.  But the rules of organic thought do as Rawlings pointed out.  God tells us he's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
> 
> This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence.
> 
> Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.
> 
> Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Let us known when you want to stop thinking about irrelevancies, which amount to saying God doesn't exist over and over to yourself, and get back to the objective truths about existence and origin.
Click to expand...


a.  If we are right about organized religions, and I firmly believe we are, then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or "creator".  It's just something that created us.  All the other fairytale shit is just bullshit imo.  Sorry if the truth hurts.

b.  And we are right about all the organized religions.  The 3 Abraham religions are hogwash, Greek Gods, Pharaoh gods.  OR, your one god is real and the rest are bullshit, right?

c.  I think "they" use religions to manipulate, control & keep the masses down.  It is a dumb concept so they use it to dumb down society.  

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – _Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have looked at my societies main organized religion and decided it is bullshit.  Some people who do what I do turn to Hindu, Budda, Muslim, Jew (Sammy Davis Jr.) Mormon, Born agains.  We want to be religious.  We want there to be a god.
> 
> And if my societies organized religion is made up, what does it matter if I don't believe in god?  They say I'll go to hell.  They are fucked up and stupid and hypocrites.  If there is a god he would reward my intelligence not your stupidity.  Sorry, tough love.
> 
> Only a god can say he is 100% an atheist because he would have to be able to be in all places at one time.  A god basically.  So we admit not to be certain.  But certain your gods don't exist?  That we are.  So we are atheists when it comes to your god, not a generic one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with " So we admit not to be certain " as being an impediment for the individual to accomplish the goal of Spiritual existence post physiology - whether there is an Almighty or not is irrelevant in accomplishing the goal first that itself will either answer the question or by its sucess make the answer answerable. -
> 
> engineering life must be a multispiritual endeavor, the possibility certainly exist to join the effort, doubt is the seed for failure.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.


----------



## sealybobo

Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based.  Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. 

_“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.”_ – Chapman Cohen

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go?
> 
> My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.
Click to expand...


Even I scratch my head and wonder how.  I just look at all the evidence differently than you.  

I see that we had Pharaoh gods, greek gods, abraham gods etc and say our ancestors made it up a long time ago when they weren't that bright and very superstitious.  You, and my mom, say you believe there is SOMETHING because we have always believed in something greater than us.  Again, I say that's no evidence and like you guys, I don't have a clue either.  I'd like to believe I just can't.  Too smart to believe irrational unprovable unfalsafiable claims.  And your deep thinking into why their is or must be a god while interesting, does not prove a god exists.  And so since all the Jesus and Devil and Noah shit is made up, I'm leaning STONGLY towards the atheist side of the argument.  

But since I would have to be a God to be a full blown atheist, I guess the best I can tell you is that I'm agnostic atheist.  I've told you a million times.

Also is true then that you would have had to have seen god to know for sure.  So you are an agnostic theist.  You can't honestly say you are a THEIST because you've never seen god nor can you introduce me so you can say whatever you want boy.


----------



## G.T.

I'll wait for TAGGers to absolutely disprove other possible explanations for existence.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Rawlings, you can put any kind of descriptor in front of logic... classical, formal, neo-classical, whatever... it is still a word which describes a concept of human belief and perception. Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> This is not a matter of me wanting to continue being a cave-dweller. I understand your argument regarding human cognition and identity, and logic for that matter, and I have not disagreed with you on any of that. I have been treated as if what I had to offer posed some sort of threat to your ideas. I don't know why, other than hubris.
> 
> I have only pointed out that any discussion of "logic" or things like "evidence" and "proofs" are all highly subjective terms used by humans to define various human perceptions of the aspects in reality. Because YOU can see your argument as valid and apparent, doesn't mean that every perspective also sees the same thing. And even if they did, it doesn't mean it's the truth. Logic does not equal truth. We don't know truth, we believe truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, I'm impervious to the false and immaterial innuendoes of hubris or insecurity. You are making claims about reality that are purely subjective as if they were absolutes from on high, while you provide absolutely no objectively discernible argumentation or evidence in support of the bald declarations. None. Your contention about logic, evidence and proofs is false and contradictory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there IS "unassailable logic" but this doesn't mean it is truth. We are incapable of knowing truth, we can only believe truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be objective or rational if you keeping inaccurately thinking and stating things. I've told you this before. It is self-evident that logic is _not_ truth. Logic is a tool that divulges truth. Your statement is meaningless. Then you declare that we are incapable of knowing truth. How do you _know_ that is true? Because you _believe_ that is true? It’s not possible to _believer _a falsehood?
> 
> We, all of us, can see what is objectively true logically, and there is no justifiable or coherent reason to believe that what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges is not true. Is it possible that we can come to false conclusions even though we faithfully and objectively applied the principle?  Sure.
> But the reason we know that’s possible is the very same reason we know the fault would not be due to the logical principle, but due to apply it to a set of falsely apprehended data or do to a set of incomplete data.
> 
> But then that mostly happens when we are applying the principle to empirical data, not the rational data of axioms, postulates or theorems.
> 
> There's not a shred of evidence to support the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated is not true. How could there be? And the notion that the knowledge thusly extrapolated might not be true outside of our minds is useless, subjective mush. For whether that is the case or not, we wouldn't know the difference or be able to do anything about it. That's just the way it is for us, and commonsense and experience dictate that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are at the very least reliably synchronized with the properties and the processes of the cosmological order.
> 
> There is no evidence or reason to believe that human consciousness has primacy over existence. On the contrary, all the evidence and the rational apprehensions of human cognition dictate that existence has primacy over human consciousness!
> 
> In other words, regardless of what the ultimate reality _might_ be, that has absolutely no bearing on what the objectively applied principle of identity divulges every time we apply it. Wisdom dictates we go with what works rationally and empirically.
> 
> Bottom line: All you're really saying in the end is that what appears to be, might not be true. Okay. That’s nothing new, and it is in fact a useful thing to know, as we know that our data could be off. Also, this understanding allows us to imagine alternatives that we might not otherwise consider, but we must eventually be able to reconcile any extrapolations thusly derived to the real world in order for them to be of any practical use, and logic tells us that what might be via intuition and experimentation is dangerous to assume _without_ always bearing in mind the exact nature of our premise. Otherwise, we're just blindly going with the flow of subjective mush, and it is people like me who are most capable of imaginatively regarding the variously apparent potentialities, not irrationalists or subjectivists, for they are in fact the most dogmatically closed-mind fanatics around.
> 
> Absolute logical consistency and objectivity reveal the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of subjectivist/relativist mush that presupposes that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't real simply because its purely rational and not material. Ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only closed-minded dogmatists ask the question of whether or not the nature of a thing is material or immaterial, or disregard the constructs of infinity, perfection, eternity, absoluteness, ultimacy . . . and accordingly confine the principle of identity and the logic thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality. Hello! Folks were actually on this thread suggesting that I'm the closed-minded dogmatist because my way of thinking about things, actually recommended by the laws of thought, didn't make sense to them. Yeah. It didn't make sense to them because they are stuck in their one-dimensional world of subjective mush, which is not what logic is telling us about reality at all!
> 
> Logic is telling us that reality is  infinitely more complex than that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are demonstrating that you don't comprehend what I said, which is what I figured. Whether you believe I have proven it or not, individuals have individual perspectives. They believe "proof" in different ways. They see and evaluate evidence in different ways. They develop perceptions of truth through what they believe, whether out of faith or logic, or even scientific observation.
> 
> Humans are not infallible, our intelligence is not omniscient and our minds are not perfect, so no one can ever _know_ truth. We believe truths, sometimes based on perceptions of logic, faith, spirituality, science... all kinds of things or maybe even strong combinations of these things, which are all subjective and based on our perceptions and perspectives as individual entities.
> 
> The only thing that can *know* truth is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then nothing can know truth because there is no god.  That's sad huh?
> 
> I might agree with you if you said, "only a god can know everything".  Is that what you meant?
> 
> P.S.  I thought about you when I was talking to my dad this weekend about how there is no god.  His reasoning is just as liquid as yours is.  There is a god because there must be.
> 
> And neither of you give the arguments against god any honest consideration because if you did then you wouldn't be so sure there is a god.
> 
> Especially a guy like you who claims to not be a christian.  Do you know what you are?  A cherry picker.  You are like a tea bagger or libertarian.  Can't honestly defend the GOP but all you are is a spin off.  A cherry picker.  You believe in generic god and hell.  And no one else on this planet believes what you do, but feel free to keep on thinking you are so smart.
> 
> More people are atheists than agree with your version of god.   Think about that for a minute.  Why do they all believe different things?  Because it's all in their heads.
> 
> There are just as many gods as there are snow flakes and just like snow flakes not one god is exactly the same as another persons spin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly boob, your Dad sounds like a much smarter man than you, your Mom must have been a real air head. Tell me, when does your "phase" move back into "agnostic" mode where you maintain we don't know for sure? Is this a monthly cycle thing or does it come and go?
> 
> My version of God is very fluid. 95% of the species believes in my God, they've merely customized their version to taste. Only 5% of the species believes in Nothing.
Click to expand...


I am also smart enough to understand that I can not say 100% sure there is a god/creator.  Are you smart enough to admit that for you to be a real theist you would have to have talked to god?  Otherwise the best you can be is an agnostic theist at best.  

AND, stupid, if you have talked to god, you would have to introduce us to him for us to ever call ourselves theists.  Why do you get proof and we don't?

But you know you can't honestly say he has talked to you.  You've talked to him sure but him talk back?  Doubt it.  

But if it is true, tell him to talk to me ONCE and I'm in!  I'm open to the possibility your invisible man is real.  Are you open to the possibility he's all in your head?  I doubt it.


----------



## G.T.

_"It just is" is not debunked.
"It always was" is not debunked. Our particular universe is not even necessarily all of existence, there could be infinite others and the whole string of 'existence" period may have NO beginning. Not debunked.
"I am the only person that exists," not debunked.
"We are inside a computer program made by some dork from Wisconsin, he made an exact replica of his real world except that time was completely fabricated, just for his program" is not debunked. 


Etc etc etc.



Until you rule out EVERY OTHER POSSIBILITY in the ABSOLUTE SENSE, then saying "knowledge requires god" cannot be used as PROOF of anything.

Tag is bunk for those reasons. And its irrational form, begging the question._


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.  So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you probably missed my point. Which, to be fair, wasn't very clear.
> 
> My son has tried to convince me that our beliefs, even beliefs that are highly articulated, are never fundamentally rational at their core - and I'm beginning to think he's right. He says that they are adopted to satisfy deeply embedded emotional needs and we use reason to justify them or, far more rarely (almost never for most of us), challenge them. The thing is, it's the emotional strength of our beliefs that drives us to justify them rationally. And the more powerful the belief, the greater work we're willing to do to justify it.
Click to expand...


That's a dynamic of human psychology, a dynamic that we're all aware of.  At least I am, you are and your son is. I have no dispute with that.  But in my opinion, it's a fault that humans are prone to fall into, but don't have to fall into.

It does not follow that _objectively_ applied logic in and of itself is synonymous with _subjective_ emotionalism/rationalization.  By definition, by the juxtuification of these two things, we see that these two things are not synonymous. 

If that cognitive distinction, the one I just made, is a deeply embedded conviction, though it may not be true outside our minds, so what?  That conviction, in and of itself, is not based on emotion, but on logical pragmatism, and the fact this cognitive distinction is derived via objectively applied logic is proven to be derived just so, as it also concedes that this cognitive distinction might not be true outside our minds.  But then it also seems to be an absurdity to say that it's not true beyond our minds.  Hence, I conclude that it must be true.  That distinction is not based on emotionalism.  It's not a rationalization of the emotional kind. 

That's just the way it is.  _Pragmatism_ is the right word here.  

The Five Things, for example, are just the way it is when we look at the problems of existence and origin, and the fact of the matter is that everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can see that these things are objectively true.  Whether they are ultimately true outside of our minds is not the issue!  Thinking that they might not be true outside of our minds does not change the fact that they are true in our minds, does not change the fact that we can't make these things go away or  tell us something else.  We can't _believe them into telling us something else_!  And the notion that they aren't true outside of our minds seems to be an absurdity.  Hence, we have no good reason to assume they are not true outside of our minds.  Pragmatism.  That's just the way it is!

There should be no dispute at all among us over these five things.  None!  Except some keep interjecting something that is not there!  They're interjecting a notion that is based on a subjective rationalization (an emotional reaction) that I'm saying The Five Things are an argument that proves God existence. 

Huh?

I never said any such thing.  Mirage.  Illusion.  Phantom.  Ghost. 

But some have also suggested that the frank, objective recognition of the incontrovertibly true Five Things could not possibly lead to a proof for God's existence.  Oh?  Are you sure?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  But to preemptively deny the possibility that it doesn't lead to some kind of proof is to interject a deeply embedded bias prematurely, emotionally.  That's a rationalization that is not objective. 

The biggest problem on this thread is the false notion that follows in my next post which I'm going isolate.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> I'll wait for TAGGers to absolutely disprove other possible explanations for existence.


I'm waiting for the TAGGers to make an honest admission that that TAGGing makes every possible explanation for existence (and for competing claim to gods) just as likely as theirs. 

Did I say I'm waiting for an honest admission? Nah. I wouldn't expect honesty.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
> 
> They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
> 
> 1. I exist.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? No.
> 
> 2. The Universe exists.
> 
> Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
> 
> 3. God is not disprovable.
> 
> Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
> 
> 4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
> 
> 4  is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
> 
> What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
> 
> -gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
> -gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
> 
> 
> It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll wait for TAGGers to absolutely disprove other possible explanations for existence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for the TAGGers to make an honest admission that that TAGGing makes every possible explanation for existence (and for competing claim to gods) just as likely as theirs.
> 
> Did I say I'm waiting for an honest admission? Nah. I wouldn't expect honesty.
Click to expand...

You won't get honesty from proven liars. MD Rawlings is a liar.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*

The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!

Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.

Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!

Word!

The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.

So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.

Science verifies or falsifies.

Logic proves or disproves.

Period.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.


This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.

If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something. 

You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view. 

God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something. 

derp derp


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> a.  If we are right about organized religions, and I firmly believe we are, then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or "creator".  It's just something that created us.  All the other fairytale shit is just bullshit imo.  Sorry if the truth hurts.
> 
> b.  And we are right about all the organized religions.  The 3 Abraham religions are hogwash, Greek Gods, Pharaoh gods.  OR, your one god is real and the rest are bullshit, right?
> 
> c.  I think "they" use religions to manipulate, control & keep the masses down.  It is a dumb concept so they use it to dumb down society.
> 
> _“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – _Anonymous



I just read the posts between Rawlings and dblack.  Posts that get back to rational/civil thought and discourse.  The Five Things logically hold.  They prove that the question of whether or not God exists does matter.  Religion has nothing to do with these things.  What people do with religion has nothing to do with these things.   Your imposition of your subjective biases about religion has nothing to do with these things.  So you think this religion or that religion is hogwash.  You think religion is hogwash. So?  What am I supposed to do with that?

I agree with the idea that sealybobo thinks religion is hogwash because he told me he thinks religion is hogwash.  Emily should be happy.  We agree on something.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Are you an irrationalist (an epistemological relativist) or a devotee of that idiot savant Ayn Rand, G.T.? I thought you leftists hated Ayn Rand. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually thinking of Ayn Rand as I read your post. I recall a particularly insightful critic who observed that she was really more of a master rationalizer than a rationalist. Some people are "smart" enough to convince themselves of just about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.  So the pseudo-philosophical . . . duh . . . on the outskirts of peer-reviewed academia is the real stuff, but the real stuff of peer-reviewed academia is the duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you probably missed my point. Which, to be fair, wasn't very clear.
> 
> My son has tried to convince me that our beliefs, even beliefs that are highly articulated, are never fundamentally rational at their core - and I'm beginning to think he's right. He says that they are adopted to satisfy deeply embedded emotional needs and we use reason to justify them or, far more rarely (almost never for most of us), challenge them. The thing is, it's the emotional strength of our beliefs that drives us to justify them rationally. And the more powerful the belief, the greater work we're willing to do to justify it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a dynamic of human psychology, a dynamic that we're all aware of.  At least I am, you are and your son is. I have no dispute with that.  But in my opinion, it's a fault that humans are prone to fall into, but don't have to fall into.
> 
> It does not follow that _objectively_ applied logic in and of itself is synonymous with _subjective_ emotionalism/rationalization.  By definition, by the juxtuification of these two things, we see that these two things are not synonymous.
Click to expand...


I didn't say they were synonymous. I said that we're driven to rationalize our beliefs by strong emotional commitments. And, more importantly, the beliefs we work the hardest to rationalize aren't necessarily the most sound. They are the ones that provide us with the most emotional satisfaction.



> If that cognitive distinction, the one I just made, is a deeply embedded conviction, though it may not be true outside our minds, so what?  That conviction, in and of itself, is not based on emotion, but on logical pragmatism, and the fact this cognitive distinction is derived via objectively applied logic is proven to be derived just so, as it also concedes that this cognitive distinction might not be true outside our minds.  *But then it also seems to be an absurdity to say that it's not true beyond our minds. * Hence, I conclude that it must be true.  That distinction is not based on emotionalism.  It's not a rationalization of the emotional kind.



I think this is the part of the argument that most eludes me. It's more or less, if I recall correctly, the crux of Descartes proof of god - the notion that we'd never have the idea of a perfect supreme being unless it were true. But we have all kinds of ideas about reality that turn out to be false. What drives you to conclude gods represent a special case?



> The Five Things, for example, are just the way it is when we look at the problems of existence and origin, and *the fact of the matter is that everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can see that these things are objectively true.*



This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.



> Whether they are ultimately true outside of our minds is not the issue!  Thinking that they might not be true outside of our minds does not change the fact that they are true in our minds, does not change the fact that we can't make these things go away or  tell us something else.  We can't _believe them into telling us something else_!  And the notion that they aren't true outside of our minds seems to be an absurdity.  Hence, we have no good reason to assume they are not true outside of our minds.  Pragmatism.  That's just the way it is!



The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.



> There should be no dispute at all among us over these five things.  None!  Except some keep interjecting something that is not there!  They're interjecting a notion that is based on a subjective rationalization (an emotional reaction) that I'm saying The Five Things are an argument that proves God existence.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> I never said any such thing.  Mirage.  Illusion.  Phantom.  Ghost.
> 
> But some have also suggested that the frank, objective recognition of the incontrovertibly true Five Things could not possibly lead to a proof for God's existence.  Oh?  Are you sure?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.  But to preemptively deny the possibility that it doesn't lead to some kind of proof is to interject a deeply embedded bias prematurely, emotionally.  That's a rationalization that is not objective.
> 
> The biggest problem on this thread is the false notion that follows in my next post which I'm going isolate.



This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> I think this is the part of the argument that most eludes me. It's more or less, if I recall correctly, the crux of Descartes proof of god - the notion that we'd never have the idea of a perfect supreme being unless it were true. But we have all kinds of ideas about reality that turn out to be false. What drives you to conclude gods represent a special case?



What argument?  The Five Things *DO NOT* assert that God's existence is proven by them.   




dblack said:


> This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.



The Five Things *DO NOT* assert that God's existence is proven by them. 

1. We exist.
2. The universe exists.
3.  The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
4.  God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
5. Science can't verify God's existence.

At this juncture, end of story.

*6. "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!"*

There's no sixth thing like that!  There's no sixth thing at all.  Where are you getting that sixth thing from?



> The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.



1. We exist.
2. The universe exists.
3.  The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
4.  God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
5. Science can't verify God's existence.

These five things aren't true?  Of course they're true.  The answer is _yes_.  You already agreed that they are true. 



> This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.



The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them. 

*6.  These five things prove God exists.
*
What are you talking about?  There is no such sixth thing as in the above.  It's not there!  There's only Five!  FIVE.   FIVE.  FIVE.  And "These five things prove that God exists" is not one of the five.  The five things DO NOT prove God exists.

 The five things are not even an argument.  The Five Things are not a syllogism concluding anything.  They're merely a list of five things that are obviously true logically.  And nothing else.

You have already agreed that the five things are true and that they do not by themselves prove that God exists.  I agree.  What is your beef with that?

Period.  End of thought.

Stop adding/assuming  things that aren't there.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
Click to expand...



No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not *sometimes *the same thing as disproving something.  Scientific falsification is *not always* the same thing as disproving something.  In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was *not* the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!

Hence, *the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous* terms used that are *ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES* true about what science does are *VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE*. 

SHUT.  UP.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> a.  If we are right about organized religions, and I firmly believe we are, then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or "creator".  It's just something that created us.  All the other fairytale shit is just bullshit imo.  Sorry if the truth hurts.
> 
> b.  And we are right about all the organized religions.  The 3 Abraham religions are hogwash, Greek Gods, Pharaoh gods.  OR, your one god is real and the rest are bullshit, right?
> 
> c.  I think "they" use religions to manipulate, control & keep the masses down.  It is a dumb concept so they use it to dumb down society.
> 
> _“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – _Anonymous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just read the posts between Rawlings and dblack.  Posts that get back to rational/civil thought and discourse.  The Five Things logically hold.  They prove that the question of whether or not God exists does matter.  Religion has nothing to do with these things.  What people do with religion has nothing to do with these things.   Your imposition of your subjective biases about religion has nothing to do with these things.  So you think this religion or that religion is hogwash.  You think religion is hogwash. So?  What am I supposed to do with that?
> 
> I agree with the idea that sealybobo thinks religion is hogwash because he told me he thinks religion is hogwash.  Emily should be happy.  We agree on something.
Click to expand...


Why do we need god to be good?  Why is god important?  Do you think people are stupid and need to be scared into being civil?  If they aren't good they'll go to hell?  

Well I also see how Islam uses religion and tells people if they murder they'll not only go to heaven but they'll also get 20 or more virgins when they arrive.  

That's not your religion?  Doesn't matter.  Its a religion.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not *sometimes *the same thing as disproving something.  Scientific falsification is *not always* the same thing as disproving something.  In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was *not* the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!
> 
> Hence, *the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous* terms used that are *ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES* true about what science does are *VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE*.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.
Click to expand...

You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.


but but but but sometimes


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not *sometimes *the same thing as disproving something.  Scientific falsification is *not always* the same thing as disproving something.  In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was *not* the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!
> 
> Hence, *the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous* terms used that are *ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES* true about what science does are *VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE*.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.
Click to expand...


You can say any crazy thing that comes to your mind.  Do we have to "prove" you are wrong no matter how amazing your claims are?

I shit god.  It's how I make a living.  I don't have to work.  If I want to make more money I just eat more.  

Or, I'm an xman.  Or I've seen an xman.  They are real!  Prove me wrong.,


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
Click to expand...


The  proper terms in science that are always accurate are "verification and falsification."  That's an uncontroversial fact!  "Prove and disprove" do not always mean the same thing as "verification and falsification," and using those wrongs confuses science with what philosophy does about logical distinctions and definitions.   That's all I was telling Hollie before. That's all Rawlings is telling you.

FACT!  Who's the idiot putting an agreement checkmark on your stupid post.  Who's the other idiot?   Idiots everywhere.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not *sometimes *the same thing as disproving something.  Scientific falsification is *not always* the same thing as disproving something.  In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was *not* the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!
> 
> Hence, *the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous* terms used that are *ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES* true about what science does are *VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE*.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.
> 
> 
> but but but but sometimes
Click to expand...


I agreed with  you on a post and at the exact same time you gave me one back.  What are the chances that would happen at the exact same time?  That must be a sign that god does exist and he agrees with us.

God just told me he doesn't know how Theists figured him out.  He never came and talked to them.  He didn't mean for us to happen.  Sort of like when a maggot is born out of your shit is what he said.  He doesn't care about them, didn't invent them on purpose and there is no heaven.  At least as far as he knows.  He says his people all wonder how the fuck they got here too.  They wonder if like us they came from something greaters anus.  LOL.  The god that created us has parents and they have parents.  We are so small.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *6. "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!"*
> 
> There's no sixth thing like that!  There's no sixth thing at all.  Where are you getting that sixth thing from?


It was in response to the portion of your comment that I bolded:


> The Five Things, for example, are just the way it is when we look at the problems of existence and origin, and *the fact of the matter is that everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can see that these things are objectively true.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the attitude that makes your efforts to persuade others such a dismal failure. It's really no different than saying "If you don't believe, you're going to hell!" *It's a threat, and an insult to anyone with the temerity to question your convictions.*
Click to expand...


You're implying that anyone who denies that your five points are objectively true doesn't have a sound and developmentally mature mind.



> The "Five Things" still seems like a shell game to me. I can agree to them when they are qualified and worded in certain ways, but as soon as I do that, I see you rephrasing them in a way that is entirely unjustified in my view. It seems like a bait and switch, an effort to get someone pulled into a commitment to principles that don't understand, and don't actually adhere to, that will inevitably lead them to your desired conclusion. I still haven't seen how you use the principles to prove that gods exists (I guess that's the "organic logic" part). All I've seen is a lot of salesmanship and claims that don't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We exist.
> 2. The universe exists.
> 3.  The possibility that God exists as the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist cannot be logically rule out.
> 4.  God as Creator would logically be the greatest thing that exists.
> 5. Science can't verify God's existence.
> 
> These five things aren't true?  Of course they're true.  The answer is _yes_.  You already agreed that they are true.
Click to expand...


Worded like that, sure (if you change them again, we'll see).

So what? Why do you such a boner for These Five Things?



> This biggest problem is here is that you're playing (annoying) games with us. If you've got a proof, state it. All you keep saying is that it's self-evident based on the "Five Things" (which have an uncanny knack for changing) and the rules of "organic logic" . If that's the case, step through your organic logic and show how the five things justify your proof, or whatever it is you're claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Five Things DO NOT assert that God's existence is proven by them.
> 
> *6.  These five things prove God exists.
> *
> What are you talking about? There is no such sixth thing as in the above.  It's not there!  There's only Five!  FIVE.   FIVE.  FIVE.  And "These five things prove that God exists" is not one of the five.  The five things DO NOT prove God exists.
Click to expand...


What the fuck are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a fucking proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the fucking point.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> What the fuck are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a fucking proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the fucking point.


sealybobo dblack - m.d. is a presuppositional apologetic

These are a laughing stock in philosophy, yet THEY don't think so.

This is the "proof" that m.d. thinks he has:

The Tag argument, the "transcendental argument for god," goes:

1. if there is no god knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible.
3. therefore, god exists


This, of course, is as dull and unsophisticated as it gets as it begs the question and they'd first have to do something their special little brains can't: prove premise #1, in order to even USE it as a premise. 

See m.d. using the term MPTA A LOT? THATS THE "MAJOR PREMISE OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT."Or, #1 above.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> Logic is the tool, and the only tool, that can prove or disprove things to be coherent and, therefore, conceivably possible or not. It is the tool that tells us what science can do and what it can’t do. Logic precedes science!
> 
> Word!
> 
> The only reason some are trying to say these things aren't true is because they’re unwittingly interjecting/assuming materialism and/or metaphysical naturalism, which begs the question, without logical proof or scientific verification. Logic cannot prove that this assumption is true, and science can't verify that this assumption is true. Logic can prove or disprove lots of things. Science can verify or falsify lots of things. But they cannot do these things, respectively, about everything.
> 
> So stop changing the reality in your minds about what these things do.
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such stupidity, it's even stupid FOR YOU.
> 
> If science is falsifying something, it is disproving it, which is in effect proving something.
> 
> You play word games to shift the burden away from your irrational world view.
> 
> God is not proven in the rational sense n'or the scientific sense, and science does prove things otherwise it could not falsify, dingbat, because falsifying means proving untrue, i.e. proving something.
> 
> derp derp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is saying that the scientific falsification of something is not *sometimes *the same thing as disproving something.  Scientific falsification is *not always* the same thing as disproving something.  In fact, not just sometimes, but lots of times in the past, scientific falsification was *not* the same thing as disproving something, YOU IGNORANAT, NOSE-PICKING, BUCKTOOTHED HAYSEED!
> 
> Hence, *the formal, proper, accurate, precise, unmitigated, unambiguous* terms used that are *ALWAYS, NOT JUST SOMETIMES* true about what science does are *VERIFICATION OR FALSIFICAITON, NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE*.
> 
> SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're psycho-babbling now. Cute.
> 
> 
> but but but but sometimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agreed with  you on a post and at the exact same time you gave me one back.  What are the chances that would happen at the exact same time?  That must be a sign that god does exist and he agrees with us.
> 
> God just told me he doesn't know how Theists figured him out.  He never came and talked to them.  He didn't mean for us to happen.  Sort of like when a maggot is born out of your shit is what he said.  He doesn't care about them, didn't invent them on purpose and there is no heaven.  At least as far as he knows.  He says his people all wonder how the fuck they got here too.  They wonder if like us they came from something greaters anus.  LOL.  The god that created us has parents and they have parents.  We are so small.
Click to expand...

anus is something we all want around our necks when reading m.d. rawlings, if you pronounce it a certain way. <a-noose>


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are YOU talking about? I didn't say "number 6". I'm asking: do you have a fucking proof or not? Stop playing childish games and get to the fucking point.
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo dblack - m.d. is a presuppositional apologetic
> 
> These are a laughing stock in philosophy, yet THEY don't think so.
> 
> This is the "proof" that m.d. thinks he has:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tag argument, the "transcendental argument for god," goes:
> 
> 1. if there is no god knowledge is not possible
> 2. knowledge is possible.
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> 
> This, of course, is as dull and unsophisticated as it gets as it begs the question and they'd first have to do something their special little brains can't: prove premise #1, in order to even USE it as a premise.
> 
> See m.d. using the term MPTA A LOT? THATS THE "MAJOR PREMISE OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT."Or, #1 above.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah. I heard that one before. But MD seems to be talking about something else. I'm waiting for the punch line.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom _just_ like 2 + 2 = 4.  But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?


dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom _just_ like 2 + 2 = 4.  But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.
Click to expand...


Ok. I'd rather him speak for himself, but - what does that have to do with the five things business?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MPTAG is an undeniable, irrefutable axiom _just_ like 2 + 2 = 4.  But then you understood what I was saying anyway, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> dblack HERE IS YOUR PUNCHLINE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I'd rather him speak for himself, but - what does that have to do with the five things business?
Click to expand...


Yea, he'll have to speak for himself on that but he extrapolates from them, coupled with some other pseudo jargain that he feels passes for deep intellectual thought, that the MPTAG is AXIOMATIC. He's a bit ridiculous, but let him respond and you be the judge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're implying that anyone who denies that your five points are objectively true doesn't have a sound and developmentally mature mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not imply that. I'm emphatically stating that.  *Anyone with a sound, developmentally mature mind* (not a young child, someone suffering from a mental disorder or someone who is mentally retarded) *can see that the five things are objectively true*!  Period.  I didn't say anything about going to hell? LOL!  There's nothing controversial about the cognitive facts of the five things or the kind of minds that might not be able to grasp them.
> 
> You have not once objected to what's actually being said.  Not once! Not ever! Instead you argue over things that aren't there, aren't real.  *Just stay with the five things.*  None of the  *#6s* or *#7s* or *#8s* or *#9s* or *#10s* or* #11s* that you keep adding to these five uncontroversial things exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? Why do you such a boner for These Five Things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's_ your_ boner about the five things?  LOL!  You've been going ape shit for pages over nothing controversial at all!  You just said, again, in this post, that you agree:  they are objectively true.  And I didn't change them. I merely simplified their expression.  The first post on them explained them.  Now all we need it a simple list.
> 
> You quibble over every friggin' thing, things that are nothing.  Get a grip.
> 
> As for their significance, *number 4* of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4.  It's _*logically*_ impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without _*logically*_ proving that He does exist. Note the word _*logically*_.  A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.
> 
> That is an historically, empirically and experientially fact of human cognition. Notwithstanding, this does not mean that science can verify what logic tells us must be true about God: *Number 5 *of the five things.
> 
> Every friggin' one of G.T's arguments are in fact proving this to be true!  He just keeps changing terms or jumping to conclusions that don't follow.  That's what he calling me a liar about, but only because he either can't see this simple and obvious truth or he's intentionally manipulating the flow of logic in order to avoid this truth.
> 
> That's his problem, not mine.  But I can easily show you where he's screwing his logic.
> 
> I am discussing the things that follow with Emily right now, clearing up confusion about the difference between logic and science, proof and verification, invalidation and falsification, the definitions of _infinity, perfection, eternity_ . . . and then finally I will come back to the MPTAG specifically once all of the things that are clouding her understand are fixed.
Click to expand...


----------



## G.T.

TAG begs the question.

Sorry bub, that doesnt become my problem, it's yours. 

It's logically impossible to PROVE god exists, as well as prove he doesn't, you assert that he/she/it exists you cannot prove that. You have not proven that. Douche. Also - saying god may not exist is not the same as saying knowledge may not exist, thus it doesnt prove your case when one denies your case................. that's called hubris. (and being a cock, but that's neither here n'or there).

In order to PROVE "_god is necessary for knowledge to exist_," you must FIRST ABSOLUTELY prove any and all other theories wrong.

Can't do it?

Can't presuppose god then and use tag and call it sound. Idiot.


----------



## G.T.

TAG is not an adult argument. It's an argument for children with big eyes, sort of like conspiracy theorists. 

It's low hanging fruit. It's childish.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> . As for their significance, *number 4* of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4.  It's _*logically*_ impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without _*logically*_ proving that He does exist. Note the word _*logically*_.  A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.



Where did you "show" this? Got a link? All I've seen are unsupported claims. Like this one.

Let me ask you this, is MPTAG accurate as presented by GT above? If so, it's quite a let down, and nothing about "The Five Things" supports it. *Where is it established that human knowledge presupposes a god?*

You've yet to make that case from what I've read.


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> . As for their significance, *number 4* of the Five Things is the key, and I have already shown that the MPTAG universally, objectively and absolutely holds true as an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition, just like 2 + 2 = 4.  It's _*logically*_ impossible for a human being to deny God’s existence without logically assuming that He does exist and, therefore, without _*logically*_ proving that He does exist. Note the word _*logically*_.  A human being cannot deny God’s existence without contradicting himself as he simultaneously violates the three fundamental laws of organic/classical thought biologically hardwired in our brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you "show" this? Got a link? All I've seen are unsupported claims. Like this one.
> 
> Let me ask you this, is MPTAG accurate as presented by GT above? If so, it's quite a let down, and nothing about "The Five Things" supports it. *Where is it established that human knowledge presupposes a god?*
> 
> You've yet to make that case from what I've read.
Click to expand...

TAGgers hold that truth requires a transcendent authority. 

Aside from TAG being horrible form, in that it begs the question hard as balls, its major premise also creates a false dilemma. 

If absolute truth is only absolute because it transcends conscious minds - - - - then it can't be based on god because then it's not transcending minds, but based on someone's opinion of what is true - In this case, god's. 

The primacy of existence has lots of TAGger objections, but cannot be PROVEN incorrect, so using god as absolute truth's authority is quite the irrational leap in any thinking man's wind tunnel. 

Presuppers cannot see the error of their ways, though, because they start with their conclusion and build their case later (beg the question), whereas a rational person is quite content with calling tag childish horseshit. It's snake oil for dopes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Knowledge requires a knower.
> Sentient brains exist.
> Knowledge exists.



G.T. you're not following the dialectic rules syllogistic arguments. You keep jumping to conclusions that are not supported by your syllogism. You have to put all of your premises and your ultimate conclusion in the syllogism. You're not doing that, and because you're not doing that you keep coming up with bullshit.

*But before we get to that, a few of your definitional errors need to be corrected.*

*First*, knowledge and logic (not their descriptors, the terms that denote them, but their essences) are _not_ descriptors! Descriptors are *the names* we put on things to denote their *identity* or *meaning*.

*Descriptors are names, labels or tags!
*


> de·scrip·tor
> diˈskriptər/
> _noun_
> 
> an element or term that has the function of describing, identifying, or indexing, in particular.
> a word or expression used to describe or identify something.



*Second*, knowledge and logic don't describe things*. Sentient beings describe things using these tools!* Mindless things don't think or describe or define.  We do!  There has to be a knower first in order for knowledge to exist. You just proved these things, and then you turn around and say they're not true after all!




G.T. said:


> What knowledge describes does not require a knower.



So knowledge describes things (which is false, as it's actually sentient beings, using logic and previous knowledge, who describe things,_ not_ the knowledge they have or logic they use), but there's no knower around to have the knowledge which you alleged describes something?!!!!!!!


----------



## G.T.

More word games.

In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give:        <---

As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!

BUT YOU CANT.

AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Knowledge requires a knower.
> Sentient brains exist.
> Knowledge exists.



*Continued. . . .
*
Hence, a knower/logician comes *before knowledge*. The knower/logician uses logic and the knowledge derived as tools to further advance what he knows, and quite obviously, as your syllogism proves, describing things using the tools of logic and previously established knowledge requires a describer/knower.

Knowledge, logic or mindless rocks don't describe things. Knowers that have knowledge and logic describe things.

What you're obviously trying to say is that *whatever exists, exists, whether there exists a sentient brain to know what exists or not.* Think and say things clearly, accurately and logically. Otherwise, you trick yourself into believing things that aren't there or in evidence, things that aren't rational or true.

And since your major premise uses the term _knower_, stick with the term _knower_, in this case, a _human being_, and thusly defined proceed.


Now, let's put everything you keep interjecting outside the confines of your syllogism and see what we really get:

1.  Knowledge requires a knower.
2.  Human knowers exist.
3.  Hence, knowledge exists.
4.  Human knowers believe that certain things must exist in order for them to exist.
5.  Human knowers believe these certain things must have existed before they existed.
6.  Hence, Human knowers believe that these certain things do not have to be known to exist by human knowers in order for them to exist.
7. Human knowers believe these things existed before them.
8.  Hence, Human knowers believe that whatever exists, exists.
_______________________________________________________

*1.  First Premise of the facts in evidence*:  the following syllogism is true and does _not_ conflict with the TAG:

1.  Knowledge requires a knower.
2.  Human knowers exist.
3.  Hence, knowledge exists.​

*2. Second Premise of the facts in evidence*:  the following syllogism is true and does _not_ conflict with the TAG:

1.  Knowledge requires a knower.
2.  Human knowers exist.
3.  Hence, knowledge exists.
4.  Human knowers believe that certain things must exist in order for them to exist.
5.  Human knowers believe these certain things must have existed before they existed.
6.  Hence, Human knowers believe that these certain things do not have to be known to exist by human knowers in order for them to exist.
7. Human knowers believe these things existed before them.
8.  Hence, Human knowers believe that whatever exists, exists.​
*3. Conclusion of the facts in evidence*:  you have _not_ refuted the TAG.


----------



## G.T.

I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.

TAG is not even submissable to begin with.

Holy fucking shit.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.



Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?


----------



## G.T.

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
Click to expand...

I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> More word games.
> 
> In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give:        <---
> 
> As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!
> 
> BUT YOU CANT.
> 
> AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.



You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things. 

You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not.  Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.

You're a pathological liar.  Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie.  You're a punk.  Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?

You are refuted, punk.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
Click to expand...


Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:

"4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."

Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> More word games.
> 
> In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give:        <---
> 
> As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!
> 
> BUT YOU CANT.
> 
> AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things.
> 
> You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not.  Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.
> 
> You're a pathological liar.  Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie.  You're a punk.  Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?
> 
> You are refuted, punk.
Click to expand...


Yep.  He's a punk.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.



So why did you try to refute it, punk?  Why did you lie about definitions, punk?  Why did you jump out of the syllogism and start saying things that don't follow, punk?  You've obviously a liar, punk.  Only pussies play girly games like this,  punk.  What a punk.  What a pussy.  If you were on my plumbing crew, I put my boot up your ass, punk.


----------



## hazlnut

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.




This is my evidence that God was here...








...and he gave artists something to aspire to.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> Yep.  He's a punk.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> More word games.
> 
> In your def. Of descriptor - knowledge and logic fit. You don't agree? You're not very smart to begin with, you're a pseudointellectual snake oil salesman, OR, gullible as shit. Here's how many fucks I give:        <---
> 
> As soon as you can prove that knowledge and logic and truth and absolutes require a conscious transcendent authority - well then you're not only a savant, but you're MAGIC!
> 
> BUT YOU CANT.
> 
> AND THAT YOU CANT....means using tag as a proof of anything is not rational. Its derp level nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You equated knowledge and logic as such to the names or labels or tags we, the describers/knowers, give things.
> 
> You averred that knowledge and logic describe things when quite obviously they do not.  Persons describe things using knowledge and logic.
> 
> You're a pathological liar.  Instead of conceding your definitional and logical errors you lie.  You're a punk.  Is this how you're raising daughter, to be a pathological liar like you?
> 
> You are refuted, punk.
Click to expand...

Hey scumbag, keep your snake oil comments about my daughter to your irrational self, Kay?

Presuppers. Oy.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
Click to expand...


#4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.  Wrong again.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
Click to expand...


#4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you try to refute it, punk?  Why did you lie about definitions, punk?  Why did you jump out of the syllogism and start saying things that don't follow, punk?  You've obviously a liar, punk.  Only pussies play girly games like this,  punk.  What a punk.  What a pussy.  If you were on my plumbing crew, I put my boot up your ass, punk.
Click to expand...

I don't try to 'refute' it. Dipshit. I never once said its first premise is not true, I said its not.proven so it can't be USED  as a proof. Try and keep up.

Cheerleader.

Figures you're a fuckin plumber the way you stroke md's pipe for him.


----------



## G.T.

"Punk" 

I wanna fight you!! Grrrrr!!!!

These are the sounds of your snake oil infused house of cards falling. You're welcome.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.  Wrong again.
Click to expand...


Hey - full disclosure: this TAG thing makes NO sense to me, so I'm not even pretending to understand it. Either I'm too stupid, or it's a load of horseshit. I have to admit either possibility.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's related, but you're ultimately right, it's not the point at all.  The ontological argument is an indirect, evidentiary argument that supports God's existence, but it's not what matters here.  The TAG proves God's existence directly.  That's the only argument that matters conclusively.  The rest is just properly understanding the difference between science and logic.


----------



## G.T.

Tag doesn't prove anything because its premises aren't proven. Justin's going to need a better professor.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Well, like I said, I don't really get what "The Five Awesome Things" have to do with any goddamned thing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

hazlnut said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my evidence that God was here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and he gave artists something to aspire to.
Click to expand...


Pretty cool, eh?  I was just there  last year!  First time I ever saw it in my life.  Something always came up . . . .but finally I got there.  Only, somebody actually died while I was there.  Geez whiz.  Slipped and fell.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> "Punk"
> 
> I wanna fight you!! Grrrrr!!!!
> 
> These are the sounds of your snake oil infused house of cards falling. You're welcome.



Hey, punk, stop making up your own definitions and then calling other people stupid because they know your definitions are dog shit, punk.  Stop playing word games, punk, and then when caught talking dog shit, punk, blaming those telling you the truth about your dog shit, punk. Use the right words for science, punk.  Stop pretending that your dog shit always means the same thing in science when it doesn't, punk. Stop putting dog shit into syllogisms that aren't there and then claiming to have proved things not proved, punk.  Stop making arguments against something you claim doesn't matter, punk, and then turn around and say you don't have to refute it, punk. So why did you try to refute it in the first place, punk?  Nobody asked you in the first place, punk. Nobody with two cents cares what you think, punk, because nothing you ever say it true, punk.  If you were on my crew I couldn't trust you with any job, punk, because you're liar, punk.  You lie about everything, punk.


----------



## G.T.

Meltdown ^^^°


----------



## G.T.

See...its true.

At the end of the day, tweeny brained plumbers always show their ass.

Get it?


Get it?



Nah, it was a Lil corny I've gotta admit lol


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Meltdown ^^^°






You're the one who melted down with all your dog shit.  Logic and knowledge are descriptors? (meltdown) Logic and knowledge describe things? (meltdown)   Disprove is the right scientific term?  (meltdown)   Disprove always means the same thing?  (meltdown)   And don't say you didn't imply that, meltdown, when you  called people idiots  for telling you that's the wrong word, meltdown.  Things can exist without humans means things can exist without God.  (meltdown)   Calling people liars and idiots because of your dog shit?  (meltdown)  Take your dog shit and go home, meltdown.  You're just one big meltdown, punk.


----------



## G.T.

keep going


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.  Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey - full disclosure: this TAG thing makes NO sense to me, so I'm not even pretending to understand it. Either I'm too stupid, or it's a load of horseshit. I have to admit either possibility.
Click to expand...


Just know this it is true for now.  I'm going to get to it in detail as soon as I address the rest of Emily's concerns.  Everything I'm talking about is objectively self-evident, just like the five things.  It's an axiom, just like 2+2=4, though it's a little more complex, but not by much.  It's self-evident.  It cannot be denied or refuted, and it doesn't beg the question.  Things that are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically true, don't beg the question.  They are simply true automatically, by necessity!  Human logic simply doesn't let us say God doesn't exist without contradicting ourselves or violating the laws of thought.  Period. 

G.T.'s nonsense about axioms, things that are intuitively true, needing  any more substantiation is just stupid.  2+2=4 doesn't need any more substantiation from outside of our minds, and the TAG is the very same kind of axiom!  It's just true, and any argument that attempts to disprove it will actually prove it to be true  or will agree with it in some way.  Period. End of thought.  Numbers and mathematical axioms don't exist outside our minds.  They're not hanging off of trees.  They're just true. So is the TAG in the very same kind of way.

I'm not lying to you.  See these links on the historical and academic facts about it. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/


----------



## G.T.

@ knowledge needing god being an 'axiom' let alone even KNOWN or proven


No chance you dudes are older than.eleven. 0% chance.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you try to refute it, punk?  Why did you lie about definitions, punk?  Why did you jump out of the syllogism and start saying things that don't follow, punk?  You've obviously a liar, punk.  Only pussies play girly games like this,  punk.  What a punk.  What a pussy.  If you were on my plumbing crew, I put my boot up your ass, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't try to 'refute' it. Dipshit. I never once said its first premise is not true, I said its not.proven so it can't be USED  as a proof. Try and keep up.
> 
> Cheerleader.
> 
> Figures you're a fuckin plumber the way you stroke md's pipe for him.
Click to expand...


It is proven_ logically_ because it's an axiom.  That's what axioms are! They are axiomatic proofs, as they are necessarily and inherently true logically.  Making up your own definitions again?   And you did try to refute it several times now, all failures.   Academia has held this to be true for centuries.  It's self-evident.  No peer-reviewed scholar of academia denies this, and no peer-reviewed scholar of academia stupidly believes it formally begs the question.  But you already knew that, pathological liar, because you read these posts:


Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 106 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## G.T.

Axioms are axioms, yes.

God being required for knowledge to exist happens to not be one of them.

It's laughable.

Laugh off of the stage laughable.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*



emilynghiem said:


> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.




As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.

Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:

*A = A; A ≠ B.*​

Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.

Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .

For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.

Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!

Cutting to the chase:

*Let I = Infinity.

A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.

That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).


Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.

Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)

However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)

Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.

This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!

Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.

The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*f (x) = lim    (1/x) = 0.*
_*x --> ∞*_

This means that the function* f* systematically increases the value of _*x*_ toward the limit of infinity, so that *1* is divided by the systematically increased value of _*x*_, which equals an ever-smaller number approaching *0*. This function yields an infinite set of increasingly larger numbers (or divisors) for _*x*_ tending toward ∞ and an infinite set of ever-smaller numbers (or quotients) approaching *0*. In other words, *= 0* actually means "*near 0*" as the division of any whole is not the process of making it fade into nonexistent. The whole is still "there." It's just divided into an unknown number of pieces. We don't actually know what happens when we get to infinity as infinity in terms of a specific number is undefined. Rather, infinity is simultaneously all the numbers there are unto infinity.
*
Hence, the input-output portion of the function's expression can be expressed as "(1/x) = n approaching 0."


Let D = the infinite set of increasingly larger divisors x --> ∞ of function f.

Let Q = the infinite set of ever-smaller quotients approaching 0 of function f.



Thus, for example:

lim
x --> ∞ ∈ D 
___________
1 
10 
100 
1000 . . . 



(1/x = n approaching 0) ∈ Q
___________________________________
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001 . . .


Also: 

D = {1, 10, 100, 1000 . . . }; Q = {1.0, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001 . . . }*


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why did you try to refute it, punk?  Why did you lie about definitions, punk?  Why did you jump out of the syllogism and start saying things that don't follow, punk?  You've obviously a liar, punk.  Only pussies play girly games like this,  punk.  What a punk.  What a pussy.  If you were on my plumbing crew, I put my boot up your ass, punk.
Click to expand...


You internet tough-guys / fundie zealots /  Pom Pom flailers are so cute with your chest-heaving tirades.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Axioms are axioms, yes.
> 
> God being required for knowledge to exist happens to not be one of them.
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> Laugh off of the stage laughable.



So why have all your attempts to prove that it _doesn't_ axiomatically hold true failed?  Answer that stagehand.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to REFUTE tag, dumbass.
> 
> TAG is not even submissable to begin with.
> 
> Holy fucking shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's related, but you're ultimately right, it's not the point at all.  The ontological argument is an indirect, evidentiary argument that supports God's existence, but it's not what matters here.  The TAG proves God's existence directly.  That's the only argument that matters conclusively.  The rest is just properly understanding the difference between science and logic.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. The Ontological argument is just another failed attempt to pwoof supernaturalism.

The ridiculous TAG argument you slather on about suffers the same failures.


----------



## dblack

So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> 2+2=4 doesn't need any more substantiation from outside of our minds, and the TAG is the very same kind of axiom!  It's just true, and any argument that attempts to disprove it will actually prove it to be true  or will agree with it in some way.  Period. End of thought.  Numbers and mathematical axioms don't exist outside our minds.  They're not hanging off of trees.  They're just true. So is the TAG in the very same kind of way.



Fine, as far as it goes. This is, essentially, what I'm getting at when I say I believe in all gods. There's no denying they exists in the minds of believers. It's the nature of those gods that's in question. In particular, I find the claim that any of them created the universe to be preposterous.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
Click to expand...


Anyone else here make any sense out of that?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Axioms are axioms, yes.
> 
> God being required for knowledge to exist happens to not be one of them.
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> Laugh off of the stage laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why have all your attempts to prove that it _doesn't_ axiomatically hold true failed?  Answer that stagehand.
Click to expand...


You might want to take a moment and understand the definition of an _axiom_.

You _presume_ to be true what you _want_ to be true and thus invent elaborate and self-refuting TAG arguments that are amateurish and juvenile in their incompetence.  

You make the mistake common among fundie zealots in that your arguments are intended to reach a predefined conclusion, thus, you will proceed with the invention of really silly rationalizations for those conclusions.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
Click to expand...


Nope. It was just as confused and muddled as most of his  saliva-slinging tirades


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

> *Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.*



I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. *That is proven by logic.* At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities _do_ objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be *(1)* eternal and/or *(2)* spatially infinite _are_ scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. *And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!

Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things, respectively.  This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do.  Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science.  We interpret the data.  We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses.  We infer/extrapolate theories.  We do these things.  Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.*

In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.

*We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.*

Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: *A = A; A ≠ B.*

Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.

*It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!*

Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.

Ultimately, it is the _objectively_ derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic _subjectivity _and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.


We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not _a_ number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done*:* the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection*:* an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.

As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection*:* this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted.  If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational.   That's for damn sure!  On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom (MPTAG), the very same kind of axiom as *2 + 2 = 4*, if God didn't exist.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. *That is proven by logic.* At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities _do_ objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be *(1)* eternal and/or *(2)* spatially infinite _are_ scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. *And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!
> 
> Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things.  This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do.  Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science.  We interpret the data.  We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses.  We infer/extrapolate theories.  We do these things.  Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.*
> 
> In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.
> 
> *We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.*
> 
> Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: *A = A; A ≠ B.*
> 
> Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.
> 
> *It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!*
> 
> Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.
> 
> Ultimately, it is the _objectively_ derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic _subjectivity _and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.
> 
> 
> We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not _a_ number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done*:* the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection*:* an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.
> 
> As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection*:* this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted.  If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational.   That's for damn sure!  On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom, the very same kind of axiom as *2 + 2 = 4*, if God didn't exist.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the boy has been reduced to cutting and pasting the same inane comments across multiple pages.

It seems he's having a war with coherent sentence structure the way Al Sharpton is having a war with the teleprompter.

Al Sharpton Versus The Teleprompter Volume 1 Washington Free Beacon


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It was just as confused and muddled as most of his  saliva-slinging tirades
Click to expand...


What is confused and muddled?  Put something into evidence with a coherent argument so that we may know who's really confused or muddled, as so far it's always been you.  Otherwise, your comment is irresponsible.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just work on the first point. Why do they assume knowledge is not possible without God? Isn't assuming what you're trying to prove in the premise of the argument the definition of begging the question?
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's related, but you're ultimately right, it's not the point at all.  The ontological argument is an indirect, evidentiary argument that supports God's existence, but it's not what matters here.  The TAG proves God's existence directly.  That's the only argument that matters conclusively.  The rest is just properly understanding the difference between science and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. The Ontological argument is just another failed attempt to pwoof supernaturalism.
> 
> The ridiculous TAG argument you slather on about suffers the same failures.
Click to expand...


So why can't you refute it?  And why does peer-reviewed academia hold that you're an ill-educated and apparently not very bright hayseed, given the fact that it's logical proof is self-evident, if the TAG were not what I say it is?  And why are presuppositional propositions used in classical and modal logic as axioms by academia if they were not legitimate axioms?

*crickets chirping*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .



You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it.over and over but its sort of glossed over by the irrational TAGGERS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I was smelling in #4:
> 
> "4. [if] God as Creator [exists he] would logically be the greatest thing that exists."
> 
> Yeah, and if not, not. I guess we're not suppose to notice that this is just an unfounded assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #4 has nothing to do the with ontological argument which is what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it's related, but you're ultimately right, it's not the point at all.  The ontological argument is an indirect, evidentiary argument that supports God's existence, but it's not what matters here.  The TAG proves God's existence directly.  That's the only argument that matters conclusively.  The rest is just properly understanding the difference between science and logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. The Ontological argument is just another failed attempt to pwoof supernaturalism.
> 
> The ridiculous TAG argument you slather on about suffers the same failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why can't you refute it?  And why does peer-reviewed academia hold that you're an ill-educated and apparently not very bright hayseed, given the fact that it's logical proof is self-evident, if the TAG were not what I say it is?  And why are presuppositional propositions used in classical and modal logic as axioms by academia if they were not legitimate axioms?
> 
> *crickets chirping*
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Virtually everything these guys say about definitions, about science, about anything is all wrong and they can't decipher a relatively simple, self-evident axiom. Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Justin Davis

So this ties into #4 as the avoidance of begging the question?


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
Click to expand...

.
really, a generic God is your goal ? 

.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.



Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right?  You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you?  So why based on the  same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic  is something that can just be dismissed as trivial?  The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed.  You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary.  Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> What is confused and muddled?  Put something into evidence with a coherent argument so that we may know who's really confused or muddled, as so far it's always been you.  Otherwise, your comment is irresponsible.



I can't say if your post is confused, but I certain can't make any sense out of it. I suppose we'd have to start with clarifying some definitions. Can you provide clear explanations of what you mean by the following?

What does it mean for "_any given *A* of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict_"?
What does it mean to "_coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness"?_
"_Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as infinity,eternity, perfection, absoluteness, ultimacy. . . ._" -- We do? We are? What do you mean by perfection? absoluteness? ultimacy?

I have more questions (as I said, hardly any of it was coherent to me), but let's start there.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.
Click to expand...



it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.

as others have requested, take us to the next level .... 

.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right?  You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you?  So why based on the  same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic  is something that can just be dismissed as trivial?  The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed.  You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary.  Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.
Click to expand...


Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> So this ties into #4 as the avoidance of begging the question?




Basically, yes.  I'll get to that tomorrow in conclusion then hit the TAG . . . again.

Though it's beyond me as to why folks can't see something so simple, that saying knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all.  It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.  And if one tries to leave the term Creator out of one's statement in order to avoid that problem by saying, for example:  "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist; however, the possibility that  God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically ruled out. . . ."  Oops.

*Axiom:  The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion.*


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this ties into #4 as the avoidance of begging the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, yes.  I'll get to that tomorrow in conclusion then hit the TAG . . . again.
> 
> Though it's beyond me as to why folks can't see something so simple, that saying knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist is the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge, or the same thing as saying that knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all.  It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.  And if one tries to leave the term Creator out of one's statement in order to avoid that problem by saying, for example:  "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist; however, the possibility that  God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically ruled out. . . ."  Oops.
> 
> *Axiom:  The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion.*
Click to expand...


Which god?


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right?  You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you?  So why based on the  same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic  is something that can just be dismissed as trivial?  The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed.  You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary.  Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.
Click to expand...


The idea of God that's in _you're_ mind, that's what God.  What claims are making about the idea of God in _you're_ mind?

"Like I said, I suppose it's possible."

You know it's possible.  You can't logically rule His existence out, and you know that.  You can't logically say that anything could exist without Him existing either, and you know that.

"It's certainly not self-evident or obvious."

You just conceded that God's existence can't be logically ruled out, and that's obviously self-evident to you in _your_ mind.

"Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom."

You spoke to soon again.  "*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings).*


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
Click to expand...


Of course.  You don't understand the mathematical and scientific examples that prove the points?  Really? 

Law of thought - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.
> 
> as others have requested, take us to the next level ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God.  But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. *That is proven by logic.* At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities _do_ objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be *(1)* eternal and/or *(2)* spatially infinite _are_ scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. *And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!
> 
> Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things.  This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do.  Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science.  We interpret the data.  We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses.  We infer/extrapolate theories.  We do these things.  Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.*
> 
> In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.
> 
> *We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.*
> 
> Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: *A = A; A ≠ B.*
> 
> Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.
> 
> *It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!*
> 
> Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.
> 
> Ultimately, it is the _objectively_ derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic _subjectivity _and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.
> 
> 
> We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not _a_ number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done*:* the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection*:* an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.
> 
> As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection*:* this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted.  If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational.   That's for damn sure!  On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom, the very same kind of axiom as *2 + 2 = 4*, if God didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed the boy has been reduced to cutting and pasting the same inane comments across multiple pages.
> 
> It seems he's having a war with coherent sentence structure the way Al Sharpton is having a war with the teleprompter.
> 
> Al Sharpton Versus The Teleprompter Volume 1 Washington Free Beacon
Click to expand...


I've noticed the little girl in pigtails with a snotty attitude about everything who never knows what she's talking about when it comes to science or philosophy  or logic or much of anything else, and never makes a direct comment or argument about anything, just insults and lies.  She needs to go stand in the corner and be quite while the adults talk.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
Click to expand...


The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It was just as confused and muddled as most of his  saliva-slinging tirades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is confused and muddled?  Put something into evidence with a coherent argument so that we may know who's really confused or muddled, as so far it's always been you.  Otherwise, your comment is irresponsible.
Click to expand...

What is confused and muddled is your attempt to portray a viciously circular argument, your silly TAG argument, as a pwoof of your gods. You then go on to increase the depth of that fraud by refusing to acknowledge that your pointless TAG argument, at least as you configure it, can be used to "pwoove" every other conception of gawds. 

What's laughable is that you rattle on with your stuttering and mumbling requiring that I "put something into evidence". How remarkable. It is you making the positive assertion of supernatural gawds. It thus falls to you to "put something into evidence". Obviously you cannot. 

Don't be too hard on yourself for your failure to meet the standard you insist must apply to others but which you exempt yourself from. This is typical behavior from religious zealots and you are just typical as religious zealots go.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Like trying to get the numbers from 1 to 1000 to represent infinity.
> We cannot prove or disprove how big infinity it or if it exists or not
> if humanity is limited to 1000, or 100,000 or 100,000,000.
> 
> The greater set cannot be contained in the subset of man's knowledge, perception and understanding
> much less any proof using these finite human means.
> 
> If we are IMPERFECT we cannot prove PERFECTION exists or not.
> If we are FINITE we cannot prove that INFINITY exists or not.
> If we are temporal we cannot prove that ETERNITY exists or not.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already proven that the concept of infinity as such coherently exists in our minds, and from this we know that any given existent of a single predicate, rational or material, may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without contradiction. Hence, substantive existents beyond our minds that are infinitely perfect, infinity eternal, infinity ultimate, infinity absolute . . . can and may exist. *That is proven by logic.* At the very least, these axioms or logical proofs for these potentialities _do_ objectively exist as such in their own right in our minds, and the hypotheses that the cosmological order, in some state of being or another, may be *(1)* eternal and/or *(2)* spatially infinite _are_ scientifically verifiable, and scientists are working on these very problems right now. *And this is a perfect example of why pseudoscientific ninnies like Hollie are wrong about the relationship between philosophy and science, between logic and science, as to which has primacy/precedes the other, and why we don't limit logic to the conventions of science, as otherwise we'd be imagining that something that can in fact be explored by science couldn't be!
> 
> Further, this is why we shouldn't be careless with the distinction between what logic does and what science does in terms of proving or disproving things, verifying or falsifying things.  This is why we shouldn't use these terms carelessly.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic tell us what science can do and what it can't do.  Moreover, we, via the recommendations of logic, define the parameters of science.  We interpret the data.  We delineate the data. We contrive/intuit hypotheses.  We infer/extrapolate theories.  We do these things.  Science is the stuff of methodology, not agency.*
> 
> In fact, we even know what kind of an expanding universe would be infinite. Think in terms of a "flat" universe, albeit, on a three-dimensional plain of a linearly infinite expanse, which is what we currently believe to be the case based on what we can make out about the visible universe from our terrestrial perspective.
> 
> *We can't explore things in terms of infinity or eternity in science, either theoretically or in actuality? Nonsense! Of course we can, and we know we can because the logical principle of identity tells us we can.*
> 
> Hence, it's not accurate to say that such things do not exist or cannot be proven to exist, as such things do in fact coherently exist as constructs in our minds and outside of our minds; rather, such things that are transcendent in nature cannot currently be verified to exist by science, and that does not mean that they cannot ever be verified to exist by science. There is nothing that could stop God from revealing Himself to the world in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically verified, and the proper way to think about these kinds of things is that while we could never comprehensively grasp the entirety of their transcendent expressions, we can and to coherently apprehend them as we intuitively comprehend what the only logical constraint on their expression would be: *A = A; A ≠ B.*
> 
> Hence, we cannot say that anything that is logically possibly cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Anything that is logically possibly is already proven to exist, at the very least, as a construct in our minds. Anything that logically exists in our minds can exist outside of our minds.
> 
> *It is logic that proves or disproves things, not science!*
> 
> Science merely affirms things in terms of verification or falsification on the basis of sensory perception or on the basis of the empirical extrapolations/inferences thereof, and any given thing that is not currently subject to scientific verification or falsification, is not necessarily constrained to the materially indirect expressions of itself.
> 
> Ultimately, it is the _objectively_ derived conclusions of human consciousness as premised on the unlimited potentialities of logical coherence that keeps the doors wide open for scientific inquiry and discovery, not the preconceived notions of materialistic _subjectivity _and the epistemological relativism that invariably follows. In other words, contrary to what relativists tell themselves, it's the clarity and coherency of epistemological absolutism that actually divulges the infinitely complex realities/potentialities of existence without bias.
> 
> 
> We don't need to count to infinity in order to logically prove/know what infinity is. Infinity is not _a_ number; rather, it's all the numbers there are simultaneously. We don't need to divide a whole unto infinity in order to prove/know what it means to divide a whole unto infinity or in order to prove/know that dividing a whole unto infinity can theoretically be done*:* the process of dividing a whole unto infinity is an eternal process. It never ends! Eternity divulges the essence of absolute perfection*:* an eternally self-subsistent entity, contingent on no other thing. Hence, all of these things are in fact in our minds as coherent constructs, comprehensively understood in terms of their identity.
> 
> As for proving the existence of an eternally self-subsistent entity of infinite perfection*:* this construct exists in our minds as the necessary ground of all other existents, and in organic/classical logic, the three laws of biologically hardwired thought, as I have shown, the proposition regarding the existence of this necessary entity is an incontrovertible axiom of identity that cannot be logically denied or refuted.  If it (God) doesn't ultimately exist outside of our minds, it's not because the idea is irrational.   That's for damn sure!  On the contrary, it seems that it would be awfully strange for this idea to be in our heads, as it is, not only as a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, but also as an incontrovertible axiom, the very same kind of axiom as *2 + 2 = 4*, if God didn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed the boy has been reduced to cutting and pasting the same inane comments across multiple pages.
> 
> It seems he's having a war with coherent sentence structure the way Al Sharpton is having a war with the teleprompter.
> 
> Al Sharpton Versus The Teleprompter Volume 1 Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've noticed the little girl in pigtails with a snotty attitude about everything who never knows what she's talking about when it comes to science or philosophy  or logic or much of anything else, and never makes a direct comment or argument about anything, just insults and lies.  She needs to go stand in the corner and be quite while the adults talk.
Click to expand...

Oh, you poor dear. You take offense at a little girl pointing out just how bankrupt, circular and self-refuting your attempt at argument is. You feel emasculated? Your tirade suggests so. Rather than just sit at the sidelines and flail your Pom Poms for the silliness that Rawling gushes out, support your attempt at pwoof of the gods with something more than bluster and the comical chest-heaving internet tough guy nonsense.

While you do recognize that the postulation of your gods raises paradoxes, you don’t seem to understand that reason and rationality is the only mechanism available to recognize and to address the paradoxes. The truly twisted "logic" that you hope to use in the postulation of your gods is pointless and time wasting. Your absurd attempts at "logic" to "pwoove" the supernatural is itself a paradox.  Is there a supernatural logic that we can access to address supernatural paradoxes?

The truly pitiable part of your ideological cowardice is that you require an unsolvable paradox to exist because that relieves you of the burdensome task of taking responsibility for actually presenting a workable, verifiable model of existence that in any way requires supernaturalism. It requires you to abdicate reason in the face of fear. Any gods who reward fear over reason are not worthy of worship.


----------



## G.T.

I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.

No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it sounds like the essence of TAG is that it isn't a proof of God's existence so much as an appeal to accept it as an axiom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Always trying to miss the point, rather than grasp the fact first and then get the point, right?  You do accept that 2+2=4 is true, don't you?  So why based on the  same standard of logic that you accept that as being true, all of the sudden, another axiom just like it from the same standard of logic  is something that can just be dismissed as trivial?  The fact of the matter is that until now, though you apparently still won't think it through for yourself and see it, you were not even aware of the fact that such an axiom existed.  You thought all the arguments were indirect and evidentiary.  Yep. Deeply embedded emotions that won't let you be objectively sound in your thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as an axiom because every time I have two, and get two more, and count them up, I have four. But as far as gods, well first of all, which god? What claims are you making about this god? That he exists as a concept in your mind? I believe you. That he created the universe? Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but it's certainly not self-evident or obvious. Nothing I can justify accepting as an obvious axiom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The idea of God that's in _you're_ mind, that's what God.  What claims are making about the idea of God in _you're_ mind?
Click to expand...


Certainly nothing like you and Rawlings are. Where does that leave us?



> "Like I said, I suppose it's possible."
> 
> You know it's possible.  You can't logically rule His existence out, and you know that.  *You can't logically say that anything could exist without Him existing either, and you know that.*



I can, actually and logically, say that about the idea of god that's in my mind. Are you pretending to know the nature of my private conception of a god I've never described to you?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.
> 
> as others have requested, take us to the next level ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God.  But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.
Click to expand...

The question remains: which god?

It's obvious that your silly attempts at pwoofs of the gods are directed at pwoofing your sectarian gods but your gods are only three among many human conceptions of gods.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.





Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.


----------



## G.T.

pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."    

Real:*

_As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy._
_


Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST. 

More derp derp logic. 


_


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> I can, actually and logically, say that about the idea of god that's in my mind. Are you pretending to know the nature of my private conception of a god I've never described to you?



You can logically rule out a transcendently divine origin of uncaused Cause?  That would be a first.  Let's have it.  I don't have to pretend.  No matter what you propose, the idea of God is ultimately the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which I picked up from Rawlings way early on this thread and studied in detail, another universal that once you see you can never get away from.  I got it now and understand why he listed it among "the fundamental imperatives of the problem of origin."  These are actually the foundation for the five things you've already agree to.  I'm getting pretty good this.  These things are universally objective.  I can read your mind as these same things are in mine, just latent in yours.  But they're there.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.
> 
> No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.



Right. He doesn't know what an axiom is. Did you say something about being gullible.  That would be you.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe Mr I am the pro super duper logic has no fucking clue what an axiom is.
> 
> No wonder he thinks tag holds. Gullible prick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. He doesn't know what an axiom is. Did you say something about being gullible.  That would be you.
Click to expand...

Go fix a p trap and do me a favor. 

Write out the script of the "Tag" argument. 

Light it on fire. 

Shoot it down a 4" soil pipe. See if anything happens.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."
> 
> Real:*
> 
> _As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.
> 
> More derp derp logic.
> 
> _



There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp.  You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."
> 
> Real:*
> 
> _As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.
> 
> More derp derp logic.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp.  You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.
Click to expand...



"refute" =/= point out that it isn't proven, in any sense. 

Which it isn't, which is why it's not an axiom, IN ANY SENSE. 

There is controversy about its nature: in that god isn't proven therefore god can't be said to be the source of all knowledge. 

NHopefully this helps, I know you like it more fancified with word salad like MD typically does for you, but it doesn't get much more simple as a concept. 

You still wanna fight, boo?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.

That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us


----------



## G.T.

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us



It defied the actual definition of miracle. 

It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural. 

Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."
> 
> Real:*
> 
> _As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.
> 
> More derp derp logic.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp.  You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "refute" =/= point out that it isn't proven, in any sense.
> 
> Which it isn't, which is why it's not an axiom, IN ANY SENSE.
> 
> There is controversy about its nature: in that god isn't proven therefore god can't be said to be the source of all knowledge.
> 
> NHopefully this helps, I know you like it more fancified with word salad like MD typically does for you, but it doesn't get much more simple as a concept.
> 
> You still wanna fight, boo?
Click to expand...


Look, punk, you've been refuted on this point every which way and Sunday.  You've tried over and over again to refute and have failed every time.  You're a punk.  That's all.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> pseudo zealot definition of axiom: ""*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in way or another in their statement/assertion" (Rawlings)."
> 
> Real:*
> 
> _As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE there's fucking controversy with calling God the source of all knowledge. If there wasn't, these threads and non-religious people and the need for proof.......................WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.
> 
> More derp derp logic.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no controversy about its actual nature, and you can't refute it, derp derp.  You just keep deluding yourself as you somehow lose track of its logical nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "refute" =/= point out that it isn't proven, in any sense.
> 
> Which it isn't, which is why it's not an axiom, IN ANY SENSE.
> 
> There is controversy about its nature: in that god isn't proven therefore god can't be said to be the source of all knowledge.
> 
> NHopefully this helps, I know you like it more fancified with word salad like MD typically does for you, but it doesn't get much more simple as a concept.
> 
> You still wanna fight, boo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, punk, you've been refuted on this point every which way and Sunday.  You've tried over and over again to refute and have failed every time.  You're a punk.  That's all.
Click to expand...

Well, that's YOUR problem.

The lofty attempts at "refuting" me have been empty, and you fall for it everytime like a fan/fuck boy, but we all can't help how badly you're squeezing md's nootsook.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.



Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .

No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.

But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.

The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.

You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.

According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.

You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?

Choose.

In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?

We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.

Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .
> 
> No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.
> 
> But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.
> 
> The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.
> 
> You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.
> 
> According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.
> 
> You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.
> 
> Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.
> 
> Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!
> 
> What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?
> 
> Choose.
> 
> In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?
> 
> We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.
> 
> Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?
Click to expand...


Bump!


----------



## Valerie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .
> 
> No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.
> 
> But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.
> 
> The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.
> 
> You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.
> 
> According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.
> 
> You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.
> 
> Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.
> 
> Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!
> 
> What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?
> 
> Choose.
> 
> In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?
> 
> We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.
> 
> Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> Bump!





  why?


----------



## Justin Davis

Valerie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .
> 
> No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to more insane than the average lunatic.
> 
> But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.
> 
> The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.
> 
> You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.
> 
> According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.
> 
> You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.
> 
> Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.
> 
> Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!
> 
> What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?
> 
> Choose.
> 
> In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?
> 
> We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.
> 
> Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bump!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why?
Click to expand...


Why what?


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .
> 
> No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.
> 
> But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.
> 
> The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.
> 
> You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.
> 
> According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.
> 
> You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.
> 
> Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.
> 
> Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!
> 
> What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?
> 
> Choose.
> 
> In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?
> 
> We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.
> 
> Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?
Click to expand...


Most people don't think in objective terms.  They come to discussions with their biases and simply react.  You can tell because they write ideas back to you that are not in your posts.  Typically, these ideas reflect what they believe in way or another which very often reveals to the objective thinker precisely what's going on in their minds, basically what they themselves believe to be true.  G.T. for example is a stone cold naturalist.  The TAG argument is so obvious that most any child above the age of 12 could get it.  I know as I tested it in Sunday school.  It was too much for of the kids under that age, but the young teens had no problem understanding it once explained and one of them got it without explanation.  To make sure he wasn't just saying you can't do that because it's wrong to disbelieve in God I asked him why.  Because God is the Creator.  No Creator, there's no creation at all!  G.T. says it's not a proof because it's claiming God exists where there's not physical evidence, when  the proof is simply in the logic of the denial itself.  Simple.  Get that and move on.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you know what they say about the thoughtlessly gullible. . . .
> 
> No. It was actually QW who pulled on _your_ leg, with the most patently risible bilge regarding the various forms of logic and their conventions, and the relationship between philosophy and science. Well, actually, not quite, after all, we can always count on Hollie to be more insane than the average lunatic.
> 
> But I know you don't approve of such remarks.  Yours are more subtly offensive by way of their thoughtlessness, which is rather bizarre, really, given that you're an absolutist of sorts and that the things I'm sharing are universally objective and, therefore, belong to all of us.
> 
> The logical principle of identity is _not_ universal?! So I guess dogs can be cats and squares can be circles, everything just blurs together. Oh, never mind, Fox, the deliriously stupid implications of what QW was trying to sell on this thread would have unraveled the cosmos long before we showed up. But then to understand why that's so requires experience with the art of objectivity, the ability to back out of the preconceived notions of embedded patterns of belief.
> 
> You've never once even attempted to understand anything I've shared here, and apparently nothing's changed, even though these things are objectively self-evident. I offer you gold and you opt for mud. If you don't understand something, just ask, or open up your Bible and read it sometime.
> 
> According to you God is something small, compelled to accommodate free will in accordance with the logic that makes sense to you, while you hysterically imagine that it is _I_ who puts God in a box and wraps it in duct tape.
> 
> You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you in QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.
> 
> Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals?  After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken.  These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.
> 
> Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!
> 
> What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?
> 
> Choose.
> 
> In the meantime, Miss The-Details-Don't-Matter Foxfyre, we've just begun to scratch the surface of what is in fact a virtually infinite array of multidimensional potentialities for the contingent, space-*time* continuum. Why do you suppose that the potentialities of a transcendent realm of being would be anything less complex, not merely as interdimensionally immanent, but multidimensionally immanent?
> 
> We already know that time is infinitely more complex in a multidimensional sense than the cramped little world of your relatively tiny god of the logic that makes sense to you, before we even get to the considerations of an overlaid, transcendent realm of being.
> 
> Are you hinting at the existence of new formulae in calculus that falsify the multidimensional-field theorems of infinitesimals and quantum physics, as you suggest that you know more than I about the pertinent logic, mathematics, philosophy and science, or are you just *pulling on our legs again* about how your subjective meanderings that go nowhere are superior to the universally absolute and objectively self-evident imperatives of the principle of identity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people don't think in objective terms.  They come to discussions with their biases and simply react.  You can tell because they write ideas back to you that are not in your posts.  Typically, these ideas reflect what they believe in way or another which very often reveals to the objective thinker precisely what' going on in their minds, basically what they themselves believe to be true.  G.T. for example is a stone cold naturalist.  The TAG argument is so obvious that most any child above the age of 12 could get.  I know as I tested it in Sunday school.  It was too much for of the kids under that age, but the young teens had no problem understanding it once explained and one of them got it without explanation.  To make sure he wasn't just saying you can't do that because it's wrong to disbelieve in God I asked him why.  Because God is the Creator.  No Creator, there's no creation at all!  G.T. says it's not a proof because it's claiming God exists where there's not physical evidence, when  the proof is simply in the logic of the denial itself.  Simple.  Get that and move on.
Click to expand...

"the proof is in the logic of the denial itself"



no, it's not.

you dopes think that someone who is using knowledge is proving god no matter what, because you dopes presuppose god is knowledge's source. that's begging the question. to someone who doesn't beg the question, using knowledge does not prove god because logic/knowledge isn't proven to come from god. you only presupp it. you beg the question, by the very definition of begging the question, which is not rational it's the exact opposite of rational.

i do understand why you get so upset and lash out. your entire argument is a canaard. it is snake oil for gullible dopes.


----------



## G.T.

The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."

They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means. 

Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.


See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded. 

The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded. 

Chase your tails, dimwits.


----------



## Foxfyre

Justin Davis said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
Click to expand...


That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.

But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.

I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can, actually and logically, say that about the idea of god that's in my mind. Are you pretending to know the nature of my private conception of a god I've never described to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can logically rule out a transcendently divine origin of uncaused Cause?  That would be a first.  Let's have it.  I don't have to pretend.  No matter what you propose, the idea of God is ultimately the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which I picked up from Rawlings way early on this thread and studied in detail, another universal that once you see you can never get away from.  I got it now and understand why he listed it among "the fundamental imperatives of the problem of origin."  These are actually the foundation for the five things you've already agree to.  I'm getting pretty good this.  These things are universally objective.  I can read your mind as these same things are in mine, just latent in yours.  But they're there.
Click to expand...


LOL. Ok man.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
Click to expand...


Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."
> 
> They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.
> 
> Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.
> 
> 
> See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.
> 
> The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.
> 
> Chase your tails, dimwits.




Psst, G.T., given the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions (pressupositionals) are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic in peer-reviewed academia, no serious logician gives a hoot about your opinion, let alone your incoherent gibberish.  Check?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It defied the actual definition of miracle.
> 
> It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.
> 
> Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.
Click to expand...


You're living in a daily miracle


----------



## Hollie

"the proof is in the logic of the denial itself"

I had to read that a couple of times to understand it was the raving of a nutbar who had ignored all the warnings about working in confined spaces without protective gear.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."
> 
> They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.
> 
> Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.
> 
> 
> See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.
> 
> The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.
> 
> Chase your tails, dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psst, G.T., given the fact that propositions of necessary enabling conditions (pressupositionals) are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic in peer-reviewed academia, no serious logician gives a hoot about your opinion, let alone your incoherent gibberish.  Check?
Click to expand...

If you're what is considered a serious logician, then that is a compliment. Thanks!

Way to dip duck dodge, though. Figures.


----------



## G.T.

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It defied the actual definition of miracle.
> 
> It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.
> 
> Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're living in a daily miracle
Click to expand...

Miraculous compared to what?


----------



## G.T.

I'd love to see the peer review process you're referring to, also m.d. 

because TAG is not peer reviewed in "academia" and passed. Not a fucking chance.


----------



## dblack

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
Click to expand...


Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
Click to expand...

I had a lot of suspicions at around the dozen-post mark that "Justin" was a sock account used by Rawling.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a lot of suspicions at around the dozen-post mark that "Justin" was a sock account used by Rawling.
Click to expand...

wow....

I can't "un-think" this now. Damn. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.
Click to expand...


So reals Christians believe that the universe is something more impressive than God?  I don't think Fox really believes that.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So reals Christians believe that the universe is something more impressive than God?  I don't think Fox really believes that.
Click to expand...


What??? Settle down. The game is over, you won!


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had a lot of suspicions at around the dozen-post mark that "Justin" was a sock account used by Rawling.
Click to expand...


There's two persons talking on a topic about God's existence from the bible, from bible-believing backgrounds with similar theological interests, from the same book and the same religion out of hw many people on this thread?.  Do conservatives tend to share the same political views or do they think like liberals.  Are you and G.T. socks?  You sure do sound alike.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It defied the actual definition of miracle.
> 
> It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.
> 
> Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're living in a daily miracle
Click to expand...


. . . hurtling toward an overwhelming conclusion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
Click to expand...


What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers. 

As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

G.T. said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It defied the actual definition of miracle.
> 
> It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.
> 
> Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're living in a daily miracle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miraculous compared to what?
Click to expand...


Compared to living on Jupiter's Moon Io


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
Click to expand...


Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.


----------



## G.T.

CrusaderFrank said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It defied the actual definition of miracle.
> 
> It's happening in nature, every day. Miracles by definition are not natural.
> 
> Also - there's likely millions of planets out there in this same goldilocks zone. The more common we discover that it is, the l;ess "special" it is as a natural occurrence. Do you forget how much of the universe we can't even see or explore yet? That's: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^infinity-power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're living in a daily miracle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Miraculous compared to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to living on Jupiter's Moon Io
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point. 

You can only compare it to the few areas of space humans are able to study  -- - - which is closer to <zero> than it is to <100%>

Meaning, you don't have any basis to call any natural occurrence, such as earth being inside of a goldilocks zone, a "miracle."

It could be pretty damn common.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
Click to expand...

Don't answer the door. It's just those annoying JW's again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...


Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid. 

Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine.  Justin doesn't like liars.  He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread.  My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments.  Beyond that, Justin shares my theological  interests.  So?


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid.
> 
> Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine.  Justin doesn't like liars.  He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread.  My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments.  Beyond that, Justin shares my theological  interests.  So?
Click to expand...


I think you and Justin have made it very very personal in your non stop ridicule, disrespect for, and direct insults of other members on the thread.  And yes a lot of them have done the same, but I just expect or at least hope for better from Christians.  And I didn't intend to make it personal, but I am human enough to not wish to make it known when I think I'm being taken for a ride and am being played for a fool.  Again if I'm wrong, I will apologize.


----------



## G.T.

Justin doesn't know his head from his ass and his slinging liar accusations about is fucking childish. 

He doesnt like to be challenged, and he doesn't like when his crutch is not around to defend him. When md is not around, justin's responses are insults. 

when md is around, justin's responses are quotes from md's responses. 

a couple of gullible snakes in the grass is the pair of them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.
Click to expand...



dblack, Fox's doctrine on free will is _not _scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.

See *The Universal Principle of Identity: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9973552/

You don't know what you're talking about it and neither does she, but worse, she doesn't comprehend the ultimate implications, because she doesn't understand what the science is telling us coupled with what the Bible is telling us in this regard. The general and special theories of relativity and quantum physics scream Christian metaphysics! And the metaphysical implications of some of her views conflict with both.

The only reason you're saying what you are is because, in spite of the fact that you know you can't refute the objective facts of human cognition regarding the immediate imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, she poms poms on the side of your bias, by suggesting, for whatever reason, that what I'm saying doesn't add up.  Is that what you want to be true, even though you can't refute what is objectively true about the things I've shared?

Her metaphysics simply do not line up what we know about the created order from the general and special theories of relativity and quantum physics. Is that your position?

Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena?  If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.

Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid.
> 
> Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine.  Justin doesn't like liars.  He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread.  My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments.  Beyond that, Justin shares my theological  interests.  So?
Click to expand...

How is it that you define your circular, self-refuting arguments as "rock solid"?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Foxy. I have plenty of examples of real Christians to counter this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dblack, Fox's doctrine on free will is _not _scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.
> 
> See *The Universal Principle of Identity: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9973552/
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about it and neither does she, but worse, she doesn't comprehend the ultimate implications, because she doesn't understand what the science is telling us coupled with what the Bible is telling us in this regard. The general and special theories of relativity and quantum physics scream Christian metaphysics! And the metaphysical implications of her some of her views conflict with both.
> 
> The only reason you're saying what you are is because, in spite of the fact that you know you can't refute the objective facts of human cognition regarding the immediate imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, she poms poms on the side of your bias, by suggesting for whatever reason, that what I'm saying doesn't add up.  Is that what you want to be true, even though you can't refute what is objectively true about these things I've shared?
> 
> Her metaphysics simply do not line up what we know about the created order from the general and special theories of relativity and quantum physics. Is that your position?
> 
> Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena?  If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaa?
> 
> God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!
Click to expand...

I'm thinking you would look absolutely stunning in a burqa, some Pom Poms and a copy of the Koran at an ISIS beheading.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid.
> 
> Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine.  Justin doesn't like liars.  He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread.  My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments.  Beyond that, Justin shares my theological  interests.  So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and Justin have made it very very personal in your non stop ridicule, disrespect for, and direct insults of other members on the thread.  And yes a lot of them have done the same, but I just expect or at least hope for better from Christians.  And I didn't intend to make it personal, but I am human enough to not wish to make it known when I think I'm being taken for a ride and am being played for a fool.  Again if I'm wrong, I will apologize.
Click to expand...


No. I haven't made it personal.  I didn't, for example, out of the blue go postal atheist as dblack did.  Why don't you ask him about that.

The atheists on this thread have done what they always do, Fox. Attack the man. That's mostly all they ever do. I've observed this same click do this over and over again, trashing threads, killing them, and I've stayed out of it, and dblack can't seem to make up his mind: is he going to be an adult or go with the crowd?

Look here, for example, the TAG argument is what is referred to as a presuppositional of a _necessary enabling condition _in the literature. Such propositions are routinely used in all forms of logic, including constructive logic, "the logic of science." Why? Because these kinds of axioms let us get at the metaphysics of empirical phenomena, transcendence and science; ultimately, they serve to divulge new ways to look at reality and methodology. The TAG was first formally put forward by Kant. It's older than that, of course, as it's biological. It's in the Bible. It's always been with us.

It's the most celebrated presuppositional, and it is in fact a centuries-old, well-established axiom that cannot be denied or refuted. Professional logicians know this, whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics. If this argument were nothing more than what these idiots are saying, WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT IT?

Seriously, who would care?  No one!  We wouldn't be talking about it at all. It wouldn't even exist.

The point?

Why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby we cannot logically state or think _God doesn't exist _without contradicting ourselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should that be? That's no little thing. And that's why this argument stands out from the others, as the others are indirectly evidentiary.

But what do we see on this board? Trash talk without a clue.

Besides, I'm talking to Emily who wished to understand some things.

The fact of the matter is that from time to time, I've picked up a two-by-four of an argument to shut this or that sidelining, discrediting mouth down.

You want to put down the universally and objectively self-evident facts of the problems of existence and origin impressed on our minds in the face of a crowd that wants to believe, has to believe, that theisms is not based on anything rational, doesn't want to see or concede what they know to be true as I propound it?

That's why it's personal, but not on my end.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> The laws of logic don't become absolute when authored by a sentient mind, or "god's mind."
> 
> They're the opposite, because they're based on his whim in that scenario. That's not what absolute means, "dependent" upon something (god's mind). That is the opposite of what absolute means.
> 
> Therefore, any argument presupposing absolute logic or knowledge is an argument AGAINST god being the author.
> 
> 
> See how that shoddy, shoddy fucking logic works? It's retarded.
> 
> The laws are logic are absolute because they apply to actual existence, and existence is absolute as "proponents of the five" have already conceded.
> 
> Chase your tails, dimwits.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  No one is pulling on your leg. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.  You think I could understand these things without the guidance of God's word?  I understand these things from God's word first.  As for Justin, his single paragraphs were killing my eyes, so I gave him some pointers on this thread about how to think about writing paragraphs, breaking up related sets of sentences, and some pointers on connectors and the punctuation thereof.  That's why his writing has change, and for the better, a little rough at first, a little trail and error, but he's getting it. He always had a good sense for Subject-predicate-object, but those single paragraphs were killers.
> 
> As far as QW goes, the man lied about virtually everything as we got deeper into logic, and he didn't like what I was arguing.  Too bad.  What he was claiming is  sheer bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again if I am wrong I will apologize.  But I have been around the block a few times, and the longer this goes, the more it smells.  And re your relationship with Justin?  Uh huh.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't know where this personal stuff has been coming from with you on this thread, but I'd just as soon stick to the issues, and the fact of the matter is that some have done nothing but argue against the man, not the ideas, frankly, because the ideas are rock solid.
> 
> Justin's beef with QW and G.T., is not the same as mine.  Justin doesn't like liars.  He takes it too personally, and I have told him so on this thread.  My response to that kind of thing is to make arguments.  Beyond that, Justin shares my theological  interests.  So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you and Justin have made it very very personal in your non stop ridicule, disrespect for, and direct insults of other members on the thread.  And yes a lot of them have done the same, but I just expect or at least hope for better from Christians.  And I didn't intend to make it personal, but I am human enough to not wish to make it known when I think I'm being taken for a ride and am being played for a fool.  Again if I'm wrong, I will apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I haven't made it personal.  I didn't, for example, out of the blue go postal atheist as dblack did.  Why don't you ask him about that.
> 
> The atheists on this thread have done what they always do, Fox. Attack the man. That's mostly all they ever do. I've observed this same click do this over and over again, trashing threads, killing them, and I've stayed out of it, and dblack can't seem to make up his mind: is he going to be an adult or go with the crowd?
> 
> Look here, for example, the TAG argument is what is referred to as a presuppositional of a _necessary enabling condition _in the literature. Such propositions are routinely used in all forms of logic, including constructive logic, "the logic of science." Why? Because these kinds of axioms let us get at the metaphysics of empirical phenomena, transcendence and science; ultimately, they serve to divulge new ways to look at reality and methodology. The TAG was first formally put forward by Kant. It's older than that, of course, as it's biological. It's in the Bible. It's always been with us.
> 
> It's the most celebrated presuppositional, and it is in fact a centuries-old, well-established axiom that cannot be denied or refuted. Professional logicians know this, whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics. If this argument were nothing more than what these idiots are saying, WHO WOULD CARE ABOUT IT?
> 
> Seriously, who would care?  No one!  We wouldn't be talking about it at all.  He wouldn't even exist.
> 
> The point?
> 
> Why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby we cannot logically state or think _God doesn't exist _without contradicting ourselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should that be? That's no little thing. And that's why this argument stands out from the others, as the others are indirectly evidentiary.
> 
> But what do we see on this board? Trash talk without a clue.
> 
> Besides, I'm talking to Emily who wished to understand some things.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that from time to time, I've picked up a two-by-four of an argument to shut this or that sidelining, discrediting mouth down.
> 
> You want to put down the universally and objectively self-evident facts of the problems of existence and origin impressed on our minds in the face of a crowd that wants to believe, has to believe, that theisms is not based on anything rational, doesn't want to see or concede what they know to be true as I propound it?
> 
> That's why it's personal, but not on my end.
Click to expand...


Your hysterical "snot" rants tell us otherwise. You're just dishonest.


----------



## Foxfyre

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
Click to expand...


I did too until the lines began blurring until  it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on.  Or I think it did.  But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.  

Ah well.  At least it has been an active thread.  And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> they either are afraid to put their logic in perspective in regards to Christianity or they simply know it is a false religion.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.
> 
> as others have requested, take us to the next level ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God.  But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.
Click to expand...





> *Justin Davis:* *There's two persons talking on a topic about God's existence from the bible*, from bible-believing backgrounds with similar theological interests, from the same book and the same religion out of hw many people on this thread?.





> *MD:* What _are_ you talking about? *No one is pulling on your leg*. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.





> *MD:* Beyond that, Justin *shares my theological interests*. So?





> *MD:* dblack, *Fox's doctrine on free will is not scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics* at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.



*
jd: Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God ... every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.*


so, the conclusion of your TAG is not meant to lead to an alterior motive of religious doctrine ? -

and you insinuate others are liars - more like one who is, knows no difference and for some is the proof by their denial.


without substantiating a religion the TAG in itself becomes meanigless rehtoic - either move to the next step or -

SHUT UP

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin doesn't know his head from his ass and his slinging liar accusations about is fucking childish.
> 
> He doesnt like to be challenged, and he doesn't like when his crutch is not around to defend him. When md is not around, justin's responses are insults.
> 
> when md is around, justin's responses are quotes from md's responses.
> 
> a couple of gullible snakes in the grass is the pair of them.



That's bull. When I was reading one of Emily's posts: you, Justin, Hollie, and Emily, of course, where in the same string. And in that string Justin was striking a conciliatory note directed at you and Hollie, only to get his teeth kicked in again. I imagine he's tired of getting his teeth kicked in, especially after you have done virtually nothing but lie on this thread. I don't recall what the last blow up was between you two, but what I do know is that you lied about the proper terms for science. A nothing . A trifle. LOL!  An "Oh, that's right" was all that was required there.  You repeated it, even called me a liar.  LOL!  Your pals all lined up behind it, as usual, because you guys don't care about truth, until a pulled out my two-by-four and left a mark.

But a dog's got to have it's bone . . . of contention, and you soon found something new to lie about.

LOL!

You've yet to square your trash talk about the TAG with what would have to be true in reality about  an argument that's stood the test of time for centuries. I shared that background with you. Recall?  Nope.  You never acknowledge it.  

Atheism is a disease of the mind.

So you're all smarter than Kant and the other famous logicians and philosophers I listed, eh? Really?

You guys couldn't be missing something . . . It's self-evident.

But by all means carry on. . . .

I'm almost done with this thread anyway,  just a few more points with Emily.  That covers it.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin doesn't know his head from his ass and his slinging liar accusations about is fucking childish.
> 
> He doesnt like to be challenged, and he doesn't like when his crutch is not around to defend him. When md is not around, justin's responses are insults.
> 
> when md is around, justin's responses are quotes from md's responses.
> 
> a couple of gullible snakes in the grass is the pair of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's bull. When I was reading one of Emily's posts: you, Justin, Hollie, and Emily, of course, where in the same string. And in that string Justin was striking a conciliatory note directed at you and Hollie, only to get his teeth kicked in again. I imagine he's tired of getting his teeth kicked in, especially after you have done virtually nothing but lie on this thread. I don't recall what the last blow up was between you two, but what I do know is that you lied about the proper terms for science. A nothing . A trifle. LOL!  An "Oh, that's right" was all that was required there.  You repeated it, even called me a liar.  LOL!  Your pals all lined up behind it, as usual, because you guys don't care about truth, until a pulled out my two-by-four and left a mark.
> 
> But a dog's got to have it's bone . . . of contention, and you soon found something new to lie about.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> You've yet to square your trash talk about the TAG with what would have to be true in reality about  an argument that's stood the test of time for centuries. I shared that background with you. Recall?  Nope.  You never acknowledge it.
> 
> Atheism is a disease of the mind.
> 
> So you're all smarter than Kant and the other famous logicians and philosophers I listed, eh? Really?
> 
> You guys couldn't be missing something . . . It's self-evident.
> 
> But by all means carry on. . . .
> 
> I'm almost done with this thread anyway,  just a few more points with Emily.  That covers it.
Click to expand...

Before you go, leave us with one more verse of:

"you can't refute the objective facts of human cognition regarding the immediate imperatives of the problems of existence and origin".


----------



## G.T.

Actually - tag is not rational as an argument and I have shown as much, and your lack of coherent bumblefuck masquerading as intelligence has not had the balls to face that music.


----------



## G.T.

One thing about a snake oil salesman, is it takes a little while for them to perceive when they're caught.

Lol tag is proof of god. Pfffffffffffft


----------



## G.T.

My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:

"The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:
> 
> "The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"



Ya' can't argue against such a bulletproof argument, because I say so!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did too until the lines began blurring until  it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on.  Or I think it did.  But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.
> 
> Ah well.  At least it has been an active thread.  And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.
Click to expand...


Irrational and incomprehensible?  FOX, Justin is studying the very same things in Henry and Lang right now before he came to this forum.  That's why he stopped on this thread. He's already shared that more than once?  He also shared that he's copying and pasting my posts for study.

Are Henry and Lang irrational and incomprehensible too?  You even commented on a video Lang was in on this thread.  Lang has work on the universal principle of identity, talking about the very same things. They're both Christians, highly regarded biblically *orthodox* Christians.

Strike irrational, and you'll have the truth.  Incomprehensible to you maybe, though these things be self-evident.

Personal garbage. Slights without argument. Paranoia. False accusations. Gossiping.

_What_ is irrational?


----------



## Foxfyre

CrusaderFrank said:


> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us



I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.

That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.

So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.

In the syllogistic model:

The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.

Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.

Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.


----------



## G.T.

How do you arrive at a probability for something when you don't know how many times and how often it has occurred?

We can say how probable it is to die of heart disease, because we know how many people there are and we know how many die of it.

We do not know how many planets inhabit life out of how many. Sooooo.............


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sense I am making out of it finally is that we're all getting our leg pulled big time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very possible as I don't claim to know anything about God other than what I have experienced of God and I don't know you or MDR so of course I could be entirely wrong about what I am suspecting.  And I am coming from the perspective of a believer who is a Christian and who knows with certainty that God is.
> 
> But as I have watched you, the "new Christian", and MDR morph into the same person, and based on the most unchristian manner in which God has been defended in this thread, I confess to suspicions about what is going on.  And it has nothing to do with whether there is valid syllogistic argument for the existence of God.  If my suspicions are right, kudos on reeling in and exposing the gullible.  If I am wrong, I apologize.
> 
> I just don't want any other new Christians or seekers to be put off or discouraged to think that what has gone on in the thread is what Christianity is or who God is.  I think you are pulling everybody's leg here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gotta admit. I fell for it. I thought was MDR was serious - off-center and nutty but serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did too until the lines began blurring until  it became impossible to separate Justin's and MDR's posts, and after considering some of the absolutely irrational and incomprehensible, suddenly the light bulb when on.  Or I think it did.  But if I am right, I was pretty slow on the uptake on this one.
> 
> Ah well.  At least it has been an active thread.  And if I am right, I can take comfort in my suspicions because I don't have to think badly of a serious Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrational and incomprehensible?  FOX, Justin is studying the very same things in Henry and Lang right now before he came to this forum.  That's why he stopped on this thread. He's already shared that more than once?  He also shared that he's copying and pasting my posts for study.
> 
> Are Henry and Lang irrational and incomprehensible too?  You even commented on a video Lang was in on this thread.  Lang has work on the universal principle of identity, talking about the very same things. They're both Christians, highly regarded biblically *orthodox* Christians.
> 
> Strike irrational, and you'll have the truth.  Incomprehensible to you maybe, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Personal garbage. Slights without argument. Paranoia. False accusations. Gossiping.
> 
> _What_ is irrational?
Click to expand...


I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context.  I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now.  It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style.  I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress.  But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'

Again a good practical joke.  Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon.  That part was well done.  I'm just not buying it any more.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
Click to expand...

I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet. 

In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process. 

Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).

It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.


----------



## G.T.

Primacy of existence. Existence happened first, rational minds came after.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
Click to expand...


We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Emily:*

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
* 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.   This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question: 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/
*
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism*:*

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn*'*t exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question*:* _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be?  *The implied answer:  while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically*.

*Related:* Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


----------



## G.T.

Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena?  If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaa?
> 
> God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!



Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:
> 
> "The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya' can't argue against such a bulletproof argument, because I say so!
Click to expand...


It can't be stated or thought without contradiction.  See above.  It has nothing to do with what I  say.  All of the things I have talked about  are objectively true.


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:
> 
> "The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"



Not bad! Copy and paste that ten or fifteen times, mix it up a bit, and I think you've pretty much nailed it.


----------



## G.T.

No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.

That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
Click to expand...


I don’t follow this: *“ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "

*
There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?

The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare *absolutes* regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.

At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.

This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## Foxfyre

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t follow this: *“ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "
> 
> *
> There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?
> 
> The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare *absolutes* regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.
> 
> At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.
> 
> This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Click to expand...


Well I'm not surprised that you don't follow it since you have consistently pointed out how ignorant, clueless, and uneducated I am and everybody else, except you and Justin of course, is..    And my comment was not directed at you but was specifically in response to another member's comment.  And you simply aren't impressing me with all the overly grandiloquent verbiage that is both non sequitur and illogical within the context of the OP.  So you might as well stop trying.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.



It _is_ an axiom!

I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

*1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT.  You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy.  None.

*2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.

And the ultimate cognition is a question:  _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fool still doesn't know what axiom means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ an axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT.  You do exist, right?
> 
> That's not controversial. There's no controversy.  None.
> 
> *2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.
> 
> And the ultimate cognition is a question:  _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?
Click to expand...

Of course you don't see wherein lies the problem. 

You're a daft prick.

Hint: "creation" sort of actually has to be proven before you go calling existence one. That's how PROOF works. Its not what you can make a decent case for dimwit, its what you can PROVE.

TAG might be the biggest fraud since Columbus taking credit for Amerigo Vespucci's sweat.


----------



## G.T.

"Creation needs a creator!!" Is an axiom.

Existence was created is not.


----------



## G.T.

Also -

"Logicians" universally accepting TAG is a lie.

Also - 

"Logicians" as an appeal to authority means nothing to me. Especially...and I mean this emphatically...IF YOURE ONE.

cuz if you've spent years studying logic and don't see the problem with tag, then I was smarter than you before I left grade school.

Its kind of sad, really. Spend years looking to affirm something that any non gullible tom dick or Jane can see is bullshit within the first four minutes of hearing it.


To recap:

We were created is not proven, it doesn't rise above theory.

Absolutes need to be "grounded" in a mind is not proven, it is a theory.

Theory - not.meaning in the scientific sense either.


You can not use theories as rational proofs. 
You can only use soundly proven premises, not those which beg the question and are mere assertions.

You're not as smart as you think you are- and you're not even as smart as THAT.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

[


Foxfyre said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one I can think of is: We're in outer space, hurdling around a Sun spinning on our axis, yet through some process we still don't understand the Sun puts out just enough heat and the combination of our magnetic field, atmosphere and the presence of the Moon hold us in such a position that we only experience micro differences in temperature and weather. When you look up some days, the tree are perfectly still.
> 
> That's a miracle, that's God making it right for us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just have to say as I often express to my religion classes:  just because a miracle is accomplished by what we consider natural means makes it no less a miracle.
> 
> That is what makes much of the Old Testament stories so fascinating to many scientists.  They can study the geography and anthropology and geology and see how much of what the people saw as God's doing could have been natural events.  But the fact that those natural events occurred at the precise time they did is what makes the miracle.
> 
> So maybe it was all by chance that our planet is positioned just the precise distance from our particular sun so that life as we know it can flourish.  Maybe it was by chance that the moon was positioned in the precise location to provide the precise amount of gravity necessary to keep the Earth stable in its own orbit and on its own axis.  Maybe it was by chance that the big planets--Saturn and Jupiter--are positioned in the precise location in our solar system to intercept and protect the Earth from most incoming space objects.  Or maybe it was all a miracle designed by a Creator of it all.
> 
> In the syllogistic model:
> 
> The chances of everything occurring and being in place to allow life on Earth as we know it to exist by chance is astronomically mathematically improbable.
> 
> Yet life on Earth as we know it to exist does exist.
> 
> Therefore, the probability of some manner of intelligent design--we can call it God--is logical and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think there are flaws in your "chance equation" of life on the planet.
> 
> In all discussions of "chance", it must be remembered that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.
> 
> Additionally, were still left to address the many paradoxes that result from the model of gods (and I acknowledge that there are many possible gods beside the christian God).
> 
> It all becomes completely harmonious when you take the gods out of the equation. No issues at all -- not a single paradox. We have free will, we write our own destiny as we move through linear time, we are responsible for the kind of world we live in, the "plan" is within our hands and is imperfect because we are imperfect, and thus changes-- exactly as it is playing out -- I'd say all concerns are satisfied once you abdicate the notion that there's a "guiding intelligence" from a supernatural realm involved with our existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can disagree on what 'chance' and/or mathematical probability is.  And in this context it has absolutely nothing to do with models or paradox's of any god or gods or what is or is not harmonious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t follow this: *“ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "
> 
> *
> There's nothing in my posts about this kind of thing, though, admittedly, I'm not sure precisely what you're talking about. I'm just guessing, but could you be referring to the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty?
> 
> The formulaic calculi of iinfinitesimalsare *absolutes* regarding the rational potentialities of existence, including material or immaterial existents.
> 
> At the simplest level, our immediate level of apprehension, the issue is the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive extrapolation directly intuited from the three fundamental laws of human thought.
> 
> This link touches on this: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I'm not surprised that you don't follow it since you have consistently pointed out how ignorant, clueless, and uneducated I am and everybody else, except you and Justin of course, is..    And my comment was not directed at you but was specifically in response to another member's comment.  And you simply aren't impressing me with all the overly grandiloquent verbiage that is both non sequitur and illogical within the context of the OP.  So you might as well stop trying.
Click to expand...


No one is trying to impress you.  I write what I write as that's how I think and write.  That’s the stuff I think about it. Those are the terms that go with it.

I've always admired your prose as it's accomplished. It never occurred to me to think you were trying to impress anybody.

I saw your comment and connected it to something I necessarily *had *to think about, though it's secondarily related, in a post I had just written in the above today. That's all. I saw what you said and conflated that with your comment.  Autopilot. Click. Answer. I didn't realize until I saw your next post that it was never addressed to me.  In fact, I did a double take, and_ ignorance_ does not mean _stupid_.


*“ ‘chance' and/or mathematical probability’ "* is related to “the position-momentum dichotomy” in my post and to the Heisenberg principle. They're all directly connected.

That's all that happened there. LOL! There would have been nothing at all unreasonable about you thinking that if it were directed at me. So I was just clarifying, not putting you down. On the contrary, the Heisenberg principle does invariably come into play with infinitesimals and the principle of identity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Also -
> 
> "Logicians" universally accepting TAG is a lie.
> 
> Also -
> 
> "Logicians" as an appeal to authority means nothing to me. Especially...and I mean this emphatically...IF YOURE ONE.
> 
> cuz if you've spent years studying logic and don't see the problem with tag, then I was smarter than you before I left grade school.
> 
> Its kind of sad, really. Spend years looking to affirm something that any non gullible tom dick or Jane can see is bullshit within the first four minutes of hearing it.
> 
> 
> To recap:
> 
> We were created is not proven, it doesn't rise above theory.
> 
> Absolutes need to be "grounded" in a mind is not proven, it is a theory.
> 
> Theory - not.meaning in the scientific sense either.
> 
> 
> You can not use theories as rational proofs.
> You can only use soundly proven premises, not those which beg the question and are mere assertions.
> 
> You're not as smart as you think you are- and you're not even as smart as THAT.




*All* professional logicians, assuming they're worthy of that descriptor, *do* accept _*the fact*_ of the cognition in and of itself. They have no choice, just like every other human being has no choice. You have no choice. I have no choice. It's axiomatically true.

Period.

As for *#2* which goes to the question as to why this is so. The answer to that is between you, God or whatever. I have no interest in demonstrating anything further, nothing beyond the pertinent objective facts or the objectively pertinent potentialities regarding this topic.

The objective facts report, you decide


----------



## G.T.

"Of the cognition"

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying sometimes? Cuz to someone who speaks English.......no, no you don't.


----------



## G.T.

But anyways, very good. TAG is snake oil.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena?  If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaa?
> 
> God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.
Click to expand...


Nah.  You're just ignorant and closed-minded, always looking for the other shoe to drop instead of looking at the shoes that are already on your feet.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> "Of the cognition"
> 
> Do you even know what the fuck you're saying sometimes? Cuz to someone who speaks English.......no, no you don't.




Of course I do.  I don't knowingly say things that aren't true:   By the way, what's the problem?  Are you missing the_ truly_ pompous ass QW? 

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
_noun_
noun: *cognition*

the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

synonyms:perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight;More
reasoning, thinking, thought
"the head injury has impaired his speech and cognition"
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion


[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## G.T.

Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.

Just the way you used it was awkward as fuck.

"Fact of the cognition"


Herb a derp derp whaaaa?

"Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #. 

Impossible.

I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
Click to expand...



Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> [
> I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context.  I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now.  It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style.  I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress.  But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'
> Again a good practical joke.  Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon.  That part was well done.  I'm just not buying it any more.



That's enough out your mealy mouth. Now let's talk about your pompous, hypocritical Pollyannaisms. You were perfectly okay with QW lying his off and insulting everyone who disagreed with him. So why are singling me out, especially given your snotty attitude? I didn't hear peep out of you over that.

You got any mirrors in you house?

You copped an attitude over free will as you slammed the door of your mind on everything else, which was fine with me 'til I started reading the innuendos pouring out from behind that false veneer of sweetness and light about my supposed impositions on God as you spout subjective mush as if they were absolutes from on high from that tinny, one-dimensional reality of yours in which you're buried up to your neck.

I don't do subjectivity.  I do objectivity.

At least now you're talking about me to me, rather than about me to others.

You take your false accusations of pretentiousness, which is, in reality, your ignorance, and shove 'em. You have no justifiable grounds whatsoever to put that label on me. You're a journalist. I'm an apologist. The terms I use are correct, and precise, and that's _all_ they are to me. The poisonous falsehoods about my supposed motive is your poison.

As for your talk about my supposed irrationality, you're outside your mind, but unfortunately not far enough outside of it to lift a single thought of mine off the ground, and it's not because you're stupid. You're just willfully incompetent. You've never bothered to back out of your paradigm long enough to objectively assess the validity of what I've expressed on this thread from my premise, not yours!

I've already told you that your premise won't work for what I talking about, but you heedlessly go on as if you were qualified to make a valid judgment from your perspective that is utterly clueless about the name of the  foundation on which I'm standing. And perhaps because it is precisely your one-dimensional realty that I'm refuting, you've always got an opinion, but never an argument. If you don't grasp the first principles of the transcendental argument, then you don't know where I'm coming from, for it is the leading argument asserted in scripture.  The other arguments are icing on the cake.  God begins, not with a debate, but a declaration in our minds:  I AM!  The ultimate, universal Principle of Identity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.
> 
> Just the way you used it was awkward as fuck.
> 
> "Fact of the cognition"
> 
> 
> Herb a derp derp whaaaa?
> 
> "Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #.
> 
> Impossible.
> 
> I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof



_Cognition_ is the correct term because it entails the various constituents of the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge:  perception (sensory), apprehension, delineation/discernment, intuition, learning, comprehension. . . .. 


*cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/*
_*noun*_
*noun: cognition*

*the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sounds like another  challenge,  not a discussion.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another  challenge,  not a discussion.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an arm fart.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.
> 
> That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.


*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
* 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question: 
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. 

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.
> 
> That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> * 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> 
> Begging the Question:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> 
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*
Click to expand...

It's he still at it?


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got the first part right, and Christianity is not issue.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> really, a generic God is your goal ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get all hung up on what might be and not just objectively see what is generally true about the issues of origin, the concepts of the universal laws of thought as they are without bias?  He's even given established mathematical expressions of it all.  Man alive.  Just open your eyes.  These ideas are not subjective.  They're objective and belong to us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it remains for you to decipher what the issue of your "argument" accomplishes, that is if you believe your conclusions have a relevancy for a practical application - religion.
> 
> as others have requested, take us to the next level ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God.  But I can tell you this, every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Justin Davis:* *There's two persons talking on a topic about God's existence from the bible*, from bible-believing backgrounds with similar theological interests, from the same book and the same religion out of hw many people on this thread?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* What _are_ you talking about? *No one is pulling on your leg*. I'm dead serious about the things I'm sharing. Everything I know comes from the Bible, but these things are also in our minds, put there by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* Beyond that, Justin *shares my theological interests*. So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MD:* dblack, *Fox's doctrine on free will is not scripturally, theologically or historically orthodox in either Jewish or Christian hermeneutics* at all! In fact, it defies the biblical ramifications of the doctrine of Christ as the universal Logos of creation and the omnipresent sustainer of the cosmological order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> jd: Nonsense.  It's not my business to tell you which religion, if any, is the true religion of God ... every one of the objectively obvious facts in our minds about God and about the issues of existence and origin are listed in the Bible and are listed as being in our minds just so.*
> 
> 
> so, the conclusion of your TAG is not meant to lead to an alterior motive of religious doctrine ? -
> 
> and you insinuate others are liars - more like one who is, knows no difference and for some is the proof by their denial.
> 
> 
> without substantiating a religion the TAG in itself becomes meanigless rehtoic - either move to the next step or -
> 
> SHUT UP
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Whose holding a gun to your head?  The things that you can see in head are also in the Bible.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*








no, that is not God ... 

what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> I am not discussing Henry and Lang in this context.  I am discussing the improbability of authenticity based on what I have been reading for more than 2400 posts now.  It requires a great deal of mental concentration and concentrated effort to change one's literary posting style.  I am happy you have a Justin to follow you around and give you great praise and confirmation for posting a great deal of irrelevant and often illogical and even more incomprehensible wall of high sounding theological text apparently in an effort to impress.  But the literary style morphed far too quickly into one thought, one concept, one conclusion within that same wall of text to be believable any longer.'
> 
> Again a good practical joke.  Halloween, the time of year for practical jokes, is coming up soon.  That part was well done.  I'm just not buying it any more.



It looks like you've never heard of what we're talking about. It's nothing new.  It's just new to you.  You're the first Christian I've run into who didn't understand the principle of identity or at least the Bible idea of the Logos, which is the same thing.  That's the idea of it I came with.  Rawlings showed me more about it.  All it means is that  God puts ideas about Him and about the creation  in every person's mind.  We all have these ideas and how do say it doesn't make any sense when all of us know the five things Rawlings listed and  what the laws of human logic are?  You're saying you don't see these things?  We're wrong.  That's weird because at three or four of atheists admitted that they see these things. How come you don't?  

Or is it the things about infinity you don't like or can't understand when we apply the laws of logic to that idea because that shows that your idea of time doesn't work, which is something I already knew.  Your idea about time doesn't work in the Bible, science, math or logic.  Yeah, that's what you don't like.  This is the same junk you were doing before. You never say what's wrong.  You never tell us. What I want to know is why a Christian is saying  these things aren't true when they obviously are  true.   That's why as I learned more about this and how the ideas work that I'm able to see the same things Rawlings sees. They are objectively true.  They are obvious.  You're the one who's delusional.  And I'm not dumb. I can learn to write better.  Who do you think you are? It's not that hard.  If your going to say that people are wrong about something then say exactly what they're wrong about.  Let's see.  I'll tell you what I smell, I smell QW again who lied to me about important things that couldn't possibly be true about logic.  You seem to think it's okay for people to treat me like I dumb, like I can't learn things. 

I’m not putting up with rude people, and that includes you. You’re hypocrite to point your finger at me.   People are seeing things they don't want to see, and that makes them mad because it changes things they thought were true. I understand the psychology.  I'm not stupid.  Tells us what's not logical according to you, and I'll tell you that you don't understand the idea of infinity in logic and math.  See.  You're not so smart as you think.  My logic isn’t subject to your stupid assumptions. My mind isn’t close.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 33226
> 
> no, that is not God ...
> 
> what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, are you saying that only real Christians believe things about the transcendent realm of being that, not only do not line up with scripture, but do not line up with the corresponding expressions of empirical phenomena?  If the Bible is true, the expressions of the two respective realms of being should line up, albeit, with the created realm being a contingent foreshadowing of the transcendent. In short, what she doesn't comprehend in all of this, and neither do you, apparently, is that if she's right, the created realm is greater in terms of structural and expressional complexity than the realm of God.
> 
> Whaaaaaaaaaaa?
> 
> God reveals Himself in what He has impressed upon our minds, through scripture and through the cosmological order. He is infinitely greater and more complex than His creation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. I can't read that stuff anymore. I'm saying that despite the fact that I perceive you to be a pompous, deluded jackass, I don't see those traits as commonly "Christian". Most of the Christians I know are decent people and many of them are highly intelligent and thoughtful.
Click to expand...


Did someone tell you something you don't like either?


dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My m.d. Rawlings impression.... Hollie tell me if I'm close:
> 
> "The rational origins of ontological expressions found in the imperatives of first cognition are the classical and organic laws of irrefutable and absolute perfection within the metaphysical and scientific realms of necessity and something something infinity because axioms! Nitwits refute themselves bY even questioning such eloquence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad! Copy and paste that ten or fifteen times, mix it up a bit, and I think you've pretty much nailed it.
Click to expand...


It's pretty easy.  We got five things.  Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired?  And what about those laws of thought?  Looks like there's three of them.  Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically.  Gee wiz.  I wonder what that could means.  But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No.  Maybe I'm morphing,  No. I think it's just commonsense.


----------



## dblack

Justin Davis said:


> It's pretty easy.  We got five things.  Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired?  And what about those laws of thought?  Looks like there's three of them.  Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically.  Gee wiz.  I wonder what that could means.  But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No.  Maybe I'm morphing,  No. I think it's just commonsense.



Maybe you're just insane?


----------



## Justin Davis

Foxfyre said:


> So you might as well stop trying.



I'm still trying to figure something out, am I morphing or is it commonsense.  Five things, laws of logic, law of identity, can't logically say God doesn't exist, hardwired.  I'm pretty sure it's commonsense, and some  don't have it because it's illogical to them.  Are they morphing into morons?  Now I know I'm really stupid but check this out, something real Christians are doing with logic.

 Deductive reason presupposes the laws of logic. But why do the laws of logic hold? For the Christian, there is a transcendent standard for reasoning. As the laws of logic are reduced to being materialistic entities, they cease to possess their law-like character. But the laws of logic are not comprised of matter; they apply universally and at all times. The laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature and are necessary for deductive reasoning. The invariability, sovereignty, transcendence, and immateriality of God are the foundation for the laws of logic. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. 

How do atheists refute the transcendental argument for the existence of God 

I wonder if this logic gets us to things about infinity, let's think about it for once.  I wonder why the TAG keeps putting the laws of logic and God together but I'm kind of dumb so I might be totally off and illogical.  Just saying.

Law of thought - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The topic *principle of identity* is discussed in the following articles:
*laws of thought*

TITLE:  laws of thought (logic) 
traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. That is, (1) for all propositions _p_, it is impossible for both _p_ and not _p_ to be true, or symbolically, ∼( _p_ · ∼ _p_), in which ∼ means “not” and · means...


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy.  We got five things.  Looks like some finally figured out why you can't logically say God doesn't exist, and the point of that. Got hardwired?  And what about those laws of thought?  Looks like there's three of them.  Oh, one of them shows us that infinity is a meaningful concept logically and mathematically.  Gee wiz.  I wonder what that could means.  But I got to careful or else I might morph thought it looks like commonsense. No.  Maybe I'm morphing,  No. I think it's just commonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're just insane?
Click to expand...



I wouldn't be alone.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said they didn't know what cognition meant.
> 
> Just the way you used it was awkward as fuck.
> 
> "Fact of the cognition"
> 
> 
> Herb a derp derp whaaaa?
> 
> "Logicians* do not accept 'tag' in any significant #.
> 
> Impossible.
> 
> I call bullshit, because even the simplest of the simple can see that tag is not a rational proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Cognition_ is the correct term because it entails the various constituents of the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge:  perception (sensory), apprehension, delineation/discernment, intuition, learning, comprehension. . . ..
> 
> 
> *cog·ni·tion
> ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/*
> _*noun*_
> *noun: cognition*
> 
> *the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.*
Click to expand...


That definition looks right to me and cognition looks like the right word to me, but I morph.  Or  is it commonsense?  I'm so confused.  When commonsense becomes illogical, irrational or incomprehensible we might all be lost.  What am I talking about?  Maybe horse is the best word.  Dog is a pretty  good word, but I like cats because cats are good.  Infinity and beyond.  ARe there an infinite number of values between the real numbers 1 and 2?  Looks like infinity is everywhere we look, but I morph.  Can a Foxfyre be divided an infinite number of times?  There goes that horse again, but  I morph. 

Let's look up the word commonsense.

: the ability to think and behave in a reasonable way and to make good decisions

*:*  sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

— *com·mon·sense* \ˈkä-mən-ˈsen(t)s\ _adjective_
— *com·mon·sen·si·ble* \-ˈsen(t)-sə-bəl\ _adjective_
— *com·mon·sen·si·cal* \-ˈsen(t)-si-kəl\ _adjective_
— *com·mon·sen·si·cal·ly* \-si-k(ə-)lē\ _adverb_

I really like that second definition a lot, but I morph.

Commonsense:  five things, can't logically say God doesn't exist, hardwired, laws of logic, principle of identity, A:A=A=infinity, but I morph.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.
> 
> That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> * 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> 
> Begging the Question:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> 
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's he still at it?
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.
> 
> That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> * 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> 
> Begging the Question:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> 
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*
Click to expand...


Sorry, Bunky. But your insistence that the pointless TAG argument is worth serious consideration by thinking humans is pointless and time wasting. 

That you continue with this charade is a laughable joke.


----------



## G.T.

Tag


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not objectively true that absolute truth has a creator.
> 
> That is SUBjective - not OBjective....learn the fucking difference you're a grown assed adult. Your fairy tales are tired.
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> * 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all* (no, it's not. It's saying that it doesn't necessarily need a creator as it's not necessarily a creation, and that you can't absolutely rule out that it may have not been created means that you can't use mptag as an axiom or a premise for a rational argument)*_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator*(it's not logically possible to say that existence was created, either, because it is currently unknown how existence itself came to be or if it always was or if there are multi-verses etc etc etc etc etc),* the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists. *(again, not logically possible to say that existence needs a cause or that existence was created. It's mere opinion, but not objective truth and if you think that it's objective truth than you don't know what objective means. That the possibility cannot be disproven that "existence always was," means that TAG is not an axiom, it merely begs the question. 2+2=4 does not beg the question, because other possibilities ARE ruled out). *
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out*(and also, he cannot be logically ruled IN, for the same type of lack of absolute information ofm origins)*., which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory*(no, it's only contradictory if we WERE created, which again is an unknown and not absolutely proven. Your grasp on rationality is weak as fuck, god damn)*. . .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way(first clause true, we cannot assert god doesnt exist. second part false, it's not a contradiction because it's not proven that a "creation" happened. The opposite applied also: the fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that god exists) or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG. (mptag is not an axiom because other possibilities which have not refuted in an absolute sense exist. You get this, but you have ducked every single time. Duck, duck goose, pussy. You're a snake oil salesman. TAG's 1st premise is NOT an axiom because OTHER POSSIBILITIES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. )
> ______________________________
> 
> Begging the Question:
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG)(BUT it's not intuitively true, so it does beg the question. This was refuted above, and so you're simply wasting more time here dimwit) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon(it's famous for being dogma of religious zealouts, which happen to include some philosophers but most certainly tag is not sound reasoning for all of the irrefutable reasons above).
> 
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic(and destroyed by anyone who is not a presupper. try to do some counter research to your god aweful grasp of reasoning. pun intended).
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions(being created is not held as a "necessary enabling condition," herein lies your snake-oil dumbass)  actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal(read: formal) error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic(it's not because other possibilities have not been ruled out. Again, you have a really hard time with the word "axiom," you dope), not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents)(ummm, since god isn't proven to exist or not exist, this entire paragraph is meaningless. you sure do like word salad in place of rational thoughts, dontcha???dontcha???) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves(they don't contradict themselves, that's your inability to grasp what it means that "we were created" might not be true. If we were not created, then using knowledge isn't self negating in an argument against TAG. I mean, you get that right??????Right???????) or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*
Click to expand...



For once, I went through the tedious, tedious task that EVERYONE ELSE AVOIDS, in dissecting your terrible terrible grammatical word salad, and my corrections to your horrible grasp on rational thought are above in red and bolded.

For this paper, you get a D-minus, in GT's logic class.

You ran with one premise (we were created) and used said *unproven* premise, called it an axiom, and based your entire world view on it, above.

therefore, your worldview is as absurd as anybody's because you base it on unproven DOGMA.


TAG begs the question.

*It is not disproven, in the ABSOLUTE sense, that existence could have come before any mind. Therefore, MPTAG is not an axiom. *

Once you PROVE that a mind came before all of existence, MPTAG is an axiom. The underlined proves that TAG is an irrational argument.



I'll be glad to field any questions justin rawlings. You're summarily dismissed.


----------



## Ellipsis

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.


I don't know what all those arguments you listed even are but here's mine: The Day-Age interpritation of the creation event found in Genesis 1:1-2:1 is not information any bronze age civilisation could have unles it were given to them from a superior entity.

Please be ready to discard the King James Version and refrence the original Hebrew over any English rendering of Genesis if you would like to discus this.


----------



## Taz

If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?


To most of us, it IS that obvious.


----------



## Taz

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?
> 
> 
> 
> To most of us, it IS that obvious.
Click to expand...

"most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.


----------



## dblack

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?
> 
> 
> 
> To most of us, it IS that obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.
Click to expand...


Axioms aren't just things that are obvious, or things most people agree on. They're chosen as the starting place for an argument. Anything can be chosen as an axiom. But if people don't buy into your axioms, they're not going to accept your argument.


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> "most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.


The blind cannot see the tree. Not "EVERYONE" can even see.


----------



## Taz

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.
> 
> 
> 
> The blind cannot see the tree. Not "EVERYONE" can even see.
Click to expand...

But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?


But you didn't say touch and smell, you said see. You're moving the goal posts now; missing the point I made in the analogy.

In Buddhism we learn that each person is a god, every bit as much a god as 'the' God. Jesus says esentialy the same thing. So, when you deny gods exist, you deny you exist.


----------



## Taz

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they can touch and smell the tree, verifying its existence. EVERYONE can verify a tree, then how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?
> 
> 
> 
> But you didn't say touch and smell, you said see. You're moving the goal posts now; missing the point I made in the analogy.
Click to expand...

You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?


You didn't say 'verify', you said 'see', as in "view subjectivly" not meashure objectivly". Please stop moving the goal posts.


----------



## G.T.

Who cares if he said see before?

He reclarified, refined, moved the goal posts, whatever. Answer his reformation or not.


----------



## Taz

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just deflecting. My point is EVERYONE can verify a tree, how come EVERYONE can verify your god? A tree obviously exists to EVERYONE, but your god can't claim the same thing, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say 'verify', you said 'see'. Please stop moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?


I answered this already within the peramiters of your initial inquary: some people are blind.


----------



## G.T.

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See was a general term. Are you too embarrassed to answer why everyone doesn't think that your god obviously exists? Did I stump you?
> 
> 
> 
> I answered this already within the peramiters of your initial inquary: some people are blind.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.

If you're hear to preach and duck counterpoints, go for it but you're wasting your time.


----------



## Ellipsis

G.T. said:


> Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.


I did: some people are blind.


----------



## G.T.

Pezz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.
> 
> 
> 
> I did: some people are blind.
Click to expand...

"new parameters"

Blind people can feel a tree.

Trees can be observed by everyone who is alive and wishes and has the mobility to do so. They're empirically observable. That is the crux of the point. Dancing around it isn't cute, it's being a dick. Taz wasn't being a dick to you. You're being a dick and flippantly ducking the crux: trees are observable by all.


----------



## Meriweather

Taz said:


> ...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?


They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Taz said:


> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?



You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star.  In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right.  He wouldn't be.  We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent.  Recall?

But, really, that's okay.  We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about.  No big deal.  There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid.  That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.

*On the contrary,  that's still a very good question, truly!*  It gets at the very crux of the matter*:* *t**he immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!  *

The immediate issue is what _does_ exist _for sure_ and what is objectively and universally true about the  things that exist _for sure_ and about the ideas that we have about their existence.


Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure*:*

*The Five Things
1.*  We exist!
*2.*  The cosmological order exists!
*3.*  The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!  So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.*  If God _does_ exists, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.*  Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Let's add two more things to that list _*now*_.

*6.*  It is not logically possible to say or think that _*God (the Creator) doesn't exist*_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
*7.*  All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Looky here.  Now we have *"The Seven Things".
____________________________________________
*
Note:  For those who may still have any unnecessary, lingering doubts about *#6*, see *Posts #2519, #2518* and *#2479*, in that order.


----------



## Taz

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?
> 
> 
> 
> They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.
Click to expand...

So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.


----------



## Taz

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star.  In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right.  He wouldn't be.  We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent.  Recall?
> 
> But, really, that's okay.  We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about.  No big deal.  There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid.  That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.
> 
> *On the contrary,  that's still a very good question, truly!*  It gets at the very crux of the matter*:* *t**he immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!  *
> 
> The immediate issue is what _does_ exist _for sure_ and what is objectively and universally true about the  things that exist _for sure_ and about the ideas that we have about their existence.
> 
> 
> Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure*:*
> 
> *The Five Things
> 1.*  We exists!
> *2.*  The cosmological order exists!
> *3.*  The idea that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all the other things that exist exists in our minds!  So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.*  If God _does_ exists, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, logically!
> *5.*  Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Let's add three more things to that list _*now*_.
> 
> *6.*  The Five Things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!!
> *7.*  It is not logically possible to say or think that _*God (the Creator) doesn't exist*_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
> *8.*  All seven of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Looky here.  Now we have *"The Eight Things".*
Click to expand...

"We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent." No we don't ALL realize this. As it's not necessarily the case.
But we all do realize that a tree exists and is made of wood.


----------



## Meriweather

Taz said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?
> 
> 
> 
> They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.
Click to expand...


Where have you been seeking?  

We are told that the Kingdom of God is within; that it is in our midst; to seek God in the small things, to look for Him in hindsight.  We are advised to be persistent in seeking and knocking.


----------



## Ellipsis

G.T. said:


> ....trees are observable by all.


As is God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
* 1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question: 
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of necessary enabling conditions actually beg the question, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. 

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that God exists.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: why are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think God (Creator) doesn't exist without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

It _is_ an axiom!

I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

*1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?

That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.

*2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.

You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.

And the ultimate cognition is a question: _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It _is_ an axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?
> 
> That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.
> 
> *2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.
> 
> And the ultimate cognition is a question: _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?


No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.


----------



## Ellipsis

Taz said:


> So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.


Buddha and Jesus tell us to look inward.

Your inner tree, so to speek; all animals, plants, and fungi share an ancestor that lived about 1.6 billion years ago.

Your inner god is imo the only god which really matters.


----------



## G.T.

post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...how come EVERYONE can't verify your god?
> 
> 
> 
> They are usually looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where can I go to then be able to say: your god is obviously existant... like a tree is obviously in existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have you been seeking?
> 
> We are told that the Kingdom of God is within; that it is in our midst; to seek God in the small things, to look for Him in hindsight.  We are advised to be persistent in seeking and knocking.
Click to expand...


I AM!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Taz said:


> "We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent." No we don't ALL realize this. As it's not necessarily the case.
> But we all do realize that a tree exists and is made of wood.



What's not necessarily the case?  Be specific, because you do in fact have an idea of God in you mind, and that idea is of a Being Who created everything else that exists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"



On ignore.  Talk to the wall.


----------



## G.T.

Soundly defeated, and summarily dismissed.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Pezz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.
> 
> 
> 
> I did: some people are blind.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz.  He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions.  The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 33226
> 
> no, that is not God ...
> 
> what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.
Click to expand...




> jd: Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.


.

what is flawed is the logic you use that is not supported by your underlying religion that prevents the biblicists from the true endeavor for Admission to the Everlasting a simple belief in the existence of the Almighty will not by itself accomplish.

you fail not in believing in God but the means of accomplishing the fulfillment necessary to make your belief meaningful.

.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.
> 
> 
> 
> I did: some people are blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz.  He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions.  The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.
Click to expand...

projection.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a god really did exist, would we really be arguing over its existence? Wouldn't its existence be obvious to everyone, like a tree or water is?
> 
> 
> 
> To most of us, it IS that obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "most". EVERYONE can look at a tree and agree: ya, that's a tree. Not just "most" of us. But that's because a tree really does exist, and it's actually obvious to EVERYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Axioms aren't just things that are obvious, or things most people agree on. They're chosen as the starting place for an argument. Anything can be chosen an axiom. But if people don't buy into your axioms, they're not going to accept your argument.
Click to expand...

Yep.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer it within the new parameters. Conversations evolve, that's how they're had.
> 
> 
> 
> I did: some people are blind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't even bother with him, Pezz.  He endlessly argues and quibbles over things that are objectively and logically true, as he makes up his own definitions.  The fact is, conversations never evolve with him, but are always stagnant wastes of time, as he never gets anywhere and quibbles about things that are obviously and logically true.
Click to expand...


Well, to be honest, Bunky, your juvenile TAG argument doesn't even approach truth. It's intellectual Sloth. 

When your nonsensical argument is preconfigured to yield a predetermined result, that's not an argument, it's fundamentalist Christian apologetics. While you have cut and pasted the goofy premise for the TAG too many times to count, have you noticed that you, and your sock "Justin", are the only ones buying into it?

It's really just a shame that you would subject others to your tactics of proselytizing with failed arguments delivered with all the tact of loud, sweaty, smelly WEC wrestler. You do a disservice (I never knew that was possible), to the used car salesman cult of JW's.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *
> 3.* *The possibility* that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, *cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> The possibility ... cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition.
> 
> *
> ... including the cosmological order*
> 
> I believe the Creator exists within the Everlasting and did not create that state and the Everlasting is tangentially responsible for the cosmological order to what exists / does not exist within it.
> 
> all hail the Creator, but that the Creator is among many ...
> 
> 
> GT makes sense at the same level as MD the _Proselytizer_, -
> 
> amen.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "because there is a possibility, does not describe the actual existing condition."
> 
> Possibility does not necessarily equal actuality?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?   So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?  That's what #3 says. So you agree with it right?
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Everlasting is your name for the ultimate ground of all other things, the ultimate God or Creator right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, it is the state for existence and will always be -
> 
> continuing to exist Spiritually would have been an accomplishment for the Creator first and is possible for whatever may attempt the feat, the Everlasting - what comes afterwards can be anything.
> 
> "your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


re: "your" TAG =/= Christianity, so what really is your point if recognized that does not satisfy the same for all other religions ?

Dear Breezewood: Take any concept from Christianity that is universal,
and by definition it will apply to people of all religions.

The way I explain it, is that the other religions or laws all under the one CENTRAL law or authority over ALL,
is like the several states with their OWN local laws ALL under ONE CENTRAL unifying LAW of the LAND for all states.

So you can have BOTH.

You can have ONE law or authority that is Lord/Source/Law over ALL people and ALL states,
AND you can have respect for Individual laws or religions that those people follow LOCALLY.

there is NO contradiction between local and global unless you pick a fight and have a conflict that isn't resolved.

As long as you forgive and reconcile any conflict that arises between local laws and the universal level of
natural laws for everyone, then you have BOTH existing in harmony.

So the point of Christianity is to FULFILL That path, to fulfill ALL laws with the ONE spirit of truth and justice with mercy
so there is law order and peace for everyone, as Equal children of God who are Equal under the law with Equal justice and Equal protections. We keep our diversity as  part of God's creation and design and purpose for each of us; but we are Unified in spirit as ONE human family.

As we FORGIVE and let go our FEAR of these differences we were created with,
we will establish and receive the wisdom and understanding we need to grow together and work out the rest
that threatens to separate or challenges us.

Peace to you.

I hope you are one who can RISE ABOVE the differences
and join in the common spirit of God that includes all these other ways.

And it is STILL uniting in Christ Jesus, as the Christians have long taught and represented,
but it does NOT negate the fact we still have nontheists/atheists under natural laws who are not following
the same laws of the church as Christians do.  The Natural Laws are the Other fold of the one flock,
and Jesus as a symbol of Divine Justice and Authority of Law over all humanity still governs the secular
gentiles and nontheists under Natural Laws equally fulfilled by the spirit of Justice or Jesus which brings
Salvation and Peace to all.

It's the same message, but yes, the different people of different tribes, religions, laws of all nations and states
will Express this Justice differently.  It's still the same spirit of Justice for all humanity, though we keep our diverse
traditions for those respective tribes. All the branches are still part of the one tree where Justice or Jesus is the trunk.

All religions are included, and yet there is still one Authority over all that Jesus represents as
God's divine justice with mercy made manifest when all humanity embraces and embodies the
laws as the church body or community of people. All humanity is included, regardless what tribe we affiliate with.

I pray you get this so there is no more contradiction or conflict
separating you from Justin or him from you.  We are one in Christ Jesus
and it is only our fear and rejection that separates us from the love of God's truth
that transcends our worldly differences that are there for a reason. That is still part of God's truth and plan
and is not in conflict with it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily: Sorry, some things came up. . . .*
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT and MD:
> 1. RE: "Proving God existing in the first place"
> Where I agree with MD is that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge
> can NEVER be proven or disproven.
> So this is impossible.
> The point is to ACKNOWLEDGE this, but BOTH ways:
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be proven
> NOR
> neither can something infinitely greater than man be disproven
> to exist, it is BY DEFINITION beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have shown in my previous posts with regard to the incontrovertible axiom of the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG), expressed either as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the universality of the principle of identity: your contention "that God by definition of representing infinite knowledge can NEVER be proven or disproven" has been falsified since time immemorial", as peer-reviewed academia knows. Nothing from your post in the above is logically true. These notions of yours are taken from the pages of post-modern popular culture. They are in fact the gibberish of materialistic subjectivism and epistemological relativism. You're an absolutist and a proponent of classical liberalism, not an irrationalist and a statist, right? Now, hopefully, from here on out, you will still be the former like me from premise to conclusion.
> 
> Actually, the principle of identity readily allows us to comprehend the concept of infinity with no sweat at all, as any given _*A*_ of a single predicate may be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously without conflict. If this were not so, we could _not_ coherently apprehend qualities of infinitely unparalleled greatness. It doesn't matter that our finite minds could never possibly comprehend the entirety of what an entity of infinitely unparalleled greatness would entail. We _can_ comprehend that the only restriction that would logically prevail upon such an entity would be for that entity to become something other than what it is, i.e., become something it's not:
> 
> *A = A; A ≠ B.*​
> 
> Also, we readily understand that any given _*A*_ (or whole) may be divided without end.
> 
> Comprehensively, the _laws _of organic/classical thought constitute the universally organic _principle_ of identity: (1) the discrete _law_ of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle (or third). The reason we apprehend a universally comprehensive principle existing above these fundamental laws of human thought collectively, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, is because the first law of thought is foundational and the second and third laws of thought are in actuality elaborations on the first. Taken together, we know why we are able to coherently apprehend, linguistically express and mathematically demonstrate constructs such as _infinity_, _eternity_, _perfection_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_. . . .
> 
> For our purposes we need only to emphatically established the essence of the law of identity: *A: A = A*, which means that for any given entity (rational or material), that entity is what it is, as opposed to being something it's not.
> 
> Note that we may readily see from this that *two* distinct entities/propositions that are diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive cannot both be true in the same way, at the same time, within the same frame of reference (the law of contraction), and it is not possible for there to be a middle (or third) option that would negate the first or second laws (the law of the excluded middle). So the second and the third laws are actually contained in the first!
> 
> Cutting to the chase:
> 
> *Let I = Infinity.
> 
> A: A = A = I = (all the numbers—natural, rational, irrational, integers, complex, hypercomplex—that exist simultaneously), or = (all existents or potential existents that exist simultaneously).*​
> Note: _infinity_ is a complex _*A*_ (or whole) of a single predicate that is what it is.
> 
> That's what infinity means conceptually, and its mathematical proof is most easily understood as a function of division in calculus, which renders inversely corresponding sets of inputs and outputs of values approaching infinity and zero, respectively (See *Post #2359*).
> 
> 
> Absolute logical consistency via unbiased objectivity reveals the complexities and potentialities of reality, not the ill-supported meanderings of materialistic subjectivism/relativism, which routinely presuppose that any given proposition isn't real, may not be real or can't be real, materially or immaterially, simply because at any given moment it's substance may only be known to coherently exist as a rational intuition. The question is not, do we or do we not have direct evidence of actual existents that correspond with the constructs in our minds, but whether or not the construct in our minds is logically coherent. If it's logically coherent, it's possible for it to exist outside of our minds.
> 
> Among the first axioms of classical, constructive and modal logic is that anything that's coherently conceivable/possible, necessarily exists in our minds, and in classical and modal logic, it necessarily exists beyond our minds for complex reasons that I won't get into here. (Note: the only exception to this rule, at least initially, is when the negative is assumed on the test basis of rational skepticism in order to uncover any potential contradictions in complex postulates or theorems.)
> 
> However, the actual objects or constituents of transcendent propositions (as distinguished from the issue of logical coherency) can only be assigned a valid, might or might not be true value in the absence of an inhabited proof of direct evidence in constructive logic and in science. (Note: in this case the term _proof_ goes to the controlling foundation for science, i.e., the logical categories of ontology, not to the conventions of science, which are contingent on the former. In other words, the logic of metaphysics tells science what it can legitimately do and what it can't do. The inferences of science are limited to the substances of sensory data.)
> 
> Notwithstanding, ultimately, everything we believe is rational, not material in nature. Only fanatically closed-minded, question-begging dogmatists limit the application of organic logic to empirical entities, disregard the implications of mathematically demonstrable constructs like _perfection_, _eternity_, _absoluteness_, _ultimacy_ . . . as premised on the construct of infinity, and confine the principle of identity and the logical proofs thereof to the trappings of a one-dimensional reality.
> 
> This attitude not only stifles the natural flow of rational discourse, but circumvents the process of disclosing the legitimate avenues of scientific discourse. In other words, if we were to bind the logical concerns of human cognition to the conventions of science, as some have proposed unaware as to what that would actually mean in reality, we would not only destroy the foundation for science itself as we arbitrarily reduced the intuitive range of human apprehensive, we would reduce the range of scientific inquiry!
> 
> Besides, we know about things of a single predicate that can occupy up to an infinite number of locations simultaneously (subatomic particles, like electrons and photons) without contradiction,  and  we know about lots or things of a single predicate that exist as distinctly two or more things, albeit, simultaneously as one and the same thing without contradiction, in the material realm of being*:* three-dimensional space, electromagnetic radiation, the Majorana fermion, magnetic poles. . . . In truth, virtually everything that exists of a single predicate is comprised of two or more things simultaneously, our bodies as a whole, for example, or any given part of our bodies, all the way down to the subatomic level*:* the principle of division rendering ever-smaller wholes of a single predicate.
> 
> The conceptualizations of _perfection, infinity_ and _eternity_ (or concepts like _ultimacy_ and _absoluteness_) are apprehensible and logically coherent, and they may be readily demonstrated as such in linguistic or mathematical terms. As these concepts are objectively and universally understood via the delineations of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, as premised on the principle of identity*:* they are axioms assigned a truth value in all forms of logic. In short, because they are objectively and universally understood, their conceptualizations are justifiably held to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone else here make any sense out of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It was just as confused and muddled as most of his  saliva-slinging tirades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is confused and muddled?  Put something into evidence with a coherent argument so that we may know who's really confused or muddled, as so far it's always been you.  Otherwise, your comment is irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is confused and muddled is your attempt to portray a viciously circular argument, your silly TAG argument, as a pwoof of your gods. You then go on to increase the depth of that fraud by refusing to acknowledge that your pointless TAG argument, at least as you configure it, can be used to "pwoove" every other conception of gawds.
> 
> What's laughable is that you rattle on with your stuttering and mumbling requiring that I "put something into evidence". How remarkable. It is you making the positive assertion of supernatural gawds. It thus falls to you to "put something into evidence". Obviously you cannot.
> 
> Don't be too hard on yourself for your failure to meet the standard you insist must apply to others but which you exempt yourself from. This is typical behavior from religious zealots and you are just typical as religious zealots go.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi MD I think we are talking past each other.
> I'm not saying the SYMBOLISM cannot be proven to be consistent.
> 
> I'm saying that because we cannot perceive and empirically experience God in full form
> we cannot prove that level.
> 
> We can prove representations and work within that framework
> but God of course is beyond the scope of man.
> 
> I have a friend who could probably explain what I mean that this cannot be proven directly.
> 
> My online friend Nirmaldasan was given that goat-goat-car problem off Marilyn Vos Savant's website.
> But since in real life you only get ONE shot at picking the door (or you can switch) but it's still ONE trial.
> 
> He could NOT understand this 2 out of 3 chances or 1 out of 3.
> Because you don't get 3 picks and then show that 2/3 or 1/3 end up being the car or goat.
> 
> You only get 1 shot so he was saying it was 50/50
> either 0% getting the car or 100%.
> 
> Since we could not set up a ONE SHOT trial that would prove to him it was 2/3
> he couldn't follow that. All the math calculations and averages over MULTIPLE trials show 2/3
> but he kept saying "you only get one trial, not 3, not 100"
> 
> So it could never be proven in real life to him.
> 
> He had some other issue, where he didn't trust academics who thought they
> were smarter than people with common sense.
> 
> So that was blocking him from understanding the math
> or accepting the answer.
> 
> The math proves it, but logistically for people to FOLLOW the proof
> and BELIEVE / UNDERSTAND it is another level.
> 
> (NOTE: even when  a computer programmer I know studied this car/goat/goat problem,
> and KNEW that 2/3 was the right answer, and DID TRIALS himself to get 2/3 on average,
> his BRAIN still didn't get why it wasn't coming out 50/50 as he thought. It was counterintuitive
> and his brain kept thinking two doors two choices should be 50/50.
> 
> so even if someone KNOWS it is the right answer and is getting it physically,
> there is still a process in the brain someone has to go through to RECONCILE it)
> 
> Sorry to get off track, MD
> 
> I have found that people WILL come to agree on this
> but just not the way you or I may think it happens.
> 
> MD the realization and knowledge you and I have is still faith based.
> You and I are at  peace with that, some people are and some people aren't.
> 
> My boyfriend is at peace knowing there is some kind of God but can't explain
> it to his agnostic brother who has to come to his own peace of mind and realization his way.
> 
> I think it is FASCINATING how you present one way to let go and get there,
> my boyfriend let go and found his own way, I have my own way which is weirder than
> everyone's else combined, and each person I know has their own way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can't scientifically verify the substances of certain logical conceptualizations about God only because, well, He's not material. That's all. But apprehending the various attributes that would necessarily apply to the construct of an ultimate, transcendent ground for existence without begging the question is no sweat, as the construct of infinity is readily conceivable and, therefore, readily expressible in linguistic or mathematical symbology. So I think we're actually on the same page. Just bear in mind these _are_ actual proofs. Science doesn't do proofs.  It does the experimental affirmations of verification and falsification just like Justin explained.
Click to expand...


BTW M.D. Rawlings
RE: Scientific proof
This is where I hope we get on the same page
with the reason why we should focus on proving Spiritual Healing
which CAN be observed, measured, and quantifed using medical research studies and science.

Not only will it show the valid process and results of Christian prayer and why it works,
and why this is natural and not against  science but working with medicine;

but it relies on using Forgiveness as the key to the therapy and stages of healing.
So even people witnessing, studying and learning from the studies
will receive understanding of forgiveness and healing.

not only the process WITHIN the study teaches the impact of forgiveness on healing,
but the process AROUND the proof and people interacting is part of the greater healing.

And we will remove the SAME barriers getting you stuck in your arguments with people
who are rejecting or dividing. So it will help achieve and establish your stated points but Indirectly
in the process.

Such a proof of healing process will cover even MORE bases
because there are some people who need to get past other issues in the way of reaching agreement.

So it will reach more people, cover more ground more cases and objections or conflicts, and still help remove
the barriers you face as to why people aren't on the same page with your points as well.


----------



## Ellipsis

G.T. said:


> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"


What's 'TAG'?


----------



## G.T.

Pezz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
Click to expand...

Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.


TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.

It states it "proves" god.

It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.

It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.

TAG goes:

1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
2. there is knowledge
3. therefore, god exists

That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."

Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> * while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 33226
> 
> no, that is not God ...
> 
> what you are saying is manifested from your scriptures you are unable to decipher any other way - " No one comes to the Father except through me "
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jd: Looks like you can’t say the Creator doesn’t exist after all because that doesn't logically work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> what is flawed is the logic you use that is not supported by your underlying religion that prevents the biblicists from the true endeavor for Admission to the Everlasting a simple belief in the existence of the Almighty will not by itself accomplish.
> 
> you fail not in believing in God but the means of accomplishing the fulfillment necessary to make your belief meaningful.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Those *SEVEN THINGS ARE TRUE FOR ALL OF US*.  There's no statement in those seven things that says anything about the Bible.  Put whatever meaning you want into those things that are true for *YOU* and *ME* and *EVERYBODY ELSE*!  Do what you want with them. That's between you and God or whatever. 

In other words, stop demanding that I involve myself  in your personal affairs!  It's not my place to tell you whether to believe or not believe that God exists. 

The idea in *your* mind and in *my* mind and in *everybody else's* mind logically holds that He exists! 

It is not possible to logically say or think that _God (Creator)  doesn't exist!_

Hence, the decision is yours, not mine.  Leave me out of it.  *Is that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition* a mere accident, coincidence, a freak of nature; or is *that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition* in our minds because God does in fact exist and, therefore, is the One Who put it into our minds so that we may know that He does in fact exist? 

Is that an emphatic declaration from God, Who's not interested in debating with you or arguing with you or quibbling with about His existence? 

*Is that biologically hardwired fact of human cognition *God telling *you* and *me* and *everybody else* that I AM or not?

That *biologically hardwired fact of human cognition *reports. You decide.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.



Dear M.D. Rawlings:
I think you are nitpicking on terms.
Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.

What this REALLY means is
"proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"

You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
"logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"

The problem, MD is that people don't agree to 
what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!

God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.

Once someone sees God = something false and negative
then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
define God = something else

So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
is to AGREE what the variables stand for.

When I speak with a Buddhist
God = may equal Wisdom

With some Christians
God = love and with some God = truth
Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice

Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
I find that
God = truth and
Jesus = justice
works better to align with what they already believe in.

So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.

You may have to set the starting values
differently for some people, rather than
using only one God = generic global identity

Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
because that is the most common,
and you will reach the largest audience, fine.

What about someone who is on Saxophone.
what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
play and learn the same song?

If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
it to be adjusted to G.

Some people aren't using a major key
but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!

it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
their key and music may be different, too!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Pezz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
Click to expand...



Don's trust anything G.T. tells you.  He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter.  See *post #2513* and the posts in the notes, and you will have the unvarnished, objective facts of the matter to make up your mind for yourself.


----------



## peach174

I think that Bob Dutko explains it really well with scientific proof of God's existence.

Scientific Evidence of God - Top Ten Proofs

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from _their_ perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, _science itself_ says there must be a God.
Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. *Option A:* Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). *Option B:* Everything in the universe has _always_ existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or *Option C:* There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics


----------



## G.T.

Pezz , M.D. Rawlings is very upset because he is a charlatan who has been exposed here.

if you dont think that I conveyed the TAG accurately, here's a link. Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Let me know where I misled in any way, or you know.....you can see what we're talking about with justin rawlings and his snake oil.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
Click to expand...


Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)

Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.

May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.

What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.

Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist" 
by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.

I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
(I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
but that MOST people follow the process I called B
where they are using his statements to work through the objections
and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.

That process is not the same for all people.

You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
own process to get to the understanding at the end.

The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.

I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.

Can you please help me explain this to MD?

That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
is taught in Christianity.

Would that help get more people on the same page?
by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?


----------



## Hollie

Pezz said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
Click to expand...

G.T. gave the fuller version for why the TAG argument is a fraud.

Now be prepared for Rawling to duct tape his bibles into a double wide for some thumpin'. You're about to be assaulted with a mind-numbing attack of _Witness'isms_ wherein the boy will use a caustic mix of bad analogies, false comparisons, twisted logic and self-refuting arguments to "prove" his gods, all of it imbibed in double speak that makes professor Irwin Corey look rational.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don's trust anything G.T. tells you.  He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter.  See *post #2513* and the posts in the notes, and you will have the unvarnished, objective facts of the matter to make up your mind for yourself.
Click to expand...


Dear MD by Natural Laws if you want to address GT lack of objectivity
you must start with your own!

CF the Bible teachings to remove a beam from your own eye so you can better help a neighbor with a splinter

The "beams" in our eyes are our own BIASES.

If you "emotionally get over" the BIASES separating you from Hollie and GT
then they will "get over" your bias as you get over theirs.

The DEFAULT position is "God can neither be proven or disproven because God represents something infinite"
As you said, the SCIENCE cannot prove anything but you are  pushing the LOGIC or symbolism to be consistent.

Where we disagree is these people do NOT agree to your terms and definitions of 
your starting definition of God and your approach.

They are "rejecting" YOU and YOUR approach
for the same reasons you stated above:

*Don's trust anything ____ tells you.  He never honestly or objectively states the simple truth about the TAG as he does not have the discipline to be unbiased about the simple truth of things, and he has no respect for the right of others to make up their own minds based on the unvarnished facts of the matter. *

Both sides are going to have to agree to FORGIVE the fact we have these biases for our side and against the people we distrust with their own agenda to prove.

If we FORGIVE first, then we can see better how to  rework our terms to follow a proof we both agree will get us somewhere.

Right now, we aren't even passed the starting point of
A. when did I sign up for this professor I can't follow and don't trust and don't want to take this class or approach
B. I want to start in different class and don't want to listen to this guy who I can't relate to, this isn't helping me at all
C. If these people can't follow universal math, they have an attitude problem. It can't possibly be me and the
way I teach it, because the math speaks for itself. It's not about  me, it's about the math.
it's so clear, it doesn't rely on me saying it anyway, so the problem can't be me, it's  THEM!

FU that.
Take a different class, get the same math from someone else if you do not trust or cannot follow this one particular presenter. Or ask a grad student to translate and help you get what they guy is saying.

But don't insult the professor and don't insult the students for not getting what each other is saying
and thinking there must be something wrong with that person!

The same math can be taught and understood in different ways by different presenters.
There is no reason to judge, reject or punish people for not getting each other's ways.

Can we FORGIVE each other first, and be OKAY with the fact that YES we have biases.
So what. As long as we understand this is going on, we can still work through this together.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
Click to expand...


Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude. 

Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.


----------



## emilynghiem

peach174 said:


> I think that Bob Dutko explains it really well with scientific proof of God's existence.
> 
> Scientific Evidence of God - Top Ten Proofs
> 
> In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
> The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from _their_ perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
> Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, _science itself_ says there must be a God.
> Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. *Option A:* Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). *Option B:* Everything in the universe has _always_ existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or *Option C:* There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics



Dear Peach: this is great, thanks!
Where I would NOT make a leap

1. "the first two options are scientifically impossible by the laws of physics"
As MD pointed out, Science can never fully prove something is impossible.
so it remains possible that either
A. everything always existed
B. things have a central source or starting point

2. This relates back to the point I AGREE on with GODEL
GT and PercySunshine and others:
God can neither be proven nor disproven because God represents something infinite beyond the finite scope of man

3. Where I SUGGEST to leave it open either way, as long as people agree with this
A. either everything always existed
and people represent this by equating God = Creation itself, self-existent and eternal with no beginning and no end
or God = collective sum of all  energy, events, knowledge, thoughts, law in the entire world or history of life
B. things have a central source or starting point
All these things POINT to a central source of life or truth/wisdom/nature/universal laws
and God = equates to that central source of all things
C. we don't know, it could be A or B or something else and all this could either change or be wrong
because we don't control anything in life but are given it to deal with

As long as we leave it OPEN to all these ways A B and C depending on each person,
we can STILL agree on
1. what ARE the laws and principles and concepts universal to all people regardless of A B C
2. how do we AGREE to implement and follow these for the greater good or benefit
without getting into conflicts over A B C
3. how can we address and resolve conflicts when they arise
(which may or may not be caused by A B or C, but as we learn
to resolve those, we will learn to resolve anything else tied to or reflecting the same process)

If people CANNOT get over the fact that there are some people with biases for and against ABC
we are stuck at square 0.

the first step is to even get over the fact we can't get over these things the same way, we all have biases.
I am going to lean toward B and include A and C while knowing people with B end up dominating.
I am okay with that, but think it is wrongful to judge and reject and insult people
who naturally think in terms of A and C, which are equally valid even though I don't lean that direction.

there is nothing wrong with A and C as long as you don't reject B.
but once people reject B then in turn A and C get rejected and we go in loops.

of course we have our biases and will FAVOR rejecting some of these,
but can we FORGIVE that anyway and work with those biases instead
of judging each other for them.


----------



## G.T.

Emily,

It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using **a subjective belief** in the place of an **absolute truth** is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time. 

In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."

That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
" must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense. 

Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: *without god, there is no knowledge *becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth. 

do you follow what I'm saying?

The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil. 

I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back. 

<3


----------



## peach174

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
Click to expand...


Exactly Hollie
Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi Hollie thanks for your help. I think we can get through this,
even where we really don't change how we approach this.
Just change our perception of what and why the other person is saying or taking such approaches or exceptions
with each other.

1. First for Hollie and MD


Hollie said:


> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.



The way I would explain this, is that people are trying to "define" God to mean the sum of all truth or knowledge.
*So the REAL issue is "do we agree" that God MEANS that?*

If we don't even agree, it is assuming and jumping to some conclusion and starting at the end!

The "proof" basically skips past all the steps and objections
to why God does or does not mean "the sum of all things or universal knowledge/truth/law/wisdom"

It starts at the end, and then attempts to address all objections by process of elimination.
so it is LIKE a contrapositive proof, but unique to each person who will have different reasons for objecting.

Hollie and M.D. Rawlings: It is like the approach used by salespeople
who address "each objection that comes up" until they eliminate all the NO's and get to the YES's.

And it is REJECTED for the same reason people reject salespeople
1. not trusting that person or their motives which appear selfish and not about helping anyone
2. not wanting to bother with someone trying to sell them something
3. getting annoyed if this person pushes or insults them for not wanting to hear them sell their idea

M.D. Rawlings Imagine you are seen as a salesperson.
What person is going to get ANYWHERE with an audience by saying
'don't trust them to be honest'
A good salesperson will LISTEN to the problems the person is having
and help them SOLVE it, to show how this approach SOLVES the problems
they are having! So they LISTEN and INCLUDE that, or they focus on something
the person wants MORE than the problems causing them to say no.

What is the real desire and needs of this person and how does this SOLVE their problems
so they GET what THEY Want (not you getting what you want which looks like you
just want to push your wares on them).

*What does your audience need and want? and how does this help them GET what THEY WANT.
NOT what YOU want.

Very basic.

If you are even TELLING your audience "I know better than you.
I don't trust you to be honest" 

How are you going to LISTEN to what they are thinking and need and want
to show how this applies to them?*

======================================================================

2. For Hollie


			
				Hollie said:
			
		

> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> *a. Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence.
> b. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions?
> c. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations.
> 
> Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.*



Dear Hollie:

a. this is not the only reason for using God, it is not just for why the universe came into existence
but people are trying to give credit and thanks on a higher level under which everyone else is equal.

It is like thanking the TEAM as a whole instead of thanking one person more than another.
so people use God as the default to mean just being thankful for good things in Life, for example.

Another example: using God to mean Unconditional Love.

When I love my family because I am closer to them, that is biased.
but Unconditional love, like caring for a sick neighbor even if you can't stand each other and have argued for years,
speaks to a Higher Level of Humanity. it is love for lovesake, genuinely caring that someone not suffer without help,
and it not about reward or kissing up for favors later!

Another example: Also for God to be the source of universal and natural laws.
if we understand the natural laws that apply to all humanity did NOT come from "America's founding fathers"
then we don't rely on US govt for these rights. We understand they come from God or Life or Nature
that is for ALL PEOPLE. Some people use God to mean the greater good for all humanity, perfect good will
that is GREATER than any of us, so they want to give thanks to this greater good or God.

And nontheistically: In Buddhism for example, the higher Wisdom is like the Kingdom of God, so the point is to LET GO of oneself, one's material attachment to conditioned desires,a
and to "seek higher TRUTH than just what one WANTS". So seeking "God or the Kingdom of God" is an exercise in LETTING GO - that is what it serves and represents, something higher than ourselves we do NOT control so we learn to work WITH it in spiritual harmony and peace.

b. the one God is supposed to be above and include all these other gods.
So it is like respecting the Collective sum of all of them

The purpose is trying to get to the UNIVERSAL level that includes ALL of humanity.
So they don't want to go with a local god or law that doesn't include everyone.

This is why I go with the Universal Salvation approach to Christianity that includes the secular
gentiles/nontheists (Buddhists, Atheists, naturalists Constitutionalists ethicists social psychology and science)
so it is on that Universal level.

I find it is a mistake contradiction to teach Christianity as "excluding" anyone from the spiritual process
because that does not make sense; how can laws be universal and apply to all people yet leave someone out?

c. thus I don't see a conflict with the God that is universal
and the natural laws and nature that are supposed to be created by this God!
God would not contradict itself by going against any science or laws of nature it created!

The contradictions are not coming from that, but the faulty ways it has  been taught.
when laws and process are taught correctly, it is Consistent with natural science.

this is not a reason to reject God or religion,
but even more motivation to correct the misteachings causing weird conflicts that don't make sense.

The same way i am asking MD not to insult and reject the audience, and then wonder why they aren't listening,
I ask you also that if we are going to correct the misteachings and misunderstandings in Christianity,
we need to work WITH the audience and the language they use and not reject and insult them.

This is why I worked so hard to learn the Christian language for the
natural laws and spiritual process so we can communicate using the terms that make sense to them.

And asking the same of Christians, to use science and natural laws
to explain things to secular gentiles who understand life and laws in nontheistic terms.

The insults and upsets are going to have to "get out of the way"
if we are going to rise above the barriers and rejection of the past
and learn to listen and connect with each other.

I am happy to help interpret back and forth to smooth over the walls or bumps
we run into; and to resolve the huge red flags and alarms that go off in the process.

Thanks again for bearing with everyone here in the process.
This is a really great group, and we NEED the diversity of
approach, thought and biases, even with the flaws and faults that exist,
in order to deal with reality, as this is what the rest of the world has to learn
to handle as well. We may never change our views, but we can look differently
at why we have our differences, and the good side as well as the bad, and try
to use our different ways for good benefit and avoid the pitfalls and abuses.

Thank you!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Emily,
> 
> It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using **a subjective belief** in the place of an **absolute truth** is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.
> 
> In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."
> 
> That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
> " must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.
> 
> Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: *without god, there is no knowledge *becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.
> 
> do you follow what I'm saying?
> 
> The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.
> 
> I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.
> 
> <3



Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
Do you GET my point?

The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
and address those.

Do you understand the strategy, the process?

it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real

*NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith  = believing in something even
science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
trigger people to reject or object!  *

Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.

The process FAILS when people insult each other.

The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
from opposite ways.

So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?

When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
this works.

When people address others from different teams or approaches,
it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.

GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS

A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.

GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
that's what we all end up having to do:
get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.

So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.

Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.

can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
(it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)

and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.

NOTE: we can also agree to substitute a different proof, you and Hollie seem open to something that could be proven  using the Scientific Method and not this backwards way of assuming the conclusion.  What about Spiritual Healing? I can either send you Hollie and Breezewood the books on this (2 books I give out to promote this idea that we can prove this by medical research studies) , and maybe we could get MD to agree to that approach as a "lemma" to lead up to what he is trying to prove as a result. let's first prove that "forgiveness" is the same key to spiritual healing as taught by Christianity and other methods as needed to resolve proofs as well, and then see what is needed after that.

The books I recommend are posted here: freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
the point is to overcome the mental gap dividing religion and science,
and once that barrier is down, then maybe we can work out the rest!

Can you look this over and "tell me what your thoughts or objections are"
Thank you GT


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using **a subjective belief** in the place of an **absolute truth** is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.
> 
> In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."
> 
> That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
> " must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.
> 
> Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: *without god, there is no knowledge *becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.
> 
> do you follow what I'm saying?
> 
> The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.
> 
> I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.
> 
> <3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
> Do you GET my point?
> 
> The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
> and address those.
> 
> Do you understand the strategy, the process?
> 
> it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real
> 
> *NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
> Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
> here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith  = believing in something even
> science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
> trigger people to reject or object!  *
> 
> Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.
> 
> The process FAILS when people insult each other.
> 
> The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
> and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
> from opposite ways.
> 
> So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?
> 
> When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
> this works.
> 
> When people address others from different teams or approaches,
> it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.
> 
> GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS
> 
> A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
> B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
> C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
> these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.
> 
> GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
> that's what we all end up having to do:
> get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.
> 
> So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.
> 
> Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
> he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.
> 
> can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
> understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
> (it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)
> 
> and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
> or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.
Click to expand...


You're skipping something *pretty* major. 

It's not a weird or different approach, it is an *invalid* approach, logically. 

That is the objection. 

The objection with the _INTENT_ doesn't come until later. 

The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense. 

That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works. 

If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."


----------



## emilynghiem

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.
Click to expand...


Dear peach174 and Hollie:
How I interpret the immaculate conception
is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
conditions from our environments etc.

The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
as man's justice is conditioned.

That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using **a subjective belief** in the place of an **absolute truth** is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.
> 
> In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."
> 
> That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
> " must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.
> 
> Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: *without god, there is no knowledge *becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.
> 
> do you follow what I'm saying?
> 
> The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.
> 
> I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.
> 
> <3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
> Do you GET my point?
> 
> The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
> and address those.
> 
> Do you understand the strategy, the process?
> 
> it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real
> 
> *NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
> Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
> here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith  = believing in something even
> science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
> trigger people to reject or object!  *
> 
> Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.
> 
> The process FAILS when people insult each other.
> 
> The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
> and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
> from opposite ways.
> 
> So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?
> 
> When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
> this works.
> 
> When people address others from different teams or approaches,
> it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.
> 
> GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS
> 
> A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
> B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
> C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
> these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.
> 
> GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
> that's what we all end up having to do:
> get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.
> 
> So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.
> 
> Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
> he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.
> 
> can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
> understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
> (it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)
> 
> and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
> or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're skipping something *pretty* major.
> 
> It's not a weird or different approach, it is an *invalid* approach, logically.
> 
> That is the objection.
> 
> The objection with the _INTENT_ doesn't come until later.
> 
> The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense.
> 
> That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works.
> 
> If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."
Click to expand...


Dear GT: then how can you explain why it works for the people who use it on each other?
That's why they keep using it! it makes sense to them.

So it is just for their group.

BTW do you understand what I am saying?

The PROCESS is still in play.

You and I are discussing the Objections that come up,
so that is part of the higher process.

That part still works. if MD misses the point, and doesn't learn that
defining the starting point differently may fail or succeed with different people,
then it can still fail.

But the process is still in effect. Do you get that there is a higher process going on?
That the point IS to address the problems with it and resolve those?

So there is no way for the process to fail, unless the people give up and quit before resolving issues.
As long as we resolve all the points that come up (or at least forgive and put in perspective)
the process succeeds in reaching helpful conclusions that increase our understanding of what's going on.

So it still helps us move forward.

GT what do you suggest as the starting point in a proof you would respect?
 What do you think of the Spiritual Healing idea?

Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.

What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
and the scientific method?


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The existence of God cannot be logically proven, nor logically disproven.
> 
> Get over it people.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold:  another slogan-spouting ignoramus, another ill-educated, inbred, bucktoothed, nose-picking hayseed product of the American education system.   You don't know what logical, mathematical or scientific proofs are.  SHUT.  UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you want to match science cred with me, just ask.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like another  challenge,  not a discussion.
Click to expand...

.

Sounds like you are firing bullets with an empty chamber.

.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> 
> It is not a matter of differing beliefs to say that using **a subjective belief** in the place of an **absolute truth** is absurd. I could never forfeit that in an honest discussion because adhering to terms that I find are absurd is a waste of exploration time.
> 
> In tag's major premise, it is said to be an AXIOM (universally accepted) that "without god, there is no knowledge."
> 
> That cannot be an AXIOM, because in order for it to BE ONE, *all other possibilities for the "source of knowledge
> " must first be ruled out, in the ABSOLUTE sense.
> 
> Since they are NOT ruled out, the tag premise: *without god, there is no knowledge *becomes a mere belief, not an axiom and certainly not grounds to PROVE anything that follows from it, because it would only be following from a "Belief" and not an absolute, objective truth.
> 
> do you follow what I'm saying?
> 
> The TAG argument is a scam. It's been soundly refuted thousands and thousands of times in Religious debates - forever, and EVEN BY THOSE WHOM ARE RELIGIOUS, a great number of even them see the inherent dishonesty of using such an argument. It is snake oil.
> 
> I can take kindly to any random faceless username on the internet. But when actual rational discussion cannot be had because we are conversing with charlatans, then they get what they give right back.
> 
> <3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT: I understand they are already starting with the assumption.
> Do you GET my point?
> 
> The reason they do this is to compel the objections to come out
> and address those.
> 
> Do you understand the strategy, the process?
> 
> it is assuming the conclusion: God is real, Jesus is real
> 
> *NOTE: you can substitute whatever you want for the Opening statement:
> Jesus = Salvation or I start with Jesus = Justice and work through all the objections to why someone disagrees.
> here in this TAG case people are either saying God = truth or knowledge or Faith  = believing in something even
> science or truth so it's the same faith, etc. True or false that is THEIR starting supposition, in order to
> trigger people to reject or object!  *
> 
> Then the PROCESS is to work out why people object.
> 
> The process FAILS when people insult each other.
> 
> The process SUCCEEDS when people work out their different ways,
> and what I was telling MD is the changes happen MUTUALLY in tandem with the people coming
> from opposite ways.
> 
> So GT do you see what I mean by the Pattern to the Process?
> 
> When people address a fellow Christian or future believer and they work through their conflicts to reach agreement in Christ,
> this works.
> 
> When people address others from different teams or approaches,
> it can still work but not by insulting each other's ways.
> 
> GT: overall this process is a LESSON IN FORGIVENESS
> 
> A. either the person preaching learns to forgive and let go and try more open approaches
> B. or the people receiving the preaching learn to forgive and work on better ways!
> C. or both, which is what I find generally happens. by accepting the fact people have
> these different ways, we eventually accept and quit judging each other for it.
> 
> GT as PercySunshine said about "people getting over it"
> that's what we all end up having to do:
> get over the fact some people are going to stick to their views.
> 
> So if this is as far as you can go, I understand.
> 
> Can you understand if MD cannot let go of his opinion either that rejectors are "scamming themselves"
> he doesn't get there is a higher process also but just looks at his side and judges others who don't go that route.
> 
> can you let go of your negative opinion of this weird backwards approach,
> understand it works among fellow Christians who somehow have followed it to get somewhere
> (it didn't work for me, but many others did respond to it and eventually resolved their obections so it works for them!)
> 
> and then use that to ask MD to let go of his harsh judgment of people who don't get
> or respect this approach that seems backwards, unnecessary and contradictory to all logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're skipping something *pretty* major.
> 
> It's not a weird or different approach, it is an *invalid* approach, logically.
> 
> That is the objection.
> 
> The objection with the _INTENT_ doesn't come until later.
> 
> The objection with the argument itself is that it is irrational, in format. It cannot be used as a proof for anything in a rational sense.
> 
> That's not merely an opinion, that is how reason works.
> 
> If we cannot agree that TAG is an irrational argument in format, then what follows matters not. But for the sake of this thread and the way the TAG presuppers behave, what follows is that they are snakes in the grass i.e. charlatans attempting to hijack a discussion from honesty to illogical "proofs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT: then how can you explain why it works for the people who use it on each other?
> That's why they keep using it! it makes sense to them.
> 
> So it is just for their group.
> 
> BTW do you understand what I am saying?
> 
> The PROCESS is still in play.
> 
> You and I are discussing the Objections that come up,
> so that is part of the higher process.
> 
> That part still works. if MD misses the point, and doesn't learn that
> defining the starting point differently may fail or succeed with different people,
> then it can still fail.
> 
> But the process is still in effect. Do you get that there is a higher process going on?
> That the point IS to address the problems with it and resolve those?
> 
> So there is no way for the process to fail, unless the people give up and quit before resolving issues.
> As long as we resolve all the points that come up (or at least forgive and put in perspective)
> the process succeeds in reaching helpful conclusions that increase our understanding of what's going on.
> 
> So it still helps us move forward.
> 
> GT what do you suggest as the starting point in a proof you would respect?
> What do you think of the Spiritual Healing idea?
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
Click to expand...


The problem is, is that it shouldn't work for *anyone* who is reasonable.

A starting point for *any* proof is premises that *they themselves are already proven*.

"without god there is no knowledge" is not proven, so it cannot be used as a premise for a "proof of god."

It's rather child's play, and/or cognitive dissonance, and/or snake oil. Based on md's demeanor, with him it is snake oil.





You cannot postulate a "proof" of the existence of something USING THAT SOMETHING within its proof. It's called "begging the question," it is irrational.

There is no getting around that whatsoever, TAG is an irrational way to attempt to "prove" god, because it is circular reasoning.

Not opinion.



edited to add:

starting from something you WISH to prove is NOT THE SAME as calling something PROVEN.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?


I think you don't understand something about TAG. 

TAG boasts of BEING proof. 

Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there. 

TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> post #2495 soundly defeats the childishness that is "TAG"
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
Click to expand...


Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.

GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.

But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.

Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
what can you suggest we change the starting point to?

It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE 
will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.

What do you suggest and let's ask MD.

Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.

Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.

I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
 the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> 
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: why this assertion that God has to mean something supernatural?

In Agnes Sanford's book and teachings on spiritual healing as NATURAL
she equates GOD with NATURE.

So the spiritual energy and process in healing between body mind and spirit
works NATURALLY as how these were "designed."

either the lifegiving energy flows freely
or some "diseased or imbalanced condition" is BLOCKING that flow.

So the point of spiritual healing is to identify all sources of blockage
in body mind and spirit
and to heal each level using the appropriate approaches for each

once the blockage is removed by the forgiveness therapy and healing prayer
(some of this focuses on past generations, if you want to call that
"supernaturally" connected to the past and affecting the present and future generations
who AREN'T ALWAYS genetically connected but it can transcend physical connection
and connect people "spiritually" from separate lineages and can't be explained by genetics)

Even if we cannot prove what is thought to be a spiritual connection on higher levels,
by applying the therapy and documenting the changes before and after someone receives healing,
it can still show a Pattern or Process in STAGES that are quantifiable and recognizable in Science.

What about studies comparing the "generational healing"
in Christian deliverance prayer and Buddhist regression therapy?

Wouldn't that bridge the gap between science and religion/spirituality
by showing people are getting healed of 
phobias
addictions
anger/fear and emotional issues
demonic voices
abusive or dysfunctional relations
etc.
using these methods of healing "generational" sources of the patterns
and the common factor is "letting go and forgiving"  the identified conflicts
in the past that are CORRELATED to the conditions or symptoms to be removed?


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
Click to expand...

Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad. 

If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see. 

I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.
> 
> If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.
Click to expand...


Dear GT

1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.

You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.

My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.

I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.

So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.

2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.

I'd like to see what we could start with.

If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.

To end the rejections and objections on all sides.

if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
and that helps more people anyway
then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!

===========

NOTE: I may have to relook up the medical research study on rheumatoid arthritis,
but the spiritual healing team chose something that didn't have a cure only medication to placate symptoms. One man was completely cured where he no longer needed medication:

[excerpt from one of the exception healings from the rheumatoid arthritis study with Dr. Matthews] "Mike" a 65-year-old man had been diagnosed with RA when he was in his 20s. In the intervening decades, he had been through a great deal of pain, suffering, and medical treatment. Like many RA patients, Mike can describe a history of treatment with strong medications, from Prednisone to Cytoxan to methotreate; repeat surgeries and courses of physical therapy; and periods of remission, then relapse. Mike walked stiffly with a cane at the beginning of the session. He had severe pain in his hands, which had been operated on a number of times. A

fter receiving many hours of prayer and laying on of hands for healing, Mike reported dramatic results. "Look, no cane today!" he said. "I couldn't have walked without it yesterday or the day before. My feet are in good shape today. I'm able to walk a pretty good distance, and I couldn't have done this a night or two ago." [Mike also reported reduced pain and restored flexibility in his hands after prayer where he felt a warming sensation like energy vibrating down his hands] ... Relieved of the pain and disability his RA has caused, Mike is now living a full and active life. Ten months after the first healing-prayer sessions, Mike continues to report a remarkable improvement. He is, in fact, pain-free and able to go without *medication* of any kind for his arthritis. He says he feels better today than ever before in his life." (The Faith Factor, Dr. Matthews)

Although a few doctors in the past (such as Dr. Paul Tournier and Dr. William Standish Reed) have spoken and written about the value of prayer, I have a sense that we are truly on the verge of a new era where the false opposition between science and Christianity will finally be broken down. Already the dialogue has begun."

This is NOT "supernatural" healing
it is NOT simply some magic utterance asking to be healed and it happens.

The process involves IDENTIFYING any memories or past issues/conflicts the person has that is not fully forgiven, and making sure those are prayed over for full forgiveness so the mind and body are FREE to receive  healing NATURALLY.

If steps are skipped, then the person may not be healed or not yet.

The same book "Healing" by Dr. Francis MacNutt explains a case where someone was not healed of their smoking addiction until they forgave their childhood issues with resenting the father as the reason they started smoking; that starting root reason had to be identified and let go and agree to forgive all things attached to it, in order for the healing process to follow naturally.

So there IS a science to it.

The books by Dr. Scott Peck were on identifying the issues and stages to heal two schizophrenic patients of demonic voices and personalities. And these personalities dragged Dr. Peck into the process, targeting his fears and weaknesses, where he had to forgive and let go also. so there was a larger healing process going on that involved the healing team, not just the patients, and Peck recognized tehre was something spiritual going on for these demonic voices/personalities to know his innermost weak spots that his patients had no knowledge of.

that process came from some higher level, so he called it spiritual but couldn't prove that part.
he could only observe and document the changes scientifically between the patients' psychiatric conditions and sickness before the deliverance treatment and how they went through stages of recovery afterwards and the changes/patterns they followed.


----------



## peach174

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's 'TAG'?
> 
> 
> 
> Before we go into detail, I'm an agnostic who neither believes in n'or disbelieves god.
> 
> 
> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.
> 
> It states it "proves" god.
> 
> It fails because it is based on a viciously circular form of reasoning: it begs the question. It uses the definition(conclusion) within the argument itself, and its first premise is said to be an axiom but it cannot be an axiom because all other possibilities for the existence of knowledge are not ruled out in the absolute sense.
> 
> It's childish to use tag when adults are talking about these greater things with such greater implications.
> 
> TAG goes:
> 
> 1. without god, there can be no knowledge.
> 2. there is knowledge
> 3. therefore, god exists
> 
> That is begging the question because premise one says "god exists" and is used to conclude "god exists."
> 
> Any reasonable and honest person can see why it's a very poorly formed argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT and also Hollie (I can't find the messsage where you also complain about
> this TAG business that basically "states the conclusion" and then "challenges or insults anyone who disagrees" but I get it!)
> 
> Thanks for explaining what is TAG and of course the objections to this approach.
> 
> May I compare the process to LIKE a "contrapositive proof"
> but not exactly like that: It is NOT coming up with ONE contradiction that applies to all cases
> but to show that different contradictions come up in each case that all follow the same basic pattern.
> It is the same process for all people, but each person has a different version of it
> so it cannot be proven globally unless people recognize and accept the pattern on faith.
> 
> What Christians tend to do is state the conclusion
> Then work BACKWARDS to address and resolve each objection that comes up.
> 
> Then by process of elimination, agreement is reached when all possible
> conflicts are explained another way, leaving it open to either yes or no (ie agreeing we can neither
> prove nor disprove God), but AT LEAST eliminating
> both the "absolute yes it is proven to exist" and the "absolute no it does not exist"
> by removing the emotional issues and biases causing a onesided attachment.
> 
> I explained to MD that he is trying to present the proof straightforward per se
> (I called it A, just a forward proof where you take it literally)
> but that MOST people follow the process I called B
> where they are using his statements to work through the objections
> and it is not about the proof per se, but the people's response and REASONS
> for objecting. So there is a larger process AROUND the proof that is going on.
> 
> That process is not the same for all people.
> 
> You can show the Patterns, but each person has to go through their
> own process to get to the understanding at the end.
> 
> The most I could do to speed up the process and get people on the same page
> to show the common Pattern is to "prove Spiritual Healing by medical science" so you can see
> how the process is universal, and heals a lot of people on different levels,
> in different ways unique to each case, but following the same stages and patterns.
> 
> I think that would reach more people than MD logistical proof
> which still applies universally but more people will follow science and what it shows,
> and not the math and language he uses that only a specific audience responds to.
> 
> Can you please help me explain this to MD?
> 
> That you may not be motivated to quit rejecting and questioning the  motives
> of Christians using his proof, but if science were to prove spiritual healing
> that Christians use to heal people of demonic sickness and voices, cancer,
> drug and sexual addition and abuse, and totally change to a different person,
> and that this process can apply to all people even atheists and it still works by natural science,
> that would do more to get over the issues with Christians and to see there is validity to what
> is taught in Christianity.
> 
> Would that help get more people on the same page?
> by using science to prove something in religion is a valid universal process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily. I'm not complaining. I am however, addressing the truly pointless attempts by those who are here only to proselytize and to do so with truly pointless, manufactured slogans that are notable only by their carelessness and ineptitude.
> 
> Why the need for gods as the assumption for why the universe came into existence. And, if you're going to assume gods, why assume your gods and not the gods of others or even earlier gods now replaced by your versions? As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proved adjustable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be adjusted as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly Hollie
> Non believers in the past said it was impossible for a virgin birth but science has found a way to do that with artificial insemination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not exactly. Artificial insemination is a medical procedure, that is performed with informed consent of the woman in consultation with her specialist. There's no supernaturalism involved.
Click to expand...


That was not supernatural Hollie it was just as much a medical procedure with Mary who was informed about it. There is no proof one way or the other that was not done in a very advanced medical way.
God is not supernatural all of his works and doing are natural and scientific.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.
> 
> If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT
> 
> 1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
> a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
> b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
> dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
> c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
> he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
> like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.
> 
> You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
> It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
> to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.
> 
> My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
> but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.
> 
> I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.
> 
> So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.
> 
> 2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.
> 
> I'd like to see what we could start with.
> 
> If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
> understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
> but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.
> 
> To end the rejections and objections on all sides.
> 
> if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
> and that helps more people anyway
> then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!
Click to expand...

I don't know what spiritual healing is, and I couldn't begin believing it until I witnessed it with my own two eyes and any tricks or possible mis-drawn conclusions were ALL ruled out. Soundly.

For me, personally, extraordinary things require extraordinary proof. I don't accept something that can *possibly* be just a coincidence, as proof. That's too loose.

I don't accept something with other, also NOT ruled out explanations, as proof. That's too loose.


If my daughter were supposed to die and was given two weeks to live, and I happened to pray out of desperation (not because of sudden belief, but because "what if" ), and then she didn't die but was somehow cured?

I would not then begin believing.

Other possibilities are not 100% ruled out. Emotionalism or awe do not and can not replace my rationalism.

And maybe sometimes, I wish they could. But they can't.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
Click to expand...


I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.

If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.

Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.

Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*

*1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.

*2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.

*3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*

*4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.

That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.

Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.

The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.

Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.

Word.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
Click to expand...


These posts explain precisely_ why_ I am not nitpicking regarding the distinctions between logic and science. What Hollie and G.T. are saying is unacceptable! This is no small thing. Get this wrong and you destroy both logic an science. 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024511/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10025118/


----------



## G.T.

smell that?

it's snake oil.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You know several theists have responded to the kind of statement you just made with derision because, of course, if God exists he wouldn't be something like a tree or water or a rock or a star.  In other words, He wouldn't be a Being of a material substance, and that's right.  He wouldn't be.  We all realize He would be composed of an immaterial substance that is transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent.  Recall?
> 
> But, really, that's okay.  We all forget things sometimes about the things we're thinking about.  No big deal.  There's no reason to call you stupid or anything like that, which is why I've never said that question is stupid.  That would be ill-mannered and hypocritical, because I know that I often forget things about the things we all have to think about.
> 
> *On the contrary,  that's still a very good question, truly!*  It gets at the very crux of the matter*:* *t**he immediate issue is not whether or not God exists!  *
> 
> The immediate issue is what _does_ exist _for sure_ and what is objectively and universally true about the  things that exist _for sure_ and about the ideas that we have about their existence.
> 
> 
> Unless everything is an illusion, including this notion we have about objective logic, the following things exist for sure and are true about the things that exist for sure*:*
> 
> *The Five Things
> 1.*  We exist!
> *2.*  The cosmological order exists!
> *3.*  The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!  So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.*  If God _does_ exists, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.*  Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Let's add two more things to that list _*now*_.
> 
> *6.*  It is not logically possible to say or think that _*God (the Creator) doesn't exist*_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
> *7.*  All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Looky here.  Now we have *"The Seven Things".
> ____________________________________________
> *
> Note:  For those who may still have any unnecessary, lingering doubts about *#6*, see *Posts #2519, #2518* and *#2479*, in that order.



COMMONSENSE!


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> smell that?
> 
> it's snake oil.




NO COMMONSENSE!


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> smell that?
> 
> it's snake oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO COMMONSENSE!
Click to expand...

Is it common sense that common sense is *two* words, jackass?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ an axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?
> 
> That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.
> 
> *2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.
> 
> And the ultimate cognition is a question: _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?
> 
> 
> 
> No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.
Click to expand...


NO COMMONSENSE!  God = Creator.  You are a pathetic liar.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> smell that?
> 
> it's snake oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO COMMONSENSE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it common sense that common sense is *two* words, jackass?
Click to expand...


NO COMMONSENSE!


----------



## G.T.

Justin must have dropped his binky, or MD forgot his bipolar meds.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.
> 
> If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.
Click to expand...


More bullshit.


*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
*
Begging the Question:
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist.* 

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


----------



## G.T.

Repeating the same debunked bullshit over and over make you feel better, charlatan?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.
> 
> If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bullshit.
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> *
> Begging the Question:
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.*
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> Related: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke
Click to expand...


That's ONE way to frame it where it can be proven by logic.

Here's another way of framing it that covers both your way and other ways you leave out:

Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

"_Facts vs. faith"_

Regarding "Duck Dynasty, meet Pope Francis" (Page B9, Tuesday), E. J Dionne's column regarding fundamental truth was on point - almost. *Like most non-math guys, he is not aware of Professor Kurt Godel's incompleteness and undecidability theorems. With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*

The only things we can be relatively sure of are that we must keep our science and religion separate - the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the Earth - contrary to medieval truth. Religion is based on faith; science is based on best applied observations and math.
....

_James A. Babb, Friendswood
================================
_
There are TWO reasons to start with this approach, leaving it open that it is POSSIBLE
"God cannot be proven or disproven" (because God represents something infinite or the
source of all knowledge and laws) that is beyond finite human scope and ability to symbolize WITHOUT FAITH.

1. First by NOT ASSUMING the conclusion but leaving it OPEN to take steps to prove
where the "contradictions arise" you ALLOW for people who don't trust this "assuming the assertion" business

2. Secondly it is possible to go through the ENTIRE process of RESOLVING those SAME contradictions
WITHOUT imposing or agreeing on either position: either God can or cannot be proven or disproven to exist
OR without imposing or agreeing that all things we perceive in the world either "always existed" or "have a beginning source"

NONE of those suppositions is necessary
in order to RESOLVE the conflicts or contradictions that arise anyway!

So why not just address the conflicts, and proceed forward, until a conclusion/agreement is reached
no matter what form or results that comes out as.

Let's just RESOLVE the contradictions!

This issue of identifying and resolving conflicts and objections IS the necessary process in ANY proof of ANY format,
so why not do that as the common steps and factors?

MD if you are trying to get the kids to agree to get in the car,
does it matter if you are arguing if the park is to the left or to the right?
Just get in the car, let's drive there and see where the park is!

you can sit in the driveway all day, arguing about how to get to the park,
or you can get it and get there and let the process prove itself.

I say let's agree enough on where we agree to go,
and take it one step at a time.

If someone says NIX to something, I say let's resolve that
and try something that DOESN'T require pushing into a NO.

Let's go with the YES options and shape the path that way.

Can we remain UNCONDITIONAL?

And just stick with conditions that all people agree to include as choices,
and leave out any they don't agree to include as choices.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ an axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious.
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible to logically state/think that "God (CREATOR) doesn't exist" ON THE FACE OF IT. You do exist, right?
> 
> That's not controversial. There's no controversy. None.
> 
> *2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> You guys keep thinking #* 2, *when the only thing logicians are talking is #*1*.
> 
> And the ultimate cognition is a question: _Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired?
> 
> 
> 
> No, what IS controversial is stating we were "Created," dim bulb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO COMMONSENSE!  God = Creator.  You are a pathetic liar.
Click to expand...


Objection, your honor.

God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")

Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.

And we can still reach agreement by
aligning these things as taking about the
Collective combination or union of all these meanings of God.

if you look at Islam they list 99 names for God
including
Justice (which I equate with one of the meanings of Jesus while salvation is another name)

God's Justice is not the same thing as God's Truth
but these are both attributes associated with God.

God as Creator is another role but not the only one.

Can we agree to leave it open if people
see the forces of Life as "the Universe" causing things to happen?

Can we agree that the point is to establish the
"Kingdom of God" whether or not we agree if God means Creator or God is the Creation itself.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Repeating the same debunked bullshit over and over make you feel better, charlatan?



No, it doesn't work to "KEEP repeating" the same thing
and neither does it work to "KEEP rejecting it" *without offering a "better alternative"*
that MD agrees to replace it with.

Hey, I have an idea.

If GT doesn't agree to this approach can we try something he does agree to use?
If MD doesn't agree to dropping this approach can we try amending or substituting something
that would help remove the reasons for objecting to and rejecting his approach?

What about that!

LISTENING to when people say Yay or Nay
and TRYING to come up with something that gets more Yay out of more people.

Might that get us somewhere instead of NO back and forth, repeating ad infinitum?

If a kid will not eat zucchini but will throw it across the room,
can't we substitute a different vegetable the kids will eat?
Does that require rocket science to figure out?

If you don't want the kid throwing their binky then don't keep giving it back.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Peck started out with this idea, thinking he was going to debunk it,
> but ended up getting convinced and changing his mind completely.
> 
> What if we replicated his observations into formal research studies?
> how about that approach using something that can be quantified in stages using science
> and the scientific method?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you don't understand something about TAG.
> 
> TAG boasts of BEING proof.
> 
> Your examples above are examples of people who started with a hypothesis first (hypothesis, they called it, not proof) and went from there.
> 
> TAG *calls the hypothesis proof, instead of *hypothesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some people don't get it, and they state it that way.
> 
> GT if we are going to correct this, I find it easier to make that change amenable
> by offering to SUBSTITUTE something else
> instead of rejecting the whole thing, person and whole approach.
> 
> But for each person, they may agree to SUBSTITUTE or change it differently.
> 
> Since we are dealing with MD in this case,
> what can you suggest we change the starting point to?
> 
> It has to be something you, MD Hollie and others here AGREE
> will serve the purposes we see as helpful but WITHOUT introducing error or
> assumption that doesn't work for whatever reason.
> 
> What do you suggest and let's ask MD.
> 
> Again, I planned to pursue the spiritual healing proof process anyway.
> 
> Since you and I agree that this TAG is rejected is is,
> let's go to the next step, and start sharing ideas what to replace it with.
> 
> I will post some excerpts from previous study on Spiritual Healing.
> the site they were on got moved, so I will look and see if I saved
> copies someplace else of the excerpts posted. Otherwise I need time to type it again...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well here's the thing, what you replace it with is the admission that there doesn't currently _exist_ a logical *PROOF* for god, but instead only subjective arguments which some are good, and some are bad.
> 
> If objective proof for god existed, these conversations wouldn't exist and 100% of people would be religious - - - - - and as humans technologically and scientifically advance, we wouldn't see the down-trend of religion participation - as we actually do see.
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'll look for reasoned approaches to finding god or finding that there is no god. What I will not accept is snake oil, or charlatans attempting to paint a pretty picture with poorly strung together lofty words hoping that lamens don't understand that what he's selling is actually very poor reasoning all the while having the hubris to say "hey, I've got PROOF!!?!!?!!?! GOD EXISTS!!" followed by the TAG argument which begs the question and is circular.....i.e. he wasted every reasonable person's time and only the gullible who are more susceptible to such dogma find it acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear GT
> 
> 1. First of all no, it doesn't follow that once someone sees enough proof of God to believe it then they become religious.
> a. my bf understands what is meant by God and believes it, but is not Christian, not religious and stays secular
> b. the patient in Scott Peck's book who received spiritual healing to get rid of demonic schizophrenic voices
> dropped her new age religion and went into science and medicine
> c. my friend Daron who received spiritual healing still rejects Christianity as an atheist.
> he simply does not relate to or like that, and has a negative "allergic" reaction to it, just
> like if someone does not like Madonna, Miley or their kind of music and stays away from it.
> 
> You do not necessarily "magically convert" to anything.
> It is just adding on understanding of what other people mean and experience,
> to your own ways and understanding so you expand and include more people and views.
> 
> My friend Olivia does all that spiritual healing and God tells her things etc.
> but that doesn't change my experience and how I process information and get insights.
> 
> I am not going to suddenly convert and start experiencing God the way someone else does.
> 
> So my bf and I both talk about and experience life in secular terms just like before.
> 
> 2. yes I agree not to push any proof that others cannot follow for whatever reason.
> 
> I'd like to see what we could start with.
> 
> If you and Hollie would like to see proof that secular people like us can
> understand spiritual healing and it proves that Christian teachings are real,
> but it doesn't make us become religious, we can use the spiritual healing proof for that purpose, too.
> 
> To end the rejections and objections on all sides.
> 
> if we can demonstrate it works better to prove spiritual healing
> and that helps more people anyway
> then more Christians would use that proof and quit this circular stuff that isn't making any sense!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what spiritual healing is, and I couldn't begin believing it until I witnessed it with my own two eyes and any tricks or possible mis-drawn conclusions were ALL ruled out. Soundly.
> 
> For me, personally, extraordinary things require extraordinary proof. I don't accept something that can *possibly* be just a coincidence, as proof. That's too loose.
> 
> I don't accept something with other, also NOT ruled out explanations, as proof. That's too loose.
> 
> 
> If my daughter were supposed to die and was given two weeks to live, and I happened to pray out of desperation (not because of sudden belief, but because "what if" ), and then she didn't die but was somehow cured?
> 
> I would not then begin believing.
> 
> Other possibilities are not 100% ruled out. Emotionalism or awe do not and can not replace my rationalism.
> 
> And maybe sometimes, I wish they could. But they can't.
Click to expand...


Dear GT: If you are willing to consider this as a scientific workable angle,
I can send you the two books I give out free that best explain how it is natural and not something
that negates REJECTS or takes risks with science or medicine. It is not like "false faith healing"
where you reject the doctor and try to magically heal something by praying or commanding.

It is not like you think, it is not replacing medicine, but working alongside it.

Still even working WITH science and medicine there is enough results out there
to show that the PROCESS of spiritual healing can help people be cured
BEYOND what the science and medicine could do alone.

there is a SCIENCE to it.

If you have a mailing address, or know someone at a public school or church library where I
can send donated copies and then you can borrow and read it and keep it there,
I'm  happy to mail them. 

Or you can buy cheap copies online
* Healing (edition 1999 or late) by Francis MacNutt
describes 4 levels and types of healing process
(and no, praying does NOT take the place of going to the doctor
and getting the necessary procedures as science would call for;
it is about praying to FORGIVE whatever fears or conflicts are getting in the
way of either getting help or the stopping the help from working effectively in cases where it is blocked.
You can't just "pray for the result," but identify what STEPS are needed to "unblock obstructions"
to the natural healing, so that the flow is restored and the process works naturally after that.)

* The Healing Light by Agnes Sanford
where she explains the natural process of how 
healing and life energy works where allowing Nature to work
is what it means to call on God, to agree to let go and forgive
and let the healing life energy in to fully heal the mind and body

The point IS for you to see how it works.
That is how
* Francis MacNutt first found out spiritual healing was real and being used regularly
* Phillip Goldfedder witnessed how it works and it changed his practice from neurosurgery
to direct counseling and therapy to help more people effectively
* Scott Peck (his book I give out is "Glimpses of the Devil")
didn't believe this was  real or scientifically natural until he saw
two "incureable" schizophrenic patients CURED of their demonic voices /personalities
that otherwise blocked them from receiving treatment. Once those demonic influences
were removed, these patients returned to normal mindsets so they coudl follow the
doctor and  treatment, and get medical help and therapy to resolve their conditions as normal.
So it works WITH medicine, not against it, not rejecting negating or denying any help.


----------



## G.T.

I will look into it Emily, thanks!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

 Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. 
*
Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

* Related: **Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.
> 
> If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> *2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.
> 
> *3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*
> 
> *4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.
> 
> That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.
> 
> The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.
> 
> Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.
> 
> Word.*
Click to expand...


You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy. 

Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> Begging the Question:*
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> *
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> * Related: **Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*



So. You have been spamming the thread with this same cut and paste nonsense. 

Your failed argument has repeatedly been dismissed and rejected as false. Are you thinking that spamming is somehow going to revive a dead argument?


----------



## emilynghiem

OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:

1. 





M.D. Rawlings said:


> It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.



FLAG off-sides/foul. beep, alarms go off.

You already know this, but someone who is coming from the viewpoint
that all things could be here in and of themselves and we don't know about how this came bout
is going to drop off the line at this point in the convo.

you already negated and excluded people who
psychologically blend in God with the Creation.

Like those who say God is Nature, and see all Life as POSSIBLY
existing with NO beginning and NO end.

Why not leave it open ended to INCLUDE those folks also in your audience and proof?
Why shut them out on the other side of the door?

Is there any way to leave it open that
YES it IS possible that the Creation and God are inseparable and this just exists.

Science may represent a different starting point with a big bang etc.
The Bible may focus on a subset starting point with just the Hebrew lineage (6000 Years)
that represents a MICROCOSM of the larger process, but is not the beginning of all creation and time,
just the start of man's self-awareness or the start of the laws under the Patriarchal Mosaic/Hebrew lineage.

MD it's OKAY if we don't all have the same starting point.

We can still ALIGN as beginning point, where we need to get, and the process in between to get there.

Some Christians look at the bigger timeline that includes pre-humanoid beings in the millions of years
and some do not, some start the timeline with Adam and Eve in 6000 years. And we still have to align,
even though we frame the steps using different framework, it is relative and it still follows the same patterns.


2. 





			
				MD said:
			
		

> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, *which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion God (Creator) doesn't exist is on the face it inherently contradictory.*



Now THIS points I CAN agree with: if we agree to set God = Creation then we are agreeing that
God represents something we AGREE exists. I agree!

The point is to reach that agreement, and then sometimes you don't need the proof after that.
You're already there.

[PS two atheist friends couldn't relate to Creation but were okay iwth Universe.
one could not accept saying God = Nature, although people personify Mother Nature
all the time. The male God can be too domineering as associated with patriarchal
a-holes they don't want to enable or encourage. So the Buddhist approach of talking
about the "spiritual laws in general" sometimes neutralizes that more and keeps out
negative reactions from bad religious experiences.]

3. 





			
				MD said:
			
		

> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.*


*
3. what I offer here is to demonstrate this in person:
to show that ANY objections that arise along the way can be resolved.
So only if people get stuck on a conflict does the process of proof/agreement also get stuck.

This is like a LIVE demonstration of this "contradictory" concept so people can see it happens each time.

NOTE: as you pointed out the difference between using "science" which doesn't really prove it,
vs. using math/logic which proves the global pattern, this borrows from both
a. we use the live examples like science to demonstrate where people can REPEAT the process and see it
b. but running into their own 'contradictions' is UNIQUE to each person - it proves it to them personally,
but doesn't necessarily prove this is true for all  people, and that's where the leap of faith comes in.
once people get how they resolved their conflicts, they can see that other people go through their own version.


4. *


			
				MD said:
			
		

> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.



4. and the way I would say the same thing WITHOUT presupposing or imposing God=Creator but remaining unconditional:

If something is the universal truth, this would include all people.
otherwise objections and conflicts come up.

So this is natural law, by definition of what IS universal truth or God's truth.

either we resolve the conflicts that come up so we DO ALL AGREE on the truth
or we have to drop something or substitute if that part is NOT universal and causing an unresolved conflict.

MD you do not need to believe in God=Creator to follow along with
the process of reaching universal truth and understanding/agreement.

That is not a necessary condition.

But I would AGREE with you, that if people DO have the right understanding
of God, they DON'T REJECT God = Creator. But that's not the same as actively believing it.

All that is necessary to work through the proof is NOT TO REJECT the possibility and option
that other people use and include.

If I had to believe in gravity before you would take steps to demonstrate how it worked,
we could fight all day long and never get to the proof.

Why don't you show me first, and then I can see what you mean.
Some people think this way, and need to experience something more before they take the next steps.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.
> 
> If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> *2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.
> 
> *3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*
> 
> *4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.
> 
> That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.
> 
> The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.
> 
> Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.
> 
> Word.*
Click to expand...


Love you too "tough guy"!

I love that you have pinpointed which words caused the snags.
This actually helps a lot. Each person is different, and this helps us to know where they are or aren't with us.

I have found this is a KEY piece of the puzzle, to ID the areas where we are not in tune with each other.

This is GOOD not bad. i
It does take effort, but it's exactly what is needed to help to get to where we need to be.

Let's work out all these points. The more you work with people, they will work with you.
Some things may get repeated, because we have multiple layers of processing.

And it takes resolving the same thing in different contexts to fully integrate.

So it's okay that's going to happen even though it annoys others who think it's repeating or conflicting for no reason.
Just resolve over and over until we hash it all out.
=======================
I want to write a book or list on a website all the areas of working out terms.

Like on one forum site, some of the nontheist member couldn't understand this "sin" business as being the downfall of man,
but the issue came up of when did humans develop "EGO" and that was blamed for the selfish greed and corruption.
So I said, okay, why not substitute "Ego" for when "Sin" originated,
and let Adam and Eve represent that stage of development?

it is perfectly normal for people to have their own way and needing to align
relative terms for these stages and processes.

MD it may seem taxing to you, but remember your words and ways
seem VERY taxing to others! ==> they are TRYING to work with you,
so let's be grateful for that effort and do the best we can with what we've got.

If they say I can't handle X but I can deal with Y, let's try to include that in.
If we have to split into teams, that's fine as long as the teams work together towards some resolution.
 even if we disagree what that is going to be at the end. we can agree what steps to take to get us closer!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> I will look into it Emily, thanks!!



Thanks GT!
if you run into issues let me know, as that is the key to the process,
addressing EVERY thing that comes up whether for or against.

Some friends I recommended this for looking into 
found even better resources they liked more.

One skeptic found bogus dangerous faith healing which is not the same but the opposite,
and MacNutt carefully explains the difference and why the false faith healing fails and is so dangerous and abusive.

I think it is just as critical to use science/medicine to stop the dangerous false malpractice/fraud
as it is to prove how the effective methods work naturally, and understand the difference.

I will keep working with MD to see how to shape this proof
to include more people taking different approaches.

I am the "process person," and he wants to see successful results!
Don't we make a lovely team? ;-)


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.
> 
> If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> *2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.
> 
> *3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*
> 
> *4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.
> 
> That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.
> 
> The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.
> 
> Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.
> 
> Word.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy.
> 
> Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.
Click to expand...


OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?

What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?

Let's start with what you need and can follow
and try to find a way to make something work here.

I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.

Would that help?

Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?

What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
prolife and prochoice?

What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.

Name some things you would need to see resolved
before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.

I am happy to include those examples in the proof
to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.



You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory.  ARE THERE ANY?



Of course...

God, is Nature, the Creator of the Universe and the laws intrinsic to such.  The Universe exists, therefore the Creator exists. 

Glad I could help.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating the same debunked bullshit over and over make you feel better, charlatan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't work to "KEEP repeating" the same thing
> and neither does it work to "KEEP rejecting it" *without offering a "better alternative"*
> that MD agrees to replace it with.
> 
> Hey, I have an idea.
> 
> If GT doesn't agree to this approach can we try something he does agree to use?
> If MD doesn't agree to dropping this approach can we try amending or substituting something
> that would help remove the reasons for objecting to and rejecting his approach?
> 
> What about that!
> 
> LISTENING to when people say Yay or Nay
> and TRYING to come up with something that gets more Yay out of more people.
> 
> Might that get us somewhere instead of NO back and forth, repeating ad infinitum?
> 
> If a kid will not eat zucchini but will throw it across the room,
> can't we substitute a different vegetable the kids will eat?
> Does that require rocket science to figure out?
> 
> If you don't want the kid throwing their binky then don't keep giving it back.
Click to expand...


Emily,  the issue here is not that G.T. doesn't agree with what I showed him to be true.  He knows what I showed him is true.  He's lying about it to others because there is something sick in him.  And I would very much appreciate it if you would be cognizant of the objective fact of the game he's playing here.

Why?

Because I am trying to show how God directly presents Himself to man or at the very least that nature has hardwired a certain cognition that we cannot escape.  It's an objective fact of cognition.  EVERYONE has a RIGHT to see this so that one can make up his own mind about what it means.

I need to know if _you_ understand _why_ the TAG argument holds logically true, please.  Please read and carefully think about *Post #2578*.  By the way, this does not mean that God is limited to being only the Creator.  All it means is that He _is_ the Creator.  Saying that He's the Creator, does not preclude everything else that He is.

After doing that, please read the following and know that G.T. is not being honest.  I'm asking you politely to not facilitate his duplicity.  Others have a* right* to see this.  It is objectively true.  We all have the right to see this.  *He has no moral right to prevent others from seeing this with his sick and depraved behavior that intentionally misstates what the TAG proves*.  EMILY! HE'S INTENTIONALY LYING, TRYING TO CONCEAL A TRUTH FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE IT!  WHAT HE'S DOING IS DEPRAVED.

*I'm repeating it because he keeps trying to conceal it from others*!  *What kind of person does this to others*?  *What kind of person intentionally misleads others about an objective fact of human cognition*?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

newpolitics said:


> ... all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism...



You're confused.  

No one argues with the lack of concern for or interest in theism, such as is the case in the innocuous a-theist. 

Your angst has no kinship with a-theism.  Such angst is however typical of that chronically regurgitated by the lowly anti-theist.  Anti-theism is a sad little cult of malcontents who regret that nature has taken the position that THEY are not God... and doesn't give a dam' about their sociopathy which NEEDS to shirk the guilt they suffer, as a result of their being such pathetic little pervs.


----------



## G.T.

MD, you're a certified fucking but job. Seek help, dude.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...
Click to expand...


*Throwing tantrums, telling falsehoods and attacking the reputation of others without justification is not clarity.  I have manipulated nothing. Every thing I have talked about is objectively true logically. I have never insulted you as you have repeatedly insulted me, directly and with false allegations. *

*You are the liar and the manipulator! That is not the excuse you gave for going postal out of the blue.  You stated that you were pissed off over definitions (I can quote you.), which made no sense because (1) you were the one who raised the matter in the first place and because (2) I told you that your terms were fine with me, whatever you wanted, as long as they were accurate.  *

*There is no erudite posturing on my part. My eruditeness in the fields of linguistic and mathematical logic, philosophy and theology is a fact!  Your attitude in the face of that fact is that of an insecure spoiled brat.*

*And here is the real psychology for your pathological emotionalism and irrationality: You entered into a discussion with me believing that the things I told you to be objectively, axiomatically and universally true for all humans was the stuff of what you just called me again. But what you found out is that everything you had always believed to be logically or factually true about the issues of existence and origin were not true after all. *

*An honest person’s response would be that of joy, the joy of being rid of false ideas. The response of the dishonest person is to attack the person who swept away the clouds.*

*That’s the insult you’re really talking about on my part. We both know that to be true, because everyone of your attempts to deny the truth has been refuted, not by me, but by the objective facts of human cognition. How could I manipulate those? Further, it is you who has been sneeringly obnoxious, insulting, dishonest, rude and ugly, just as you were once again in this post of yours.*


----------



## Brucethethinker

emilynghiem said:


> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds...
> 
> Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
> agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?


Hi Emily!  I traded some messages with you a few years ago.  I see you're still at it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> MD, you're a certified fucking but job. Seek help, dude.



You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't? Really? Well, let me clarify. I went "postal" on you because, despite your erudite posturing, you are a fucking idiot. Worse, you're manipulative, deceitful and insulting in nearly everything you post. I thought I was clear on this earlier, but since you still seem confused, I thought I'd set you straight. Not that you'll stay that way, but ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Throwing tantrums, telling falsehoods and attacking the reputation of others without justification is not clarity.  I have manipulated nothing. Every thing I have talked about is objectively true logically. I have never insulted you as you have repeatedly insulted me, directly and with false allegations. *
> 
> *You are the liar and the manipulator! That is not the excuse you gave for going postal out of the blue.  You stated that you were pissed off over definitions (I can quote you.), which made no sense because (1) you were the one who raised the matter in the first place and because (2) I told you that your terms were fine with me, whatever you wanted, as long as they were accurate.  *
> 
> *There is no erudite posturing on my part. My eruditeness in the fields of linguistic and mathematical logic, philosophy and theology is a fact!  Your attitude in the face of that fact is that of an insecure spoiled brat.*
> 
> *And here is the real psychology for your pathological emotionalism and irrationality: You entered into a discussion with me believing that the things I told you to be objectively, axiomatically and universally true for all humans was the stuff of what you just called me again. But what you found out is that everything you had always believed to be logically or factually true about the issues of existence and origin were not true after all. *
> 
> *An honest person’s response would be that of joy, the joy of being rid of false ideas. The response of the dishonest person is to attack the person who swept away the clouds.*
> 
> *That’s the insult you’re really talking about on my part. We both know that to be true, because everyone of your attempts to deny the truth has been refuted, not by me, but by the objective facts of human cognition. How could I manipulate those? Further, it is you who has been sneeringly obnoxious, insulting, dishonest, rude and ugly, just as you were once again in this post of yours.*
Click to expand...

The gargantuan text does add melodrama. 

I'll give it a 7.5  I might have scored it higher cept' for cliches' and slogans.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
> but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:



Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this.  Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all.  I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get.  Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them.  I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next).  But it's not about me.  They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what  belongs to all us all.  NO MORAL RIGHT!

They see it, Emily.  Don't be deceived. 

On the other note:  that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush.  In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> does add melodrama.
> 
> I'll give it a 7.5  I might have scored it higher cept' for cliches' and slogans.



You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth.  You are a liar:  you, G.T. and dblack are liars.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
> but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this.  Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all.  I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get.  Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them.  I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next).  But it's not about me.  They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what  belongs to all us all.  NO MORAL RIGHT!
> 
> They see it, Emily.  Don't be deceived.
> 
> On the other note:  that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush.  In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.
Click to expand...

Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism. 

You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.
> 
> If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> *2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.
> 
> *3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*
> 
> *4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.
> 
> That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.
> 
> The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.
> 
> Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.
> 
> Word.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy.
> 
> Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?
> 
> What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?
> 
> Let's start with what you need and can follow
> and try to find a way to make something work here.
> 
> I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
> and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.
> 
> Would that help?
> 
> Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
> agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?
> 
> What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
> prolife and prochoice?
> 
> What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
> that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
> that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.
> 
> Name some things you would need to see resolved
> before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.
> 
> I am happy to include those examples in the proof
> to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!
Click to expand...


Now, Hollie, on the other hand may not see it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
> but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this.  Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all.  I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get.  Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them.  I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next).  But it's not about me.  They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what  belongs to all us all.  NO MORAL RIGHT!
> 
> They see it, Emily.  Don't be deceived.
> 
> On the other note:  that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush.  In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism.
> 
> You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.
Click to expand...


You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth. You are a liar: you, G.T. and dblack are liars.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG:  MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________
Begging the Question:*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

* Related*: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!*

I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *G.T.*
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *G.T.*

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

*1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. *


*2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *G.T.*, are *intentionally* misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

*No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#*1*!

And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following*: *_Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

*"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"*

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?  Hmm.

_Why_ is that in our head as an axiom?

*The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.*


----------



## Ellipsis

G.T. said:


> TAG is the transcendental argument for god, it is hubris.


I learn something new every day.


----------



## Ellipsis

emilynghiem said:


> Dear peach174 and Hollie:
> How I interpret the immaculate conception
> is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
> The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
> conditions from our environments etc.
> 
> The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
> regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
> as man's justice is conditioned.
> 
> That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
> Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
> who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.


A strugle to advance to the next evolutionary step?


----------



## G.T.

Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp  derp


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!



I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize. 

My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith. 

Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths. 

2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does. 

Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain. 

There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality. 

As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The idea in *your* mind and in *my* mind and in *everybody else's* mind logically holds that He exists!



no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.


no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp  derp




*See Post #2599*

*The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.

God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. 


2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!

And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.

Why is that in our head as an axiom?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.*


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass Rawlings still hasn't refuted other possibilities, absolutely this rendering his "axiom" a bald faced assertion. Derp derp  derp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *See Post #2599*
> 
> *The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom! I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.
> 
> God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> 1. It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God does exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.*
> 
> Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 2. What is controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like G.T., are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves #1!
> 
> And the significance of #1 is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following: Why is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like 2 + 2 = 4, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.
> 
> Why is that in our head as an axiom?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.
Click to expand...

You're a fool.

Theres no proof existence was created, therefore your "axiom" isn't an axiom, dumb fuck.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Biggest problem in the minds of some on this thread:*
> 
> The notion that science proves or disproves things is false. That is pseudoscientific bullshit!
> 
> Science verifies or falsifies. It does not prove or disprove things.  Anything held to be true at any given moment in science is a working theory subject to revision or falsification, either partially or entirely.
> 
> ...
> Science verifies or falsifies.
> 
> Logic proves or disproves.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings:
> I think you are nitpicking on terms.
> Of course, if you really want to argue, then nothing can ever be proven because there is
> always a chance we humans are wrong and the things could change or be proven false.
> 
> What this REALLY means is
> "proving it to the people where it is accepted and agreed upon"
> 
> You can argue all day that this is still faith based.
> And yes I agree that all we're really doings is assigning
> "logic values" and then you can use THAT to "prove a pattern"
> 
> The problem, MD is that people don't agree to
> what VALUES we are assigning to the variables in your proof!
> 
> God and Jesus, even Christianity do NOT MEAN the same thing in people's minds.
> So they cannot follow the proof without arguing.
> 
> Once someone sees God = something false and negative
> then your whole proof falls on deaf ears where you
> define God = something else
> 
> So the FIRST step in presenting ANY proof to ANY audience
> is to AGREE what the variables stand for.
> 
> When I speak with a Buddhist
> God = may equal Wisdom
> 
> With some Christians
> God = love and with some God = truth
> Jesus = salvation or Jesus = justice
> 
> Since we are dealing with secular gentiles
> I find that
> God = truth and
> Jesus = justice
> works better to align with what they already believe in.
> 
> So MD the proof will VARY if you are addressing different audiences.
> 
> You may have to set the starting values
> differently for some people, rather than
> using only one God = generic global identity
> 
> Consider it like teaching someone to play a song "Row Row Row Your Boat"
> If you are teaching the song in "key of C"
> because that is the most common,
> and you will reach the largest audience, fine.
> 
> What about someone who is on Saxophone.
> what is WRONG with adjusting the SAME SONG
> to the key of THEIR instrument so they can
> play and learn the same song?
> 
> If you impose "key of C" on everyone, you miss the
> instruments that aren't on that same key, and need
> it to be adjusted to G.
> 
> Some people aren't using a major key
> but a minor key, so that is another adjustment!
> 
> it's the same song/pattern, but for different instruments
> their key and music may be different, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love you, Emily, but I'm not nitpicking over terms.  My terms are the objectively refined terms of accuracy and precision.
> 
> If persons wish to use other terms that work, that's fine with me. A rose is a rose.  Unlike some, I do _not_ make demands or _gratuitously_ quibble over terms, ever!  (*And right now those who do make it a habit of quibbling over obvious things are rolling their eyes, because they roll their eyes over everything, except what matters*)   Use whatever terms you want.  I reserve the right to show whether or not the terms being used by others are valid or accurate with regard to the factual and logical concerns about any given objective.  Inaccurate, imprecise or ambiguous terms lead to errors in logic and fact.    As long as the terms being used are in fact objectively and definitively accurate and mutually understood, that's great. There should be no debate over any of this.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm easy that way in spite of what others have falsely implied in some sense or another.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t even know why you're saying this to _me_ of all people. Me? I'm trying to use terms that are the most logically and objectively accurate, which means I'm trying to use terms that are definitively unambiguous and unbiased. The only things I can think of that have you saying this are the following*:*
> 
> *1.* dblack quibbled with me over the term _cosmological order_ after I told him that his terms were fine with me. In fact, when not talking about the material realm of being in particular (cosmological order), I'm using _his_ terms!   I don't know why he went postal.
> 
> *2.* G.T., quibbled with me over the term _cognition_. Are you kidding me? In this case, _cognition_ is the only term in the English language that comprehensively denotes the thing that is meant. _ Consciousness_ would be the second best term in the English language, but not appropriate in this case because it leaves necessary connotations that are meant out.
> 
> *3.* Foxfyre suggested that I'm using terms, without a clue as to what my premise is, not for the sake of being objectively and comprehensively accurate and precise, but for some small and petty reason. * That's a disgustingly false allegation.  It's mealy-mouthed bullshit.*
> 
> *4.* *Blurring the line between logic and science and what they're used for, blurring the line between philosophy and science, saying that philosophy is bullshit, saying that we don't need the metaphysical, ontological and epistemological definitions and standards of justification that only philosophy--not science!--can provide, saying that philosophy does not have primacy over or does not precede science: leads to the idiocy that there is no such thing as objectively demonstrable facts of logic or objectively demonstrable facts of science.
> 
> That's factually and logically false. I will not accept that and neither should any other pragmatically commonsensical person.
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things. More to the point, logic is used to divulge what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.
> 
> The scientific method is used to verify or falsify notions about empirical things that the available evidentiary data and logic appear to recommend at any given time.
> 
> Folks have been muddling the pertinent facts regarding these two things in order to make arguments that are subjective and false. I will not tolerate that.
> 
> Word.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will not tolerate that? Sure you will, tough guy.
> 
> Your pointless TAG argument is a joke. It's meaningless, it's viciously circular and its configured to yield a predefined conclusion. You really shouldn't expect that people who can discern rationality from fundamentalist dogma would accept such a phony argument as yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Hollie can we substitute something else for this whole TAG set up?
> 
> What do you need to see to know that the teachings in Christianity about God are real and valid?
> 
> Let's start with what you need and can follow
> and try to find a way to make something work here.
> 
> I suggested working on proving that spiritual healing is valid
> and does NOT require people to either convert BEFORE or convert AFTER.
> 
> Would that help?
> 
> Would it help to show that Jews Christians and Muslims can all
> agree in Christ by following the steps of forgiveness and reconciliation?
> 
> What about peacemaking between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans?
> prolife and prochoice?
> 
> What would help you to see that there is divine Grace in the world
> that if we forgive one another then we can reach agreed understanding of truth
> that TRANSCENDS and voids all these conflicts we had without that forgiveness.
> 
> Name some things you would need to see resolved
> before you believed that a greater force of love/truth/God was uniting people as one.
> 
> I am happy to include those examples in the proof
> to reach as many people as possible to show how this works in real life!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, Hollie, on the other hand may not see it.
Click to expand...


It's easy to see. Your argument is bankrupt.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK M.D. Let me FLAG which points where you make a leap, inserting what you already know as the conclusion,
> but jumping AHEAD of people who aren't starting from the same place:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I laid down foundation upon foundation on all of this.  Most of the atheists on this thread know what I have shown them is in fact universally, objectively and axiomatically true for all.  I know that because I can read the signals of their ever-shifting evasions. This is something the subjectivist doesn't get.  Those of us practiced in the art of objectivity can see right through them.  I will not allow them to deceive others. They have no moral right to attack my reputation or credibility in an attempt to close the minds others to what I'm sharing (and I have warning for Foxfrye, a theist, next).  But it's not about me.  They have no moral right to lie about what they now know to be true out of pride and thereby STEAL the right of others to see what  belongs to all us all.  NO MORAL RIGHT!
> 
> They see it, Emily.  Don't be deceived.
> 
> On the other note:  that one cannot possibly know these things until one has experienced these things for themselves . . . of course, I understand that, better than most, precisely because I don't do subjective mush.  In others words, I can see the wheels turning in the atheist's head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, what you showed are some of the dangers of religious extremism.
> 
> You shouldn't think that your circular, self-refuting arguments are at all persuasive. They're just amateurish and drenched in the fervor of the angry zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no moral right to conceal, obscure, manipulate and deceive others out of seeing this truth about human cognition regarding a question about God and truth. You are a liar: you, G.T. and dblack are liars.
Click to expand...


How sad for you. The entirety of your comments amounts to cutting and pasting the same, tired drivel.


----------



## Hollie

*The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!*
*
Don't make me use gargantuan text!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea in *your* mind and in *my* mind and in *everybody else's* mind logically holds that He exists!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.
> 
> 
> no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Why do you keep repeating this?  I don't even really know what it means anyway.  It's convoluted.  If God exists that's significant.  "The Seven Things" (with the two that we can now add to the list) are in fact objectively and axiomatically true for all sound and developmentally mature minds. 

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
* 7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.  God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith.  There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence.  Take the leap of faith now or don't.  It's your decision, not mine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!
> 
> Don't make me use gargantuan text!*


*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
* 7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
Click to expand...


*I'm not brow beating you.* What you said is not objectively true. It's _still_ not objectively true, and because it's _not_ objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what _is_ objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the _moral right _to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.

This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *I'm not brow beating you.* What you said is not objectively true. It's _still_ not objectively true, and because it's _not_ objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what _is_ objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the _moral right _to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.
> 
> This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.



Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your _opinions_ are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.


----------



## G.T.

Wow....its coming unhinged.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not brow beating you.* What you said is not objectively true. It's _still_ not objectively true, and because it's _not_ objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what _is_ objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the _moral right _to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.
> 
> This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your _opinions_ are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.
Click to expand...



I didn't say he didn't, always twisting and dodging and lying, eh?  You get off your high horse, Mister, you and Fox!

I said he had no _moral right_ to superimpose his subjective views as if they were absolutes, which do in fact deny the reality of the things that _are_ objectively true for us all, not just some, but all. 

He's arguing the opposite and that is false.  You know that's false too, and yesterday, in spite of the fact that *YOU KNEW* these things were true, you made yourself a party to the mealy mouthed mush of Fox's blather about the supposed irrationality and incomprehensibility of my posts.

LIAR!  That's how gossiping hens behave.  You know these objective facts of human cognition are coherently, objectively, axiomatically and absolutely true for all human knowers/thinkers!

*You knew that what she said was not true.* 

As for her blather about the more complex issues regarding* number 4* (the rational and mathematical ramifications of infinity) of the _now_ Seven Things with the actual fact of the TAG established, with G.T.'s bullshit out of the way: she's wrong about those too and so are you.

More lies.  In truth, you simply don't understand it.  I do.  Emily does.  Justin does, and there are a few others.  You don't have the moral right to call what you damn well know you don't understand well enough false!

You don't have the moral right to falsely accuse me of things I have not done in some sick attempt to discredit the truth that belongs to us all.  It's not about me or you.  It's about what we may know or see about the idea of God in our minds.  Everyone has a right to see these things and make up their minds for themselves, because we're  not talking about my mere opinions. 

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE AND NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL.

You don't have the moral right to behave in such a way as to thwart their free expression. 

For saying that the things I shown are irrational or incomprehensible is a lie. It's the same thing as saying what you well know to be true is not.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?


----------



## dblack

G.T. said:


> Wow....its coming unhinged.



meltdown mania.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Objection, your honor.
> 
> God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
> God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
> say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
> I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")
> 
> Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
> God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.



Objection, your honor.  Creator includes all those things you listed.  The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists.  We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that.  You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....its coming unhinged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meltdown mania.
Click to expand...



Meltdown?    Cognition isn't the right word?How about the word horse?  human horse.  human cat.  human rock.  human mind. Ooh, that's close.  Disprove means the same thing as falsification in science.  Still confusing lying about the TAg.   What kind of whack job does someione have to be to lie about obvious things?  You mihgt as well by saying that 2+2=106.    What kind of person lies about why he went postal atheist?  Hey, dblack you know what you said. Where's that post, lets quote it.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist.
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> Begging the Question:*
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> *Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> 
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist.
> *
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> * Related: **Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*



Commonsense, but I morph


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Commonsense, but I morph



That reminds me.  I don’t recall. Does Lang go into his model logic cosmological argument for God in his book?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commonsense, but I morph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That reminds me.  I don’t recall. Does Lang go into his model logic cosmological argument for God in his book?
Click to expand...


It's one of the chapters but I haven't gotten that far yet.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
Click to expand...


I agree that we put faith into all our beliefs in the sense that we believe things to be true outside our minds, but I don't see why you think that people experience things differently means that there aren't universals too.  Sorry, that's just wrong and doesn't have anything to do with the universals.  No one's saying there aren't subjective beliefs, that in no way changes the facts of origin in our minds. I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.  The understanding of the things listed by him are true.  What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.*



Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
understand God as Life or God as Love.

God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.

However, I will say this.

People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.

So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator

This works but for a limited audience.
If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.

And guess what the people who don't understand
also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?

It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?

Maybe we can do this, MD.

Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.

And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
with people who get this proof
people who do not
why they don't get it
and which things can be remedied
which people cannot remedy or get it at all

and document the reasons why

we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
division rejection etc.

instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault

I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
agree how to address or correct them and show the process

so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them

what do you say MD
think about it and tell me what insights you see this
proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?

love and thanks
I pray for more wisdom insight
inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
and embracing more people in this spiritual process

thank you for this!
may all negative barriers be removed
and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
Click to expand...


Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant. 

We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.

Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.

Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.
> 
> God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
> God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
> say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
> I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")
> 
> Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
> God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.  Creator includes all those things you listed.  The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists.  We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that.  You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.
Click to expand...


OK so please SAY that.

Please do not just Creator because people take that literally and limited when
God is not limited but infinite in reach and including all things

I am OK with agreeing to let God = Life, Love, Truth, Wisdom or other things
that people relate to and you can still apply the proof

How about this

How about substituting God= Life

So of course if we agree Life exists we are already there.
By definition, by equating God with something that we agree exists,
then God exists. So then all the people who are ok with God = Life do not reject God.

Next

Can we agree that God = truth for some people
then all the people who are okay relating to God in those terms do not reject God.

So go down the list.
some people agree that God = Love and will not reject that

Some understand God = Wisdom

Justin do you like the idea of agreeing to seek the
Kingdom of God?

I like that approach that is very inviting and inclusive.
if you are okay working with people who relate to the one God
but in different ways, how can we adjust the proof where it is
clear. Just saying God =Creator is not clear and puts a finite limit on what God means
rather than stating more options that more people may relate to as an aspect of God


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!
> 
> Don't make me use gargantuan text!*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
> * 7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
Click to expand...


RE points 1 2 and 5
1. Each of us knows that the people we perceive of "exist"
but we still take on faith the levels OUTSIDE our empirical experience
* collective society is a faith based concept
* collective humanity is faith based
* the history of our families and of humanity, especially spiritual history and future is faith based

So the same things in #5 where "science cannot verify whether God exists"
applies to #1 and #2.

The levels of abstract or inferred perceptions
OUTSIDE our IMMEDIATE empirical senses and experience
are faith based on some level because we rely on memory, on
information from other sources, etc. and it could have errors or change.

the point is AGREEING on a common frame of reference
that works for JUST those specific people
so we don't need proof if we already agree

or going the other direction with a "logic" argument
that represents all cases to "prove" it using "global logic"
as you say

But again, as I point out, only people like Justin and me who already agree with you
that God exists can follow your proof.

And the others who can't don't follow the set up with the logic and definitions
so it doesn't work for them.
======================
RE: *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!

Point 6 - let's make this unconditional and then see if we can agree:

6A. I understand that just because we cannot prove or disprove God exists
then that is no reason to assume God doesn't exist

Are you okay that 
6B. just because we cannot disprove God is not the reason God exists either

I believe that since GT and I are both okay with "God cannot be proven or disproven" but relies on faith,
and we don't reject each other for our beliefs for or against,
then we can listen and follow what each other says, believes or doesn't believe in.

I believe that open approach HELPS to discuss the points
and the reaction to them.

How do we reach that same level of connection
between you and Hollie, or Boss and others.

If you and Hollie are always going to take offense
regarding this TAG and the rejection of it, I will
just have to accept that is where you are with this.

The points I don't think you get
1. Your attitude toward others is also skewing the reactions and rejections to it
2. Your willingness to change this attitude toward others runs parallel with
their willingness to open up put aside their equal issues and work with you anyway.
it's a mutual give and take. I think you only see that they need to change,
and so they see you are the one who needs to open up and shift to meet them on common ground
3. the way you present the proof DOES leave some people out
Do you see the pattern or common factor in the people who respond
to it and the people who don't? Can we look into that and see how to use that to work this out?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
> understand God as Life or God as Love.
> 
> God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.
> 
> However, I will say this.
> 
> People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
> will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.
> 
> So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
> and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator
> 
> This works but for a limited audience.
> If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
> who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.
> 
> And guess what the people who don't understand
> also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?
> 
> It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
> Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
> some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?
> 
> Maybe we can do this, MD.
> 
> Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.
> 
> And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
> Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
> with people who get this proof
> people who do not
> why they don't get it
> and which things can be remedied
> which people cannot remedy or get it at all
> 
> and document the reasons why
> 
> we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
> so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
> division rejection etc.
> 
> instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault
> 
> I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
> agree how to address or correct them and show the process
> 
> so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
> examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them
> 
> what do you say MD
> think about it and tell me what insights you see this
> proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
> by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?
> 
> love and thanks
> I pray for more wisdom insight
> inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
> and embracing more people in this spiritual process
> 
> thank you for this!
> may all negative barriers be removed
> and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, the idea of God _as_ Creator is still in their minds, and that's the only thing that matters objectively, as that's the bit of knowledge that's universal.
In other words, I get that. I can imagine the very same thing as they: I even personally know people who assert divinity in that sense. But I also know they have an idea of God as Creator first and foremostly. That’s what they, all of us, start with organically. Even the people I know who think of God like that concede this is true.

The objective facts regarding existence and origin don't fail simply because some decide not to believe that the implications of the TAG are ultimately true. In that sense, in terms of the Idea of God as Creator, their position is really no different than that of the atheist, but even he still has the idea of God as Creator in his mind. All I'm telling people is what is objectively true.  The rest is up to them.  It's not my place to tell them what to believe ultimately. 

Now do I believe and strongly recommend that the evidence overwhelming supports the idea that God does in fact exist as the transcendent Creator of all other things. Yes! Absolutely!. But all must decide for themselves.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.
> 
> God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
> God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
> say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
> I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")
> 
> Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
> God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.  Creator includes all those things you listed.  The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists.  We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that.  You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so please SAY that.
> 
> Please do not just Creator because people take that literally and limited when
> God is not limited but infinite in reach and including all things
> 
> I am OK with agreeing to let God = Life, Love, Truth, Wisdom or other things
> that people relate to and you can still apply the proof
> 
> How about this
> 
> How about substituting God= Life
> 
> So of course if we agree Life exists we are already there.
> By definition, by equating God with something that we agree exists,
> then God exists. So then all the people who are ok with God = Life do not reject God.
> 
> Next
> 
> Can we agree that God = truth for some people
> then all the people who are okay relating to God in those terms do not reject God.
> 
> So go down the list.
> some people agree that God = Love and will not reject that
> 
> Some understand God = Wisdom
> 
> Justin do you like the idea of agreeing to seek the
> Kingdom of God?
> 
> I like that approach that is very inviting and inclusive.
> if you are okay working with people who relate to the one God
> but in different ways, how can we adjust the proof where it is
> clear. Just saying God =Creator is not clear and puts a finite limit on what God means
> rather than stating more options that more people may relate to as an aspect of God
Click to expand...


But I was only talking about the TAG. The TAG just talks about the first thing about God.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pezz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear peach174 and Hollie:
> How I interpret the immaculate conception
> is that it represents being born without carrying past "karma" from previous generations.
> The rest of us carry issues from our mothers and fathers, generational or national karma,
> conditions from our environments etc.
> 
> The point of Jesus or Justice being pure is that it is Justice for ALL people
> regardless of our situational biases. So it is Universal Justice that is not conditioned
> as man's justice is conditioned.
> 
> That is what Jesus, his "coming and return" represents: a Higher Justice than man's worldly biased justice.
> Perfect Justice that is truly inclusive universal and equal, which is beyond any of us
> who are born and carry BIASES from conditions or karma from the past.
> 
> 
> 
> A strugle to advance to the next evolutionary step?
Click to expand...


Yes we are going through social and spiritual stages of development
Both locally as individuals and globally as collective humanity.

What humans tend to strive for by conscience are things like
* peace and  justice, where we want freedom and security, law and order
* consistent truth and correction or prevention of wrongs and abuses
* to learn and correct and improve based on the past instead of repeating mistakes and suffering

So whatever is the final mature stage of humanity and society
would be the fulfillment of equal justice, sustainable growth and structures,
and self-governing effective govt and institutions to solve problems as they arise

People may call the end goal by different terms and benchmarks,
but collectively it's all one process including everyone in society/humanity

what happens locally multiplies and becomes the collective experience on a global scale


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *God means Creator! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. so your proof fails for people who
> understand God as Life or God as Love.
> 
> God as Creator is not the only understanding people have of God.
> 
> However, I will say this.
> 
> People who TRULY understand the whole, the collective universal ABSOLUTE that God represents
> will go along with your "subproof" using God = Creator.
> 
> So you will only prove your point this way to people who already understand what you mean by God.
> and aren't bothered by limiting the definition to God= Creator
> 
> This works but for a limited audience.
> If you notice, MD. the people like me, Justin and others
> who are OKAY with your proof Already understand what you mean by God.
> 
> And guess what the people who don't understand
> also don't get your proof. What does that tell you?
> 
> It only makes sense to that audience who is already Okay with God.
> Doesn't that tell you that for everyone else, they need to start with
> some other approach to get where you and I and Justin are okay with this proof?
> 
> Maybe we can do this, MD.
> 
> Can we run STATS on people's response to this proof.
> 
> And document the responses of atheists, nontheists. Buddhists,
> Christians and Nonchristians and figure out what factors correlated
> with people who get this proof
> people who do not
> why they don't get it
> and which things can be remedied
> which people cannot remedy or get it at all
> 
> and document the reasons why
> 
> we can still show the Pattern and Process I was talking about that is universal
> so we can still learn how to handle these differences and factors causing
> division rejection etc.
> 
> instead of just saying the conflict is X and it is Y person's fault
> 
> I am saying let's list all the common reactions and remedies,
> agree how to address or correct them and show the process
> 
> so the next set of people who go through this can follow the
> examples and pick which way of resolving conflicts works for them
> 
> what do you say MD
> think about it and tell me what insights you see this
> proof and process can inspire, how can we get to solutions
> by talking out our differences brought up and brought out here?
> 
> love and thanks
> I pray for more wisdom insight
> inspiration and growing to new levels of understanding
> and embracing more people in this spiritual process
> 
> thank you for this!
> may all negative barriers be removed
> and all challenges turned into benefits that help more people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, the idea of God _as_ Creator is still in their minds, and that's the only thing that matters objectively, as that's the bit of knowledge that's universal.
> In other words, I get that. I can imagine the very same thing as they: I even personally know people who assert divinity in that sense. But I also know they have an idea of God as Creator first and foremostly. That’s what they, all of us, start with organically. Even the people I know who think of God like that concede this is true.
> 
> The objective facts regarding existence and origin don't fail simply because some decide not to believe that the implications of the TAG are ultimately true. In that sense, in terms of the Idea of God as Creator, their position is really no different than that of the atheist, but even he still has the idea of God as Creator in his mind. All I'm telling people is what is objectively true.  The rest is up to them.  It's not my place to tell them what to believe ultimately.
> 
> Now do I believe and strongly recommend that the evidence overwhelming supports the idea that God does in fact exist as the transcendent Creator of all other things. Yes! Absolutely!. But all must decide for themselves.
Click to expand...


What I am saying is "presenting the proof to people" fails if you cannot explain
God using a definition they relate to.

So this is LIKE having a perfect proof,
but some people speak Spanish as their native language
and you are talking German.

Your proof may be solid but if people cannot hear what you are saying,
and all they hear is you want to force them to convert to German
to understand the proof given in German, they will question why.

I like Boss' approach recognizing that people do have different perceptions
and frameworks of reality.

Can we adjust your proof to speak to different people's perspectives
coming from different angles of reality?

Since you and Justin explained that God still means something broader than
just Creator, I think that helps. It makes a difference.

To my mother, who believes the truth in Buddhism IS the universal end all be all,
that is her understanding of God, she wants everyone to come to this same
understanding of what Buddhism teaches about life.

the next person finds the truth about Allah through Islam to be the all
powerful central truth that speaks to and includes all people and
wants everyone to connect on that note.

So MD how do we include all these ways and attach them
under the God = Creator part, so we can include all these people
pushing for God but in different ways using different definitions.

How do we get all people on the same page that we are 
still referring to the same one God. Do we jsut bring them
together as a team? If so , I can start collecting and inviting
Key friends from Atheism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and
Constitutionalism and form a team to agree on God.

My friend Ray is atheist but is fully compatible withChristians when ti comes
to healing grace through forgiveness. So he has his approaches
he recommends to overcome conflicts that otherwise divide people and waste
energy we could be using to solve problems more effectively in teams.

Do you want to call some online conferences
and plan out how to form a consensus on God?
I know some people with multimedia conferencing
platforms willing to work with you.

let's start with the steering committee/team first
get on the same page with people who already agree
and then delegate the steps to address people with
different approaches to relating to God as the outreach work from there

I see the process as learning as much from others as we share with them.
it makes us equal in our give and take, where everyone is vital to the whole

so it is a good learning and relationsihp building process
to bridge new partnerships and organize people by who and what they relate to

like lining up the circuits so the machine can work
all parts are necessary and just need to be hooked up together in groups

please pray over this
and i will start asking my friends to join you


thanks MD you lead the way and others who are
leading their troops will join in and fill in the ranks


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!
> 
> Don't make me use gargantuan text!*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
> * 7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RE points 1 2 and 5
> 1. Each of us knows that the people we perceive of "exist"
> but we still take on faith the levels OUTSIDE our empirical experience
> * collective society is a faith based concept
> * collective humanity is faith based
> * the history of our families and of humanity, especially spiritual history and future is faith based
> 
> So the same things in #5 where "science cannot verify whether God exists"
> applies to #1 and #2.
> 
> The levels of abstract or inferred perceptions
> OUTSIDE our IMMEDIATE empirical senses and experience
> are faith based on some level because we rely on memory, on
> information from other sources, etc. and it could have errors or change.
> 
> the point is AGREEING on a common frame of reference
> that works for JUST those specific people
> so we don't need proof if we already agree
> 
> or going the other direction with a "logic" argument
> that represents all cases to "prove" it using "global logic"
> as you say
> 
> But again, as I point out, only people like Justin and me who already agree with you
> that God exists can follow your proof.
> 
> And the others who can't don't follow the set up with the logic and definitions
> so it doesn't work for them.
> ======================
> RE: *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Point 6 - let's make this unconditional and then see if we can agree:
> 
> 6A. I understand that just because we cannot prove or disprove God exists
> then that is no reason to assume God doesn't exist
> 
> Are you okay that
> 6B. just because we cannot disprove God is not the reason God exists either
> 
> I believe that since GT and I are both okay with "God cannot be proven or disproven" but relies on faith,
> and we don't reject each other for our beliefs for or against,
> then we can listen and follow what each other says, believes or doesn't believe in.
> 
> I believe that open approach HELPS to discuss the points
> and the reaction to them.
> 
> How do we reach that same level of connection
> between you and Hollie, or Boss and others.
> 
> If you and Hollie are always going to take offense
> regarding this TAG and the rejection of it, I will
> just have to accept that is where you are with this.
> 
> The points I don't think you get
> 1. Your attitude toward others is also skewing the reactions and rejections to it
> 2. Your willingness to change this attitude toward others runs parallel with
> their willingness to open up put aside their equal issues and work with you anyway.
> it's a mutual give and take. I think you only see that they need to change,
> and so they see you are the one who needs to open up and shift to meet them on common ground
> 3. the way you present the proof DOES leave some people out
> Do you see the pattern or common factor in the people who respond
> to it and the people who don't? Can we look into that and see how to use that to work this out?
Click to expand...


I don't have a problem with most of this.  As I have already stated everything we do and believe, whether it be in our minds or "outside" our minds in the seemingly real world beyond, science, is all based on one metaphysical presupposition or another.  That's why it is not true to say that science precedes or has primacy of over philosophy.  Those who dismiss the first principles of philosophy and think that they're evading or escaping the order of things are deluding themselves. Notwithstanding, the idea of God we have is that of a Creator first, and that idea inherently declares that we may believe  with confidence that these things are not mere illusion.  Is that a matter of faith?  Yes. But only in the most elemental sense as it is practical necessity and reason above all else that compels that decision. Faith proper comes in when we commit ourselves to something greater than the mere material realm of being, either in the metaphysical terms of force or principle, or in the sense of a transcendent divinity as organic logic principally asserts.   

As for *#6*, it logically proves God exists just like logic proves 2 + 2 = 4. Logic proves things, science doesn't. Logic tells us what is rational and, therefore possible.  Your terms are improper and misleading. They are unacceptable to me. Indeed, they contradict the first principle of philosophy, but I know what you mean and presumably you're using the term informally with this distinction in mind.


The ramification of the TAG is that this axiom is biologically hardwired and goes to a very compelling reason to believe that God must be.
I don't have a problem with G.T. telling me that he doesn't accept that as a sufficient ground to hold that God does in fact exist. That’s axiomatic!

I will _not_ accept his derisive attitude or his intellectual dishonestly about what the TAG actually proves, and frankly, I have nothing but utter contempt for his attitude and his craven and manipulative ways. He does in fact have a moral responsibility to emphatically acknowledge what the TAG proves and what it implies without evasion. He has no moral right to mislead others about these things. That’s manipulation. That’s what demagogues do. They conceal facts from others in order to dominate them.

Integrity holds to the let-the-truth-be-heard-by-all-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may principle.

That fact that he accuses me of deceit and manipulation evinces a conscious awareness of his duplicity. Besides, he's already, unwittingly, let certain things slip that shows he's aware of the actuality.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.
> 
> We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.
> 
> Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.
> 
> Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.
Click to expand...


Thank you. 



Justin Davis said:


> I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.



*I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.*

Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_. 

My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to *know* truth, to know something *absolutely*, to be *omniscient*. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. _Objectively_ means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.


----------



## G.T.

Integrity is admitting you're a coward.

You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable. 

Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.

You cannot. 

You are incapable.

Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.

2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.


----------



## Taz

If god existed, this thread wouldn't.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster of viciously circular reasoning and self-refutation!
> 
> Don't make me use gargantuan text!*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Post 2599 and 2600*)!
> * 7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
Click to expand...

Ah. I see you've modified your ignorant piffle. Only a few pages ago, you were ranting about "The Five Things". With that being a failure, you were forced to invent "The Seven Things". 

Plowing new furrows in the field of "The Stupid"


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not brow beating you.* What you said is not objectively true. It's _still_ not objectively true, and because it's _not_ objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what _is_ objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the _moral right _to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.
> 
> This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your _opinions_ are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he didn't, always twisting and dodging and lying, eh?  You get off your high horse, Mister, you and Fox!
> 
> I said he had no _moral right_ to superimpose his subjective views as if they were absolutes, which do in fact deny the reality of the things that _are_ objectively true for us all, not just some, but all.
> 
> He's arguing the opposite and that is false.  You know that's false too, and yesterday, in spite of the fact that *YOU KNEW* these things were true, you made yourself a party to the mealy mouthed mush of Fox's blather about the supposed irrationality and incomprehensibility of my posts.
> 
> LIAR!  That's how gossiping hens behave.  You know these objective facts of human cognition are coherently, objectively, axiomatically and absolutely true for all human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *You knew that what she said was not true.*
> 
> As for her blather about the more complex issues regarding* number 4* (the rational and mathematical ramifications of infinity) of the _now_ Seven Things with the actual fact of the TAG established, with G.T.'s bullshit out of the way: she's wrong about those too and so are you.
> 
> More lies.  In truth, you simply don't understand it.  I do.  Emily does.  Justin does, and there are a few others.  You don't have the moral right to call what you damn well know you don't understand well enough false!
> 
> You don't have the moral right to falsely accuse me of things I have not done in some sick attempt to discredit the truth that belongs to us all.  It's not about me or you.  It's about what we may know or see about the idea of God in our minds.  Everyone has a right to see these things and make up their minds for themselves, because we're  not talking about my mere opinions.
> 
> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE AND NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL.
> 
> You don't have the moral right to behave in such a way as to thwart their free expression.
> 
> For saying that the things I shown are irrational or incomprehensible is a lie. It's the same thing as saying what you well know to be true is not.
> 
> WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?
Click to expand...


Security?  Would someone call security, please?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.



*2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.* 
This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness. 

I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
Click to expand...

No, because it's true.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.



*The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom! I've tried a number of times, civilly, to help you see the obvious, G.T.
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, G.T.


M.D. Rawlings said:





BreezeWood said:





M.D. Rawlings said:



			The idea in your mind and in my mind and in everybody else's mind logically holds that He exists!
		
Click to expand...


no more than the possibility for any metaphysical existence including one's own Spirit - that is why chritianity creates a physical entity to solidify as real what otherwise are their meritless beliefs. - Sinner.


no God is necessary and is factually exclusionary for the "hardwired" pursuit of life's existence / extension post physiology and if not possible the existence of a nondescript Almighty becomes as relevant as Santa Clause.

.
		
Click to expand...



Why do you keep repeating this?  I don't even really know what it means anyway.  It's convoluted.  If God exists that's significant.  "The Seven Things" (with the two that we can now add to the list) are in fact objectively and axiomatically true for all sound and developmentally mature minds.

The Seven Things
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Post 2599 and 2600)!
 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.  God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith.  There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence.  Take the leap of faith now or don't.  It's your decision, not mine.
		
Click to expand...


Actually, bible thumping zealot, I need to further modify your previously modified "The Five Things", AKA, "The Seven Things", hereinafter known as "The Things We Keep Changing Because They're Been Shown To Be Viciously Circular and Pointless Piffle".

6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so" 

(thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not brow beating you.* What you said is not objectively true. It's _still_ not objectively true, and because it's _not_ objectively true, it gets in the way of allowing people to see what _is_ objectively true every time they think about these things. You don't have the _moral right _to superimpose your subjective views and obscure the objective facts regarding the apprehensions that belong to us all about God and truth. I've listed the things that are objectively true in the above. These things alone utterly falsify your premise.
> 
> This is not personal with me. It's not about you or me. It's about the truth for us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss has every right to express his views here, jackass. We all do. And here's where you are utterly deluded -- Your _opinions_ are every bit as subjective as anyone else's. Get off your fucking high horse and show some of that humility Christians are suppose to embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he didn't, always twisting and dodging and lying, eh?  You get off your high horse, Mister, you and Fox!
> 
> I said he had no _moral right_ to superimpose his subjective views as if they were absolutes, which do in fact deny the reality of the things that _are_ objectively true for us all, not just some, but all.
> 
> He's arguing the opposite and that is false.  You know that's false too, and yesterday, in spite of the fact that *YOU KNEW* these things were true, you made yourself a party to the mealy mouthed mush of Fox's blather about the supposed irrationality and incomprehensibility of my posts.
> 
> LIAR!  That's how gossiping hens behave.  You know these objective facts of human cognition are coherently, objectively, axiomatically and absolutely true for all human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *You knew that what she said was not true.*
> 
> As for her blather about the more complex issues regarding* number 4* (the rational and mathematical ramifications of infinity) of the _now_ Seven Things with the actual fact of the TAG established, with G.T.'s bullshit out of the way: she's wrong about those too and so are you.
> 
> More lies.  In truth, you simply don't understand it.  I do.  Emily does.  Justin does, and there are a few others.  You don't have the moral right to call what you damn well know you don't understand well enough false!
> 
> You don't have the moral right to falsely accuse me of things I have not done in some sick attempt to discredit the truth that belongs to us all.  It's not about me or you.  It's about what we may know or see about the idea of God in our minds.  Everyone has a right to see these things and make up their minds for themselves, because we're  not talking about my mere opinions.
> 
> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE AND NECESSARILY TRUE FOR ALL.
> 
> You don't have the moral right to behave in such a way as to thwart their free expression.
> 
> For saying that the things I shown are irrational or incomprehensible is a lie. It's the same thing as saying what you well know to be true is not.
> 
> WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?
Click to expand...


Correction: the term in your capitalized text above shall be amended as follows:

"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, MR. HIGH HORSE, [*MR. FANCY PANTS -ed.*] TO LIE ABOUT THESE THINGS AND STEAL THEM FROM OTHERS?


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it's true.
Click to expand...


*No, because it's true.*
Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question. 

What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, because it's true.*
> Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.
> 
> What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.
Click to expand...

The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, because it's true.*
> Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.
> 
> What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.
Click to expand...

I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.

2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.



You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely. 

A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception. 

2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions. 

But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
Click to expand...

Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.



This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief. 

Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality. 

_"Invented to address fears"_ might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!



Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in. 

If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.
> 
> Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.
> 
> _"Invented to address fears"_ might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.
Click to expand...

It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them. 

Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.
> 
> Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.
> 
> _"Invented to address fears"_ might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them.
> 
> Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?
Click to expand...


There is nothing "newfangled" about what I believe. In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons I believe it. You cannot define the point in human history where we supposedly "invented" human spirituality. 

Now.... What Spiritual Energy has in store for man, I have no way of knowing. I don't believe in a God with humanistic attributes like "anger" or "jealousy" just like I don't believe in a God who "cares" or "loves." I do, however, believe in Spiritual Energy and I think this energy compels humans in specific direction of... for lack of a better word, _righteousness_. Now, maybe it is to facilitate the power of spiritual energy, like electricity prefers to flow through conductive material? Or maybe it is to prevent an equally strong negative spiritual force from consuming us? But I don't have to understand it's purpose, it's not important to me.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The various versions of supreme creators invented by mankind have had similar, human focused attributes because all of them were invented to address similar, human focused fears and desires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your opinion and I don't think you are 100% wrong. Humans like to rationalize things and we are very creative and imaginative. This is why I am not religious and don't subscribe to any particular organized religious belief.
> 
> Where we disagree is on the question of a spiritual imperative. I believe it is not possible humans invented this and have imagined it for all their existence. One reason is because of the apparent fundamental benefit humans have gained through spirituality. The other is because I have never seen evidence humans invented spirituality.
> 
> _"Invented to address fears"_ might very well apply to various religious incarnations of God.. it doesn't apply to intrinsic human spirituality. Why? Not because "I say so" but because the invention (which wouldn't be real) would do nothing to mitigate whatever is feared. So it's simply illogical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It actually does apply since your invention of "intrinsic human spirituality" is simply your invention of the gods. It's ok to be honest. There are too many inventions of gods to count. Your new fangled gods are as real to you as the gods of others are real to them.
> 
> Are your gods the variety of really angry gods who are going to return with a big can of whoop-ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing "newfangled" about what I believe. In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons I believe it. You cannot define the point in human history where we supposedly "invented" human spirituality.
> 
> Now.... What Spiritual Energy has in store for man, I have no way of knowing. I don't believe in a God with humanistic attributes like "anger" or "jealousy" just like I don't believe in a God who "cares" or "loves." I do, however, believe in Spiritual Energy and I think this energy compels humans in specific direction of... for lack of a better word, _righteousness_. Now, maybe it is to facilitate the power of spiritual energy, like electricity prefers to flow through conductive material? Or maybe it is to prevent an equally strong negative spiritual force from consuming us? But I don't have to understand it's purpose, it's not important to me.
Click to expand...

Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.


----------



## Foxfyre

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
Click to expand...


2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.

Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.

How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
Click to expand...

So in your world, nothing is true?


----------



## Taz

Foxfyre said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
Click to expand...

There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.


----------



## Foxfyre

Taz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.
Click to expand...


Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
Click to expand...

I think "chance" is the wrong term to describe the existence, position, location, etc., of this planet. All of those elements are a function of complex interactions of gravity, amounts of gas, dust and debris following the "big bang" and even forces still being discovered at CERN.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
Click to expand...

He called his opinion an axiom.

If you're familiar with the term, you know its not an axiom. That's where its been defeated, because a logical proofs premises have to be absolutely true in order to prove what they purport to prove, and opinions are not absolute and it surely isn't an axiom.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.
> 
> God can be set to equate = Wisdom or Truth
> God = Life or Universe (I use God = Universe to talk with my Atheist friend to
> say that the Universe is trying to work with him, and help him when I mean the Natural process is working.
> I DON't have to limit God to just "Creator")
> 
> Can we agree that God can be Wisdom,
> God can be Love, God can be Life or Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Objection, your honor.  Creator includes all those things you listed.  The issue here is Creator, that's how we see that God is telling us in our hearts that He exists.  We can't deny the existence of the Creator logically because he doesn't let us do that.  You're objecting to God's way of telling us He's here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so please SAY that.
> 
> Please do not just Creator because people take that literally and limited when
> God is not limited but infinite in reach and including all things
> 
> I am OK with agreeing to let God = Life, Love, Truth, Wisdom or other things
> that people relate to and you can still apply the proof
> 
> How about this
> 
> How about substituting God= Life
> 
> So of course if we agree Life exists we are already there.
> By definition, by equating God with something that we agree exists,
> then God exists. So then all the people who are ok with God = Life do not reject God.
> 
> Next
> 
> Can we agree that God = truth for some people
> then all the people who are okay relating to God in those terms do not reject God.
> 
> So go down the list.
> some people agree that God = Love and will not reject that
> 
> Some understand God = Wisdom
> 
> Justin do you like the idea of agreeing to seek the
> Kingdom of God?
> 
> I like that approach that is very inviting and inclusive.
> if you are okay working with people who relate to the one God
> but in different ways, how can we adjust the proof where it is
> clear. Just saying God =Creator is not clear and puts a finite limit on what God means
> rather than stating more options that more people may relate to as an aspect of God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I was only talking about the TAG. The TAG just talks about the first thing about God.
Click to expand...

Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.

That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.

MD is like the professor trying to present material,
and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.

Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.

so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.

This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.

This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level 
and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.

maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams 
and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.

I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.

There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.

The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.

That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.

Thanks Justin you handle your part
and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
Yours truly,
Love, Emily


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.



Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs. 

And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are probably millions of other habitable planets in the universe that harbor life. So it's not by chance that earth exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think "chance" is the wrong term to describe the existence, position, location, etc., of this planet. All of those elements are a function of complex interactions of gravity, amounts of gas, dust and debris following the "big bang" and even forces still being discovered at CERN.
Click to expand...


I agree that 'chance' is a stretch to explain everything.  Imagine that.  You and I finding a point of agreement?   That is some pretty strong evidence that there is such a thing as miracles.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
Click to expand...


Dear GT and Boss
2+2=4 because we AGREED to DEFINE the symbols 2 and 4
to mean:
2 = * *
4 = * * * *

The good thing in MD's TAG is he is trying to distinguish the DEFINITIONS that "make things true by definition"

Can we agree to acknowledge the GAP between
1. the symbols used and treat these as neutral variables
"God" "Jesus" 
2. the meanings we associate or don't get and SEPARATE the positive values from NEGATIVES
so +2 and -2 are NOT the same value and your proof falls apart if X = -2 and +2 in the same conversation
if people see God=something false or negative that is NOT the same as what MD is seeing or saying
3. projected perceptions and judgments of motives/intellectual honesty/lying/intelligence
by theists of nontheists and anti-TAG of pro-TAG, Christians vs nonchristians, my group vs that other messed up one, etc

If we cant forgive and let go of the traffic jams under #3
we are not ready to hash out the plusses and minus values under #2

When we get on the same page as equals respecting each other (#3) and our diverse views
and language (#2) then we can discuss the pros and cons of #1.

MD can listen to what Boss and I are saying because we respect each other as being on the same team
Boss made a good point but said it respectfully as a peer trying to support MD in getting this done right,
not an adversary trying to make MD fail. so MD can work with those criticisms and corrections offered
to improve the process,

I am good at hashing out the approaches under #2

GT if you came at this to try to correct and address what is wrong or missing
that works better than coming at the tree with an axe to chop it down at the trunk

Even if it is not perfectly set up, how can we save the tree and make good use of it as is
Do we add more branches that are leaving things out
Do we replicate the tree but starting with a different version of the premise that
works for you and others

we can try out the version that starts with the premise
"spiritual healing as taught by ____ is natural effective and demonstratable by science
as following predictable stages or steps in a process"
and anything that blocks contradicts or seeks to debunk or reject this
can be resolved to remove the contradictory perception or conflicting issues.
What studies will show is that degrees of forgivess will correlate with successful
healing recovery rehab and reconciliation of conflicts, while degrees of
unforgiveness will correlate with failures to heal or reconcile issues.

So MD wants to focus on the logical symbols for a global proof.
(which still needs more branching out for people who can accept
God=Wisdom or God=Life but don;t get God=Creator if that's not their understanding of God)

And I offer a Science approach that does verify natural spiritual healing
as following predictable patterns and factors. and falsifies the fraud or faulty practice that fails,
showing why by correlating factors.

i also offer to set up teams to show how relations can be healed
between warring tribes religiously or politically divided, so this demonstrates
the same prcoess and patterns across different groups and contexts.

Thanks


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
Click to expand...


No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.


----------



## percysunshine

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
Click to expand...


Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> If god existed, this thread wouldn't.



If we AGREED that God exists this thread would not be needed or would already have served its purpose.

NOTICE
1. No one argues whether or not dreams are real because we TRUST  no one lies about that
and if someone says they dreamed something last night, we don't call them a lying bigot.

2.  No one argues if Mother Nature or Mother Earth exists
because we know that is a personification of Nature or Earth. so what if someone uses colorful symbols for that.

But if you personify Creation=God or God=Nature
you start a hailstorm or firestorm of criticism and attacks back and forth
because of associations with abusive Patriarchal tribes that enslaved and oppressed people.

3. the issue is more than just God
but involves our perceptions and relations with each other
that we PROJECT onto the process

That is why we don't agree

We all "gots issues" ;-)


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
Click to expand...


Yes and no.

This is why MD has been yelling in ALL CAPS to separate
the SCIENCE part that doesn't prove but uses examples to verify or falsify
from the LOGIC symbols that prove things are either defined
consistently or they run into a contradiction, just based on how they were defined to begin with

Boss in your example of 2 + 2 = 5

you are saying what if the error came from
an extra apple slipped in that wasn;t counted
so it was really 2+2+1 = 5

or if the shopper miscounted three apples as two
so it was really 3+2 = 5

what if the cashier made a mistake at the register
2 + 2 = 4 but hit the 5 button

as long as we AGREE that
2 = * *
3 = * * *
4 = * * * *
5 = * * * * *
we can PROVE sentence equations are either consistent by the definitions/symbols
assigned, or inconsistent and conflicting like 2 + 2 does NOT EQUAL 5
because we AGREED 2=** so 2+2=**** and we AGREED to cal ****=4 not 5
we can prove based on agreed definitions

You are talking about the SCIENCE level that cannot be fully proven but CAN be explained
and demonstrated until we AGREE (like how we AGREE dreams are real
though we cannot prove what we dreamed) which MD says to avoid
and stick to LOGICAL DEFINITIONS that CAN be proven consistent or inconsistent
within that given framework. This is why he wants to use the Logic symbols not the science approach to their content (though personally he does get wrapped up in the content
and isnt as emotionally detached and objective as the neutral logic symbols should offer).

I agree with you. Boss. and Godel
that since universal absolute truth is beyond the finite scope of man
we can never fully prove this but only demonstrate by example and make conclusions on faith

I also agree with MD to stick to math or logic variables
and only ask that we vary the starting values to communicate with entire groups
of people who understand God under diverse versions of the same names

in buddhism their trinity or refuges = buddha dharma sangha
which is parallel but not the same as god christ holy spirit
in confucianism it is jen yi and li
in constitutionalism judicial legislative executive
in hinduism creator destroyer of evil preserver of peace
in taoism and YMCA it is body mind and spirit
similar to psychology of supergo ego and id

these show the parallels of how human nature
and the systems of laws we construct to define relations between individual experience
and collective levels are "made in the image of God" based on the same patterns
between the terms and definitions as given. this shows a universal connection but doesnt
prove it which still relies on faith it is based on the same source of nature.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy

OR

It all came into being without any cause.  

Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.  

Thank me.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
Click to expand...

Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## emilynghiem

IlarMeilyr said:


> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.



Yes IM Peach also brought this up and I agreed with those two points, though not the last one.

the last assertion made was that if it wasn't consistent with the laws of physics it "was not possible"

what I offered to substitute instead was
to ACCEPT the fact that people may believe different things
1. there is a starting point or source of creation (MD and Justin seem to start here)
2. all things just are and don't have a starting point or creator which is making a leap (I have atheist and buddhist
friends who start here)
3. we don't know which way it is or if there is something else (Boss seems to be this openminded and openended,
but I tend to go with what the person I am addressing starts with and work from their perspective which is real to them)

I ask to set up a proof process that leaves it open to people from any of these views.
MD wants to push a proof process that assumes and defines 1 to be true automatically by definition, so we just prove the logic works, and inserting anything else inserts a contradiction against the definitions already agreed upon.

Not everyone agrees to those definitions or to that process as set up by MD.

I agree with Boss GT and PercySunshine that God can neither be proven or disproven.
MD agrees with this in terms of Science not proving anything, but he still argues that LOGIC can prove by defintion.

So if we don't agree, why not focus on the laws/process that apply to us and all humanity
REGARDLESS if
A. there is a source/starting point or if all things always were
B. we can or cannot prove or disprove God
C. we don't agree on the definition meaning or process of reaching agreement on God

I offered to build teams around MD to prove a consensus on God can be reached by definitions.
and to set up medical science research studies on Spiritual Healing to show which methods, such as taught in Christianity,
are natural and effective and the difference or failures in processes that are fake fraudulent or otherwise faulty.

this would be one way to apply science to come to an agreement on the laws of human
nature, energy and how our different levels of mind body and spirit are connected and affected.

so this would be independent if we do or don't agree on the issues of God above.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...


No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet, or it may never be. We don't always know and best leave it open.

I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying.
You are missing out!

We need more openminded people willing to admit things could always be different
from what we assume to be given or true.

It is a tougher road to take, so maybe you feel sorry for how much trouble it is
to stay open to others and not just declare people wrong. It does take a lot more work.


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
> Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
> You are missing out!
Click to expand...

I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing. 

PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
Click to expand...

"Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?

And yes, the gawds you have renamed as "spiritual - something or another" certainly were invented to explain natural events not fully understood. That's precisely why so many of the gods were assigned to manage and control acts of nature; gods of thunder, lightning, wind, water, etc.

As to your ignorance regarding biological evolution, your argument is with the entirety of the relevant science community. Like so many religious extremists, you revile science because it supplants fear of the unknown and your desire to accept magical spirit realms with reason and rational explanations. If to want to understand the mechanisms of biological evolution, you can consult your cult leader, or, you could take some courses in chemistry and biology and become acquainted with the overwhelming wealth of material that demonstrates biological evolution.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between valid theories and invalid ones are threefold; evidence, reason and repeatability. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is called a “robust” theory. Claims that rely on magic and supernaturalism and are impossible to use for predictions or retrodictions and have no evidence at all are called magical spirit realms. 

And this is how we discriminate between competing theories, not prejudice based on which one “suits our belief.”

My preference is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. You preference is based (as you admit here) purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
> Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
> You are missing out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
Click to expand...


What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.

I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!

I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.

I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.

My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.

Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."

When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.

As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.

Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.

So I trust to bring out the better side of people
who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!

When we edit down to what works for you,
we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
> Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
> You are missing out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
Click to expand...


Hmmm Taz. Maybe in addition to Thanks and Agree
we need a button for people "projecting their own issues and accusing someone else"
ha ha
that button would get broken from overuse!!!


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
> Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
> You are missing out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.
> 
> I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!
> 
> I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.
> 
> I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.
> 
> My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
> If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.
> 
> Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."
> 
> When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
> But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.
> 
> As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
> Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.
> 
> Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
> If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
> there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.
> 
> So I trust to bring out the better side of people
> who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
> Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!
> 
> When we edit down to what works for you,
> we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!
Click to expand...

Sheesh, that was enough hot air to pop some popcorn for everyone at the board today!


----------



## BreezeWood

Foxfyre said:


> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)






> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.



... *until we can go there*


*The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*

however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.

well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.

there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.


- what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.

Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ... 

.


----------



## Foxfyre

BreezeWood said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you have a serious issue with reality. I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Boss is just trying to stay openminded in dealing with people coming from a different reality.
> Instead of saying those people are automatically wrong, Boss's way ACKNOWLEDGES it isn't proven to that person yet.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who misunderstand the benefit of what Boss is saying!
> You are missing out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? Boss has very strong beliefs and opinions, but just stays openminded that other people have their own versions and takes on reality.
> 
> I know some other people your assessment may apply to, but they are NOT as at peace as Boss is!
> 
> I'm also not a blowhard but a total softie.
> 
> I can imitate a blowhard if I'm talking to one, and it is necessary to use their own language.
> 
> My role is more like an empath interpreter, who acts as an inbetween.
> If you give me one concept I can spell it out in 3 to 20 different ways depending on the audience you are addressing.
> 
> Since there are multiple audiences here, that's why I struggle to address them all without leaving any out."
> 
> When I am only speaking to one person about one thing, and the question is clear, so is the answer.
> But unfortunately, most people on here are asking questions or making points on SEVERAL levels at once.
> 
> As a "holistic processor," when I answer that, I may address each level or each audience so it multiplies.
> Sorry for this, it is tedious but helps to hash out all those angles so we can include them all in the final resolution.
> 
> Taz in general, if people have good intent, they see the good intent and side of what I do.
> If people are here to make people wrong or bring people down,
> there are infinite opportunities to pick apart what I say and make something negative of it.
> 
> So I trust to bring out the better side of people
> who then focus on the points that make sense (out of all the other choices I offer).
> Just ignore the rest, and pick the best!
> 
> When we edit down to what works for you,
> we can focus there instead! Okay? cheers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sheesh, that was enough hot air to pop some popcorn for everyone at the board today!
Click to expand...


And I'll bring the butter also....


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK so given
*The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
*
so does the idea that God does NOT exist, 
this idea exists in our minds 

and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification

Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.

And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science

Very good!

Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?

Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.

Is it true or not?

*


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.



Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, because it's true.*
> Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.
> 
> What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.
Click to expand...


Bingo!  I'm asking questions about it, not making any declarations as if from on high.  It objectively and absolutely holds apart from my will that it do so.  We have no choice in that regard, none of us.  So what do we do with this axiom?  We have to ask certain questions and make a decision, each of us, and no one has the right to intentionally mislead others about it.

Pardon my crudity, but it's appropriate in a necessarily blunt way to get at something by which every decent person should be outraged; though the analogy is far from perfect, he'll get the gist.

They're cock blocking!

In other words, they're lying, stealing, robbing.  They're trying to dominate others, abuse them.  This axiomatically objective fact of human cognition belongs to us all.  It's true for us all.  It's not mere opinion.

This is contemptuous behavior, and I'm sick of Pollyannaish moralizing regarding my posts in which I have taken the gloves off in response to this behavior. This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
Click to expand...

 Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_.
> 
> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to know truth, to know something absolutely, to be _omniscient_. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. *We assign meanings to words. Objectively means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. *When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.



Excellent!

But I need to digress a bit. . . .

Just keep in mind that axioms . . . axiomatically eliminate all other possibilities intuitively. The process is a bit trickier in science, and that's why science doesn't prove or disprove things, but merely verifies or falsifies things . . . tentatively. That’s why it was so frustrating to here QW reversing everything, putting the cart before the horse.

That's why after he started talking to me like I was a retard I pulled out a bat because we weren't going to get anywhere with that garbage, and I simply couldn't tolerate the attempt to discredit me or my posts.

We'd never get anywhere his way. We'd still be in caves. It doesn't work that way, except, increasingly, in the less mathematically exacting sciences from which we're getting so much junk today.

It's the use of logic that tells us what's coherently reasonable and, therefore, possible. It's logic and the philosophically objective conventions of metaphysics and epistemology (not the kind of system-building philosophy he was talking about) that define things and the parameters of science; and the one axiom that is universally indispensable to all forms of logic is the principle of identity, which is the only thing that ever mattered.

Besides the suspension of the law of the excluded middle as an axiom is not synonymous to eliminating it. It still applies in all forms of logic as it cannot be any other way, albeit, as discretely demonstrated on a case by case basis. It does in fact become an axiom on that basis, i.e., for any give proposition it is demonstrated to adhere within the larger framework.

Don't respond to this post, okay? Just let that sink in and then look at the next one. You'll understand why when you read the next with that in mind.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
Click to expand...


If only you knew what you're are talking about, which you don't.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

IlarMeilyr said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
Click to expand...


While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*

These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two. 

*Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Integrity is admitting you're a coward.
> 
> You duck tags defeat - you cannot address it and are incapable.
> 
> Tags premise is not axiomatic unless you can disprove in the absolute sense all other possibilities for existence.
> 
> You cannot.
> 
> You are incapable.
> 
> Tag is circular and begs the question. It is NOT axiomatic because other possibilities are NOT disproven absolutely.
> 
> 2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven. Its a craven lack of humility to compare this to the childish tag argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2&2=4 because all other possibilities are disproven.*
> This is not true. 2+2=4 because we assume all other possibilities are disproven. All possibilities can never be disproven absolutely because 1.) we do not necessarily know all possibilities and 2.) we do not necessarily know absoluteness.
> 
> I don't see where Rawling's argument has been defeated. I see where you have articulated a different opinion, but that doesn't mean you defeated his argument or that his argument is childish. That is also your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, because it's true.*
> Apparently, you are not reading the posts but just knee-jerk responding in order to be antagonistic. Nobody in what you quoted asked a yes or no question.
> 
> What is "true?" Examine it carefully... isn't it what you personally believe to be truth? So are you an omniscient being? Incapable of being wrong? It's interesting that you think you can have those attributes but it's not possible for a supreme Creator to have those same attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo!  I'm asking questions about it, not making any declarations as if from on high.  It objectively and absolutely holds apart from my will that it do so.  We have no choice in that regard, none of us.  So what do we do with this axiom?  We have to ask certain questions and make a decision, each of us, and no one has the right to intentionally mislead others about it.
> 
> Pardon my crudity, but it's appropriate in a necessarily blunt way to get at something by which every decent person should be outraged; though the analogy is far from perfect, he'll get the gist.
> 
> They're cock blocking!
> 
> In other words, they're lying, stealing, robbing.  They're trying to dominate others, abuse them.  This axiomatically objective fact of human cognition belongs to us all.  It's true for us all.  It's not mere opinion.
> 
> This is contemptuous behavior, and I'm sick of Pollyannaish moralizing regarding my posts in which I have taken the gloves off in response to this behavior. This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
Click to expand...


That was inordinately pompous, self-serving and a comedy of errors and incompetence, even by your usual standards.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
Click to expand...


For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

M.D. Rawlings said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
Click to expand...


Thanks for the thanks and thanks for your contributions here.  But you are wrong.

A sound and valid syllogism for the existence of God would require premises which are "true" and a FORM of argument which can be subject to logical tests.  The latter would require us to accept that IF the premises were each true, THEN logic would dictate the conclusion.

Nobody has shown a FORM of argument on this topic that doesn't fall short.  But worse yet, the most fundamental premises are not susceptible to being established as "true."

The correct answer to the op question remains "no."

Based on what we know, we cannot logically establish either the pro or the con.  We are still forced to admitted that we don't know and we are not yet able to know. 

Put it to the test.  In syllogism form ( using every day language ) state the syllogism that is both valid in form and sound in truth value that supports the proposition that God "must" exist as the Creator.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*From #2684*



> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to know truth, to know something absolutely, to be _omniscient_. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. *We assign meanings to words. Objectively means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. *When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.



This is coherent!

This is the best thing you've written thus far, in my opinion, and at the risk of being called a pompous ass again, I'll take a smidgen of credit for it. In fact, I take cash or check.  Just  kidding.  This is an excellent post, Boss!  You and I have just done a "near Emily"!

You have moved a bit closer to the objective world of human cognition as opposed to what you were initially advocating way earlier on this thread. In fact, right now, you are but one simple step away from a mind-blowing epiphany.

I still disagree with the expression that "_objectivity is subjective".  _In other words, I know what you're getting at, but allow me to propose something else*:* * drop the violation of the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) and simply assert the only proper response to the foundation of wisdom: Faith*!

That's the response I've been standing on all along via the incontrovertible laws of organic thought, which, ultimately, are, collectively, the universal Principle of Identity.

Stay with me, grab a seatbelt, buckle up for this ride.

As I've said before you are so close to what is true in terms of _perfect _logic, though you remain a bit off. I hear you, Boss. I always have. And you've been all around it, but not quite on it.

Don't take offense. It's got nothing’ to do with me. I'm nobody. The brilliance of the argument you alluded to is not mine. It took God years to get me on it. Years! For something right in front of me all along. That's how screwed up we are! But what's been really freakin' me out all along with you is that while I'm more learned than you on this stuff, I am not necessarily smarter than you. You're naturally onto to something profound that God had to hammer through my thick skull.

"No, no, Michael!"

"But, Lord . . ."

"You're still way off."

"But, Lord . . ."

"Hush and listen."

"Okay, Lord . . . Wait, wait, I see it. Whoa!"

"Pretty cool, eh?"

Boss, there's no reason for the violation of the second law of thought, all of which, ultimately, are moral in nature.  Just let the laws of thought stand. Abide by them. Obey them. Make your thoughts and your expressions unanimously conform to them, as you can't escape the actuality of their revelations or sanctions, respectively, anyway. No one can or does.

(By the way, that's the foundational understanding about why and how absolute omniscience and actual free will coherently coexist. You're free to choose, but whatever choice you make, the outcome is known by God, because embracing the laws of thought is reward, disregarding them is disaster. The ultimate understanding of this dynamic, however, in terms of God's absolute knowledge about the unique details of each individual's choices, is revealed by simply embracing the objectively logical fact of *number 4 of the Seven Things*: the multidimensional simultaneity of infinity.)

*Don't violate the laws of thought and what you're trying to get at becomes crystal clear.

Theorem*: humans are finite beings of faith who hold that objectivity is possible by faith. If something is objectively possible, it must be true. For in this instance, it is necessarily and axiomatically true as a matter of practicality and must, therefore, be true as a matter of ultimacy.

Stay with me.

*This is a logical proof for the fact that faith is the means, though not the ground, by which we embrace absolutely certain knowledge. Ultimately belief and knowledge are one.
*
What is that logical proof for faith ultimately based on? Answer: reason. Who is the ultimate essence of that reason?

Each person has to decide that for themselves, but for those of us who personally know Who the answer for that question is, this is the order of things*:*

*God . . . logic . . . information . . . faith . . . true knowledge*.​
Whaaaaa?

On the very face of it, it's not logically possible for either a _finite mind _or for a _creature_ to think/state "God (Creator) doesn't exist."  That thought or statement is logically self-negating. It's actually a thought/statement that God _does_ exist!

Hence, *"I AM!"*

Now some are still conflating *#2 *with *#1 *(See http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/), but apparently you've got it down.

*1.* And because *I AM* you may know that the apparent, every-day-walk-in-the-park distinctions you must necessarily make as a matter of practicality are concretely real!  *2.*  The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is concretely real!  *3.* The apparent world beyond the world of your mind is concretely real!  4*.* The apparent synchronization of the rational forms (dimensional, geometric, spatial) and logical categories (the propositional delineations of linguistic and mathematical apprehensions/expressions) with the properties and processes of the cosmological order is concretely real!

*I AM* the Ground of existence and the unifying Principle.

Do you believe, children, what *I AM* telling you or not about all these things, via that incontrovertible axiom of human cognition by which you cannot _logically_ deny that *I AM, *whether you think this axiom holds up beyond the confines of your mind or not?

*I AM* Wisdom. * I AM* the Logos.* I AM* that first principle of wisdom that I put into your heads. *I AM *the foundation of the logic I put into your heads.* I AM* the Way, the Truth and the Life. To _*believe*_ Me is to _*know*_ with _*absolutely certainty*_ that those things that are apparently true to all—axiomatically, objectively, logically—is concretely real!

Moreover, I AM infinitely perfect in attribution, just as the objectively applied logic I put in your heads tells you when you apply it to the construct of infinity that immediately follows the recognition that I AM the foundation of the universal principle of identity, which is bioneurologically hardwired in you.

*I AM* infinitely powerful. * I AM* infinitely all-knowing. * I AM* infinitely present. Hence, *I AM* absolutely perfect. I cannot and do not ever lie; I cannot not and will not ever make a mistake.

Do you _believe_ that the axiomatic declaration of the* I AM* in your mind is My "voice"?   Do you _believe_?  Do you _trust_ what I'm telling you?

*God (Reason) . . . logic . . . information .. . faith . . . true knowledge.*

But whether you believe Me or not, regardless of who or what you put in the place of the I AM in your heads as the actual foundation for it all—nature, forces, principles or divinity—the objectively and universally axiomatic facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin remain what they are in terms of the apparent distinction between things like objectivity and subjectively.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
Click to expand...


Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.


----------



## G.T.

Noone logical posits "god created everything" as an axiom knowing that its not disproven in the absolute sense that existence was not a creation.

Walls of text can't help that little tid bit of your retardation.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all very simple.  Here is the answer.  Either a creator created matter time space and energy
> 
> OR
> 
> It all came into being without any cause.
> 
> Neither one is susceptible to "proof" based on any syllogism because we all lack sufficient evidence for even agreed upon premises.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
Click to expand...

Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see. 

For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration

Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

IlarMeilyr said:


> Thanks for the thanks and thanks for your contributions here.  But you are wrong.
> 
> A sound and valid syllogism for the existence of God would require premises which are "true" and a FORM of argument which can be subject to logical tests.  The latter would require us to accept that IF the premises were each true, THEN logic would dictate the conclusion.
> 
> Nobody has shown a FORM of argument on this topic that doesn't fall short.  But worse yet, the most fundamental premises are not susceptible to being established as "true."
> 
> The correct answer to the op question remains "no."
> 
> Based on what we know, we cannot logically establish either the pro or the con.  We are still forced to admitted that we don't know and we are not yet able to know.
> 
> Put it to the test.  In syllogism form ( using every day language ) state the syllogism that is both valid in form and sound in truth value that supports the proposition that God "must" exist as the Creator.



We’ve already been through this. Your understanding of the conventions of formal logic is off.  You're confounding the methodology of science with the metaphysics of logic.

First of all, you're not talking about the standards of justification for organic/classical logic or model logic at all. You’re talking about the standards of justification for constructive logic, essentially, the logic of science, which is contingent on organic/classical logic. It's not the other way around at all. Constructive logic must inevitably conform to the standards for justification of organic/classical logic.

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.

_Nothing comes from nothing_ (_reducio ad absurdum_), which is the foundational axiom for the Cosmological Argument, is formally held to be justifiable in all forms of logic. Why? Because the contrary remains an apparent absurdity and there's no direct evidentiary data that could possibly overthrow the axiom. Hence, the premise is well-founded and the argument precedes from there to it's validly true conclusion.

However, in science, because it's scope of inquiry is limited, not because it constitutes a greater range or standard of certainty, these proofs are of an evidentiary nature than cannot be currently verified. They're rational proofs based on material evidence, albeit, as indirectly inferred.

The issue in logic is pragmatically justifiable knowledge or justifiable true belief.

The OP is not a quailed logician. His understanding of formal logic and his premise are false. That has already been established on this thread. And by the way, the Transcendental Argument, which is a direct proof based on an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition is logically bullet proof. The other arguments are premised on secondarily or indirectly established criteria.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
> But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
> I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
> I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.
> 
> That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
> I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
> this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.
> 
> MD is like the professor trying to present material,
> and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
> get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
> and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
> but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.
> 
> Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
> mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
> Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
> to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
> enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
> but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
> funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
> that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.
> 
> so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
> it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
> negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.
> 
> This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
> be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
> go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
> to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.
> 
> This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
> If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
> and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.
> 
> maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
> and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
> secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.
> 
> I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
> liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.
> 
> There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
> to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.
> 
> The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
> then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
> Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
> sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
> greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
> we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
> so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.
> 
> That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
> but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
> all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
> in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.
> 
> Thanks Justin you handle your part
> and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
> Yours truly,
> Love, Emily



Well, I'm not certain about all  this or if I'm sharp enough to get all this, but this much I do know, everyone gets the seven things beginning with the idea of God, the Creator. Those are real simple and nobody needs to be anything but maybe at least 13 years old to get.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright. 

Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what. 

It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
> But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
> I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
> I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.
> 
> That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
> I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
> this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.
> 
> MD is like the professor trying to present material,
> and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
> get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
> and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
> but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.
> 
> Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
> mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
> Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
> to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
> enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
> but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
> funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
> that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.
> 
> so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
> it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
> negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.
> 
> This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
> be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
> go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
> to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.
> 
> This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
> If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
> and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.
> 
> maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
> and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
> secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.
> 
> I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
> liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.
> 
> There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
> to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.
> 
> The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
> then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
> Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
> sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
> greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
> we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
> so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.
> 
> That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
> but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
> all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
> in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.
> 
> Thanks Justin you handle your part
> and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
> Yours truly,
> Love, Emily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not certain about all  this or if I'm sharp enough to get all this, but this much I do know, everyone gets the seven things beginning with the idea of God, the Creator. Those are real simple and nobody needs to be anything but maybe at least 13 years old to get.
Click to expand...


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.​
All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question.  In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.    
__________________________________

By the way, something just occurred to me. I think I wrote _interjection_ earlier on this thread in the place of _interposition_. LOL! _ Yippee! Yahoo!_


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
Click to expand...


 We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!


----------



## percysunshine

Gödel:

"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure"  is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers.. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So...the paradox is that the theorem which proves that theorems are not really theorems is kind of haphazardly wonky.

Possibly anyway...

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
Click to expand...



Yes, we can.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Justin, to those of us who already understand and are looking back to frame it in perspective.
> But for audience members not starting where we are, we are making leaps and skipping steps to them.
> I understand that by starting with the conclusion then you work through the process from there.
> I am talking about how to reach the audience that got left behind at step 1.
> 
> That's fine, though, there is plenty of work to do to gather the minds together who are ok with the proof as is,
> I suggest to MD to start a steering committee of people from different faith backgrounds who can deal with
> this proof and the process around it. Then use heads or teams in each approach to reach and reconcile with people who don't get this at all.
> 
> MD is like the professor trying to present material,
> and needs a whole truckload of grad students in every field to work with others who don't
> get what the prof is saying in his weird funky accent using examples they can't follow
> and don't see how any of this applies to them. It's still enough to START the conversation
> but Justin PLEASE UNDERSTAND that not all people process this the same way.
> 
> Other people like my friend Daron are still not over the Pentecostal preaching Uncle who
> mortified him and the family at his Dad's funeral by announcing they were both going to hell.
> Daron spent his Dad's last dying days cleaning up after his colonoscopy and being the only one
> to walk his Dad through that while all the other fine Christians in the family stayed away and
> enjoyed their heavenly peace of mind by avoiding suffering, and they did go through hell.
> but to show up and instead of offering comfort and encouragement to rise above, to use the
> funeral to preach and condemn someone to hell when they are already there, do you see
> that's going to turn someone against the whole Christian thing in any form.
> 
> so to deal with people who don't get or trust the judgment of Christians.
> it is wiser to start with where they are and why. and undo some of the damage and
> negative perceptions ENGRAINED in peoples minds as THEIR reality.
> 
> This REALITY can change but the wounds have to heal first and cant always
> be rushed with a miracle cure overnight. Most people ESPECIALLY Secular Gentiles
> go through steps in a process of revisiting and healing each memory that told them
> to stay away from Christians who are bigoted mean hypocrite jerkholes.
> 
> This is not an overnight fix, but takes time and individual unique steps to heal the hurts.
> If you and MD are not gifted in this area, maybe Boss and me can work on that level
> and process since we understand how people come in with different realities.
> 
> maybe that is not your job to address. so we need to form teams
> and I even know a JW Elder who may be open since his best friend is a
> secular gentile Constitutionalist and they understand they have different backgrounds for a reason.
> 
> I know some Church of Christ members concerned about addressing the JW and
> liked the idea of coming together to work out longstanding issues to reconcile in Christ.
> 
> There are many different steps these people and groups need to go through
> to get on the same page. So the process AROUND the proof is much larger and diverse.
> 
> The final test is at the END if people can be on the same page with you me MD Boss et al.
> then we know we have forgiven and resolved our differences about God Jesus the Bible
> Christianity religion etc. So it may be used to launch the process and separate
> sheep from goats, but the process to work through issues and reach resolution is much
> greater. the proof may also be used at the end to show we are all on the same page AFTER
> we hash out all the issues with religion it brings up. I'm talking a worldwide consensus
> so Jews and Muslims, Dems and GOP, blacks and whites have to make peace also to unite.
> 
> That's far beyond what your proof outlines guidelines for doing!
> but thats what it takes to form a consensus on God through agreement in Christ.
> all grievances will need to be rebuked and redressed because they are interconnected
> in one collective spiritual peace process including everyone.
> 
> Thanks Justin you handle your part
> and I will call together the people to handle the different tribes.
> Yours truly,
> Love, Emily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not certain about all  this or if I'm sharp enough to get all this, but this much I do know, everyone gets the seven things beginning with the idea of God, the Creator. Those are real simple and nobody needs to be anything but maybe at least 13 years old to get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.​
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question.  In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> __________________________________
> 
> By the way, something just occurred to me. I think I wrote _interjection_ earlier on this thread in the place of _interposition_. LOL! _ Yippee! Yahoo!_
Click to expand...

*Actually, bible thumping zealot, I need to further modify your previously modified "The Five Things", AKA, "The Seven Things", hereinafter known as "The Things We Keep Changing Because They're Been Shown To Be Viciously Circular and Pointless Piffle".

6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so" 

(thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> Gödel:
> 
> "The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure"  is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers.. For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."
> 
> G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> So...the paradox is that the theorem which proves that theorems are not really theorems is kind of haphazardly wonky.
> 
> Possibly anyway...
> 
> .



Good post!

But it's not actually a theorem that proves that theorems regarding the various sets of all numbers are not theorems; rather, it proves that we don't have a unifying principle that would universally resolve the points at which theorems break down, just like we don't a unifying principle that  resolves the points at which the various sets of theoretical laws of physics break down. The puzzle is huge. For something really mind-blowing check out the mathematical science of infinity.


----------



## percysunshine

.

I think Gödel put God in his name just to piss everyone off.

The original point stands. Science and religion are mutually compatible, by definition.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in your world, nothing is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in my world (and yours), truth is unknown. We believe things to be true, we can't know they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we can.
Click to expand...


Yes, we can AGREE what is truth.
We could always be wrong, it could always change.
But we could AGREE on that also, that it is faith based and based on agreement.

MD I AGREE that by agreeing to assign the LOGIC variables
we can PROVE by definition what is consistent or not.

Where the FAITH comes in is this applies to all people.
People still need to AGREE to use those logic definitions.
So you are talking about the logistic level of proof.

Boss and I are talking about "proving or convincing"
people to reach agreement in real life.

So this is the difference between writing out the perfect script
and really producing it and getting people to go along with the movie.

You can preach all you want about the perfect script
but if no one will help you produce the movie to share with others
then your perfect script stays on the page, or your perfect film stays in the can.

I'm looking at what it takes to produce it
where it plays to the audience.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> *6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so"
> 
> (thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)*



Hi Hollie I agree with you that MD has an obvious bias toward the position that God exists.
But if you are going to criticize MD it is equally fair to criticize YOU for the opposite bias that God does not exist.

Is that fair?

I can forgive both you and ask that you forgive people of the opposite bias.

the neutral objective position is to stay open that since technically we can 
never prove nor disprove God (except if we all AGREE to define God = something we agree already exists)
then one person's bias or another's should be treated equally.

I also see that Breezewood and Sealybobo have a bias against God existing.
But Sealybobo is willing to work with me without namecalling marring the communication and sharing  between us.
Derideo_Te also is very civil and fair, and presents honest criticisms without getting too personal.
They present points very effectively.

Why can't we ask the same of you and MD not to namecall if someone has the opposite bias?

Especially if you do not like when theists namecall and insult people with opposite views or biases
it makes little sense to do this back, and double the trouble between us.

Can we PLEASE stick to the logical points and content of arguments
and lay off the personal poking at people. If the response to the TAG
approach is NO this makes no sense then the answer is NO. What
do you suggest in place of this, that would move in a more constructive direction to get somewhere better than this?

Thanks Hollie
Let's get creative with solutions instead of destructive with problems.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
Click to expand...




> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*




the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.

*
The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*

"exists in our minds" ...


concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the present day reality that only Earth is habitable, -

therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.

I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.

and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so"
> 
> (thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie I agree with you that MD has an obvious bias toward the position that God exists.
> But if you are going to criticize MD it is equally fair to criticize YOU for the opposite bias that God does not exist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I've never made any secret about the fact that I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God exists, but that has no bearing on the objective, even-handed manner in which I have presented the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .



False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.

What you do with that is up to you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> I think Gödel put God in his name just to piss everyone off.
> 
> The original point stands. Science and religion are mutually compatible, by definition.
> 
> .



Fair enough.  Thanks again for the post and a great read.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired

then is rejecting this also hardwired
INSISTING it is NOT existent?

Please answer the question:
"OK so given
*The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!

so does the idea that God does NOT exist,"
this idea exists in our minds

Do you AGREE the opposite assertion also applies to you?

Breezewood: "Neutral" would mean someone neither rejects or accepts
but remains "open either way"

Since you are NOT objectively neutral either way
but you take the STANCE that God does NOT exist
isn't this also an "idea that exists in your mind"
even as a response to a hardwired God.

Do you agree you are no longer neutral if you take a hard stance?

Thanks if you can please answer honestly*


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *6a. It is not logically possible to say or think or contemplate or consider or propound or advance any consideration that Zeus (The God) (the Creator) (the all-knowing, all-seeing, most beneficent True God of The Gods) doesn't exist whether He actually exists or not... "because I say so"
> 
> (thus, decree by Ayatollah, Field Marshall General, Jehovah's Witness Neighborhood Canvas Committee Leader, Master of a Kingdom Hall (drum roll please), M. Pompous Rawling)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hollie I agree with you that MD has an obvious bias toward the position that God exists.
> But if you are going to criticize MD it is equally fair to criticize YOU for the opposite bias that God does not exist.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never made any secret about the fact that I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God exists, but that has no bearing on the objective, even-handed manner in which I have presented the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
Click to expand...


1. OK so you believe the evidence
(even though in your own words that Science only verifies and doesn't prove)
2. And you explain that the TAG proof works by definition of God
3. but NO I do NOT agree that your bias 
"has no bearing on the "even-handed" manner" in presenting facts.

Look at your msgs.

You don't insult me and Justin
as you do others such as by saying "don't trust that person"
and making insinuations about the people rejecting your proof.

This shows a bias because you favor your views.

Hollie has this, too, by insulting the theists personally.

Sorry that is NOT perfectly objective
but reflects a personal bias.

Please check t his bias by addressing Hollie and others
with respect as you do with Justin and with me when I make sense to you.

when you criticize how I say things that's fine when it is for correction.
no need for personal insinuations as yuo and Hollie seem to demean each other in your responses.

You and Boss seemed to restore respect between you.

Can you please try the same with Hollie
as Christians we are called to be the first to offer forgiveness
as God freely offers to us.  If i have to ask Hollie and other
nontheists and nonchristians to be the first to forgive,
it is downright embarrassing when the Christians run around
teaching forgiveness but it's always the people imposed upon
who are forced to forgive first!

Can you be the bigger person and extend the Olive branch
as you effectively resolved issues with Boss. 

there is no need for namecalling and insulting personally,
especially when you turn right around and claim your
bias does not affect how you present your points to others!

What?


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.



you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.

.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
Click to expand...





> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.












no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> then is rejecting this also hardwired
> INSISTING it is NOT existent?
Click to expand...


Let us be clear.  Are you suggesting that an _inability_ to perceive the axiom as extrapolated by the laws of organic thought could be hardwired?

If so, the answer is generally _no_.  That's not possible for any one of a sound, developmentally mature mind.  The only exception would necessarily entail some kind of neurological abnormality. Hollie is either lying like some others or is thinking *number 2: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .



Dear Breezewood:
Would it help to make a distinction between
1. that which we call God which is self-existent
MD has said that Science cannot prove this and can only verify/falsify information

so this is clearly separate from the proof he is trying ot focus on

2. the part that is hardwired is man's Definition and connection with this God

If you look up the "God part of the Brain"
even if you do or do not believe in the self-existing God outside human perception

we CAN point to the scientific reaction in the brain
that corresponds to BELIEF in God and call that
some kind of survival mechanism or whtever you want

3. I was confused sorry
when i first started reading your msg BW
I thought you were a spiritual believer including the notion of God in some form

then I read your msgs here and you seemed to REJECT the Christian God
instead of including this equally as a valid way of representing or expressing God

Now I see you are saying that the greater God is not the same
as the Christian God which is a false construct to you

Why does it have to be false or rejected

Why can't we work with people who represent God this way

Buddhist represent the higher truth as Wisdom
as Buddha Nature

Some people represent the forces of Life or Creation
as Mother Nature or Mother Earth

why can't we let each person or tribe have their way of expressing the greater God or Almighty

and then just work things out from there

Why Breezewood
Why this need to reject each other's representation of God
why can't we put all the different ways together and use them all for good purpose?

it seems we waste time rejecting each other's ways of understanding and
depicting the forces of life and nature

Can you tell me why it is wrong for Christians to have their own understanding of God?


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> then is rejecting this also hardwired
> INSISTING it is NOT existent?
> 
> Please answer the question:
> "OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,"
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> Do you AGREE the opposite assertion also applies to you?
> 
> Breezewood: "Neutral" would mean someone neither rejects or accepts
> but remains "open either way"
> 
> Since you are NOT objectively neutral either way
> but you take the STANCE that God does NOT exist
> isn't this also an "idea that exists in your mind"
> even as a response to a hardwired God.
> 
> Do you agree you are no longer neutral if you take a hard stance?
> 
> Thanks if you can please answer honestly*
Click to expand...












> *emilynghiem: *OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired




no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> then is rejecting this also hardwired
> INSISTING it is NOT existent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us be clear.  Are you suggesting that an _inability_ to perceive the axiom as extrapolated by the laws of organic thought could be hardwired?
> 
> If so, the answer is generally _no_.  That's not possible for any one of a sound, developmentally mature mind.  The only exception would necessarily entail some kind of neurological abnormality. Hollie is either lying like some others or is thinking *number 2: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
Click to expand...


Yes and no
1. I agree that the default is to be perfectly neutral and open to different ways
I think Boss expresses this, but admit we all favor our own views and are not going to be perfectly objective.
We can at least acknowledge our biases for and against, and quit knocking each other for own leanings

2. However, whether natural or unnatural, emotional or spiritually engrained
I DO FIND that people who are NONtheist are geared that way to be secular minded.

I equate it to being color blind vs. mixing reds and greens or seeing all colors.

Or how some animals like dogs can hear things that are beyond the range of human hearing.

My friend Olivia can receive messages from God that are more
direct than when I receive divine insights that come as vague ideas.

So our channels are designed differently.

Some people see physical visions, I have friends who can see demons.

Some people have no notion and are left in the dark about
what is this business of Jesus and talking with God. it makes
no sense to them because they don't have those spiritual experiences.
It seems unreal how that can be possible.

So in general MD it can go either way:
in some cases people being excessive anti-theist are 
reacting against social conditioning and this is not natural
but reacting to equally unnatural abuses that have conditioned people to react that way.

That is one level and I hope that can change as we forgive and correct issues of abuse
tha tmake people turn against and reject God Jesus and religion.

in some cases however
people are naturally secular gentile

God creates some people to think in black and white
as a check on reality.

So when I get too emotional and empathize too much with others,
it helps me to consult with someone who is more neutral and objective
and get feedback from them to check myself.

we help each other this way

God designs some of us to be of this tribe or that one
to serve different purposes and reach different audiences.

All these ways still answer to the one authority of law
that Jesus represents as Justice for all.

but there are many branches from the same tree, to reach in all directions.

If we only had one trunk that tree would be almost useless.

We have all these branches for a reason.

And I find that the Secular Gentiles who look at the world
Nontheistically
serve a purpose as a check and balance on the other branch

I think you and Boss and others have an advantage
if we can relate to both branches.
so we should use our gifts wisely to coordinate
our spiritual gifts and not fight to ax off this branch or that one.

Sorry if it's not all one way.

There are some who are hardwired to see black and white nontheistically
and there are some who are conditioned by social karma to reject God and religion.

It depends on the person which factor or factors apply to them.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure until we can go there or at least see what is there.  But I don't follow how that proves that it is not by chance that Earth exists.   (Don't get me wrong--I do not believe Earth exists purely by chance but I am arguing for what can be logically concluded and not what is based on religious doctrines or dogma.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using mathematical formulas of probability, you are probably right about other inhabitable planets, but we really don't know for sure *until we can go there* or at least see what is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> then is rejecting this also hardwired
> INSISTING it is NOT existent?
> 
> Please answer the question:
> "OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,"
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> Do you AGREE the opposite assertion also applies to you?
> 
> Breezewood: "Neutral" would mean someone neither rejects or accepts
> but remains "open either way"
> 
> Since you are NOT objectively neutral either way
> but you take the STANCE that God does NOT exist
> isn't this also an "idea that exists in your mind"
> even as a response to a hardwired God.
> 
> Do you agree you are no longer neutral if you take a hard stance?
> 
> Thanks if you can please answer honestly*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *emilynghiem: *OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OK how do I remind you of Hitler?

Which groups am I oppressing and against?

I include ALL groups, ALL people, ALL views beliefs interests
and rights to consent or dissent, accept or reject, as included in
the process of establishing God's truth and the Kingdom of God.

You are the one saying Christian God is false and rejecting people.

Can you name ONE person or ONE group I reject?
And I will apologize for giving you the WRONG and OPPOSITE
impression of what my views are about.

thanks BW

I don't see how this applies to me,
please explain!

I am a Universalist who believes in full and equal inclusion.

Do you REALLY believe Hitler included and respected all people?
Wasn't he trying to eradicate the Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, gays
and other undesireables?

BreezeWood this is shocking to me to be compared with Hitler. 
Do we need to take this into the Bullring?
If you cannot explain how I am like Hitler
I am happy to ask others to explain this to me!

Even Luddly who cannot stand my msgs
would not put me on the same level as Hitler.

That could even be seen as an INSULT like saying Hitler
was fluffy harmless bunny rabbit when he compelled mass
genocide and torture camps. I think you insult the Jews
by saying I am like that, which is belittling the atrocities done.

If you do not owe an apology to me, or Hitler,
you owe one to Jewish people who suffered historic losses and wounds.

????


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... *until we can go there*
> 
> 
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> however the facts are there is not the ability for inhabitants of our planet to explore the universe and will die doing so without artificial means, there is no atmosphere to sustain life between heavenly bodies.
> 
> well, what exists in our minds today is not the same as during Antiquity when humanity believed travel through space was as an Eagle flying to the moon.
> 
> there simply is not a relevant connection between what is in the minds of humanity and the reality humanity perceives and the actual cosmological order as it exists. without scientific verification.
> 
> 
> - what Rawlings claims to be * Hardwired * from his TAG's deity into the mind of humanity is nothing more than a futile exercise of speculative comedy.
> 
> Sire, can we have a clarification on how your TAG's " Creator " has hardwired the minds of mankind ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so given
> *The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> so does the idea that God does NOT exist,
> this idea exists in our minds
> 
> and "there is not a relevant connection" without scientific verification
> 
> Foxfyre is right. Your statements should apply back to you equally if they are TRUE.
> 
> And this is consistent with GT and Godel, PercySunshine and Boss
> that we can neither prove nor disprove God who represents something infinite
> beyond the scope of man's finite minds and science
> 
> Very good!
> 
> Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds"
> to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?
> 
> Breezewood if they don't apply to you, and you are the exception,
> then your statement is not universal but is faulty, if it only applies to other people's ideas not yours.
> 
> Is it true or not?
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Breezewood do you apply the same concepts about "things existing in our minds" to yourself as you do to other people's concepts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> 
> concepts of the cosmological order during Antiquity was different than today's and did not distinguish between Earth as an oasis but as all heavenly bodies being the same - a presence of God the same as Earth, all as a Garden. the Creator of everything for Antiquity is a different concept than the ipresent day reality that only Earth is habitable, -
> 
> therefore a Hardwire (by God) for the concept of God the Creator is disproved by the inconsistency that evolved over time for what the Creation itself actually is and for christians that concept has become far more rigid and less yielding to their exogenous description.
> 
> I am agreeing with you, there is no Hardwire.
> 
> and not with you - a Hardwire exists for the belief in God by God contrary to an individuals personal disposition.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> then is rejecting this also hardwired
> INSISTING it is NOT existent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let us be clear.  Are you suggesting that an _inability_ to perceive the axiom as extrapolated by the laws of organic thought could be hardwired?
> 
> If so, the answer is generally _no_.  That's not possible for any one of a sound, developmentally mature mind.  The only exception would necessarily entail some kind of neurological abnormality. Hollie is either lying like some others or is thinking *number 2: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no
> 1. I agree that the default is to be perfectly neutral and open to different ways
> I think Boss expresses this, but admit we all favor our own views and are not going to be perfectly objective.
> We can at least acknowledge our biases for and against, and quit knocking each other for own leanings
> 
> 2. However, whether natural or unnatural, emotional or spiritually engrained
> I DO FIND that people who are NONtheist are geared that way to be secular minded.
> 
> I equate it to being color blind vs. mixing reds and greens or seeing all colors.
> 
> Or how some animals like dogs can hear things that are beyond the range of human hearing.
> 
> My friend Olivia can receive messages from God that are more
> direct than when I receive divine insights that come as vague ideas.
> 
> So our channels are designed differently.
> 
> Some people see physical visions, I have friends who can see demons.
> 
> Some people have no notion and are left in the dark about
> what is this business of Jesus and talking with God. it makes
> no sense to them because they don't have those spiritual experiences.
> It seems unreal how that can be possible.
> 
> So in general MD it can go either way:
> in some cases people being excessive anti-theist are
> reacting against social conditioning and this is not natural
> but reacting to equally unnatural abuses that have conditioned people to react that way.
> 
> That is one level and I hope that can change as we forgive and correct issues of abuse
> tha tmake people turn against and reject God Jesus and religion.
> 
> in some cases however
> people are naturally secular gentile
> 
> God creates some people to think in black and white
> as a check on reality.
> 
> So when I get too emotional and empathize too much with others,
> it helps me to consult with someone who is more neutral and objective
> and get feedback from them to check myself.
> 
> we help each other this way
> 
> God designs some of us to be of this tribe or that one
> to serve different purposes and reach different audiences.
> 
> All these ways still answer to the one authority of law
> that Jesus represents as Justice for all.
> 
> but there are many branches from the same tree, to reach in all directions.
> 
> If we only had one trunk that tree would be almost useless.
> 
> We have all these branches for a reason.
> 
> And I find that the Secular Gentiles who look at the world
> Nontheistically
> serve a purpose as a check and balance on the other branch
> 
> I think you and Boss and others have an advantage
> if we can relate to both branches.
> so we should use our gifts wisely to coordinate
> our spiritual gifts and not fight to ax off this branch or that one.
> 
> Sorry if it's not all one way.
> 
> There are some who are hardwired to see black and white nontheistically
> and there are some who are conditioned by social karma to reject God and religion.
> 
> It depends on the person which factor or factors apply to them.
Click to expand...


Boss sees the axiom with no sweat.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
Click to expand...





> *R:* To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.




so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -

good luck with that Rawlings.

.


----------



## Boss

percysunshine said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


*Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh? 

smh


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> .



Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.

I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.

Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
I am most curious to know.

As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
each other and crossed wires.

1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
was falsely hardwired?

if not I apologize because I thought you were
negating MD statement about God as Creator

2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
but that MD is misportraying God

So my questions are this
a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
to inspire anyone to change?
c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?

What is WRONG with this
A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent

Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
this cannot be the dumbest comment

look at the one that BW posted
comparing me to Hitler

can you top that?

I think Hitler would come back from the grave
and yell about being compared to a playful puppy dog
who wants to make friends with everyone

What an insult to the Jews who suffered under Hitler's Holocaust
Embarrassing. I don't know whether to be more mortified
that I communicated so poorly to give poor BW this horrible misperception,
or more mortified for BW for having posted it, seriously

the last time I was called Satan it was for being TOO inclusive
and TOO universalist, and someone going through a fundamentalist stage
called me that who was rejecting everyone for being too material and not strict enough.

this just doesn't make sense period

If anything I have the opposite karma of Hitler
and the only thing dangerous about me is being dangerous naive
thinking people will forgive each other and make peace


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.



Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth. 

Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth.
> 
> Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...


Well, Breezewood just compared me to Hitler.
So if I am one of the women in your life, via the internet,
you must be guilty by association as a friend of a Hitler-wannabe?

Do I need to grow a mustache? I better start brushing up on
my Neo-Nazism if I am going to live up to my new image and not disapppoint Breezewood
by turning out to be a sensitive kid who cares about everyone and does not want anyone to suffer.
I think BW would be crushed that I am not out to launch the next big genocide or Armageddon.
Are there manuals online that I can look up for step by step instructions?

TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.

Perhaps we should sit back and enjoy these antics and drama
to all that popcorn!


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth.
> 
> Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Breezewood just compared me to Hitler.
> So if I am one of the women in your life, via the internet,
> you must be guilty by association as a friend of a Hitler-wannabe?
> 
> Do I need to grow a mustache? I better start brushing up on
> my Neo-Nazism if I am going to live up to my new image and not disapppoint Breezewood
> by turning out to be a sensitive kid who cares about everyone and does not want anyone to suffer.
> I think BW would be crushed that I am not out to launch the next big genocide or Armageddon.
> Are there manuals online that I can look up for step by step instructions?
> 
> TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.
> 
> Perhaps we should sit back and enjoy these antics and drama
> to all that popcorn!
Click to expand...


I've discovered, whenever you dare to challenge the fascist-like thoughts of an Atheist... look the fuck out! They can get particularly nasty and surly. Not sure what bee has gotten into Breeze's bonnet, we generally get a more peaceful Buddhist vibe from him/her. 

I think you do a great job of trying to mediate, but I think you fail to understand these people are not interested in mediation. They will either troll the thread with insults and denigrations, or pop in now and then to interject some stupidity, or twist and distort your words to create false arguments they can defeat. No other option exists. They are not going to see things any different way, they aren't interested in that. 

I've been arguing with these fools for over 15 years, they never change.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth.
> 
> Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Breezewood just compared me to Hitler.
> So if I am one of the women in your life, via the internet,
> you must be guilty by association as a friend of a Hitler-wannabe?
> 
> Do I need to grow a mustache? I better start brushing up on
> my Neo-Nazism if I am going to live up to my new image and not disapppoint Breezewood
> by turning out to be a sensitive kid who cares about everyone and does not want anyone to suffer.
> I think BW would be crushed that I am not out to launch the next big genocide or Armageddon.
> Are there manuals online that I can look up for step by step instructions?
> 
> TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.
> 
> Perhaps we should sit back and enjoy these antics and drama
> to all that popcorn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've discovered, whenever you dare to challenge the fascist-like thoughts of an Atheist... look the fuck out! They can get particularly nasty and surly. Not sure what bee has gotten into Breeze's bonnet, we generally get a more peaceful Buddhist vibe from him/her.
> 
> I think you do a great job of trying to mediate, but I think you fail to understand these people are not interested in mediation. They will either troll the thread with insults and denigrations, or pop in now and then to interject some stupidity, or twist and distort your words to create false arguments they can defeat. No other option exists. They are not going to see things any different way, they aren't interested in that.
> 
> I've been arguing with these fools for over 15 years, they never change.
Click to expand...


Well, now I am trying more daring humor than before.
The fastest way to shut someone up is to say "you're right"
so how to say that creatively?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth.
> 
> Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Breezewood just compared me to Hitler.
> So if I am one of the women in your life, via the internet,
> you must be guilty by association as a friend of a Hitler-wannabe?
> 
> Do I need to grow a mustache? I better start brushing up on
> my Neo-Nazism if I am going to live up to my new image and not disapppoint Breezewood
> by turning out to be a sensitive kid who cares about everyone and does not want anyone to suffer.
> I think BW would be crushed that I am not out to launch the next big genocide or Armageddon.
> Are there manuals online that I can look up for step by step instructions?
> 
> TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.
> 
> Perhaps we should sit back and enjoy these antics and drama
> to all that popcorn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've discovered, whenever you dare to challenge the fascist-like thoughts of an Atheist... look the fuck out! They can get particularly nasty and surly. Not sure what bee has gotten into Breeze's bonnet, we generally get a more peaceful Buddhist vibe from him/her.
> 
> I think you do a great job of trying to mediate, but I think you fail to understand these people are not interested in mediation. They will either troll the thread with insults and denigrations, or pop in now and then to interject some stupidity, or twist and distort your words to create false arguments they can defeat. No other option exists. They are not going to see things any different way, they aren't interested in that.
> 
> I've been arguing with these fools for over 15 years, they never change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, now I am trying more daring humor than before.
> The fastest way to shut someone up is to say "you're right"
> so how to say that creatively?
Click to expand...


A friend of mine used to say: *TACTFULNESS* is telling someone to go to hell and having them look forward to the trip.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand exactly what he's saying. He's been lied to by the women in his life so many times before that he doesn't believe in truth existing.
> 
> PS Try to keep your answers a tad shorter. Nobody likes a long-winded blowhard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lied to by the women in my life? Do you know me? Do you know anything about my life or the women in it? OR are you a pinhead who is butt-hurt because you can't formulate a rational argument against me? I never said truth didn't exist. I said we can't KNOW truth, we can only BELIEVE truth.
> 
> Yes.... Everyone keep your answers shorter for the nitwit who can't formulate rational arguments or respond to the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Breezewood just compared me to Hitler.
> So if I am one of the women in your life, via the internet,
> you must be guilty by association as a friend of a Hitler-wannabe?
> 
> Do I need to grow a mustache? I better start brushing up on
> my Neo-Nazism if I am going to live up to my new image and not disapppoint Breezewood
> by turning out to be a sensitive kid who cares about everyone and does not want anyone to suffer.
> I think BW would be crushed that I am not out to launch the next big genocide or Armageddon.
> Are there manuals online that I can look up for step by step instructions?
> 
> TAZ offered to pop popcorn with all the hot air I was producing on this thread.
> 
> Perhaps we should sit back and enjoy these antics and drama
> to all that popcorn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've discovered, whenever you dare to challenge the fascist-like thoughts of an Atheist... look the fuck out! They can get particularly nasty and surly. Not sure what bee has gotten into Breeze's bonnet, we generally get a more peaceful Buddhist vibe from him/her.
> 
> I think you do a great job of trying to mediate, but I think you fail to understand these people are not interested in mediation. They will either troll the thread with insults and denigrations, or pop in now and then to interject some stupidity, or twist and distort your words to create false arguments they can defeat. No other option exists. They are not going to see things any different way, they aren't interested in that.
> 
> I've been arguing with these fools for over 15 years, they never change.
Click to expand...

The problem you have is that your proselytizing in support of your cult of spirit realm'ists is just not convincing.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> The problem you have is that your proselytizing in support of your cult of spirit realm'ists is just not convincing.





> *cult*
> kəlt/
> _noun_
> a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.



That more aptly describes YOU, honey britches. Only about 5% of us believe in the magic Nothingness Fairy. The rest of us believe in something spiritual. You're in the vast minority of stupid people.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem you have is that your proselytizing in support of your cult of spirit realm'ists is just not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> kəlt/
> _noun_
> a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That more aptly describes YOU, honey britches. Only about 5% of us believe in the magic Nothingness Fairy. The rest of us believe in something spiritual. You're in the vast minority of stupid people.
Click to expand...

I can understand that you're angry and self-hating. For all your attempts at promoting spirit realms and magical gawds, you're still a cult of one.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but the OP did not ask for PROOF based on any syllogism or anything else.  It asked for a syllogistic argument for the existence of god.   And there are plenty of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Click to expand...


You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
Click to expand...


What I've come to learn is that atheists know everything about everything, but never tell us anything about anything except everything they know about theists.  



Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 



 In the future, just copy and paste that paragraph since all of your posts amount to that and nothing else. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
Click to expand...




Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 

Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 

Amen.  May the force be with you.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.​
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question.  In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> __________________________________
> 
> By the way, something just occurred to me. I think I wrote _interjection_ earlier on this thread in the place of _interposition_. LOL! _ Yippee! Yahoo!_



Commonsense. Children from the age of 12 up understand these things.

Why are we debating about these things?  Why are we debating over the understanding that GOD in the greatest and ultimate sense would necessarily mean CREATOR?

People have gone mad. They've lost their minds.  That's the whole point of arguments or evidence for God's existence.  Something or Someone is the first uncaused Cause of all other things.

CREATOR.  CREATOR. CREATOR.  CREATOR.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid.  Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Amen.  May the force be with you.
Click to expand...

Confession is good for the soul.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
Click to expand...



It's you who is making the absolute claim around here.  Explain to us how you, a finite being, knows that God, a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, doesn't exist. 

Explain to us how it is logically possible for you to say God doesn't exist.  Tell us what this statement really means:  "I, Hollie, a finite being, know that God (the Creator) doesn't exist."

But of course:

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 


Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 

Amen. May the force be with you


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's you who is making the absolute claim around here.  Explain to us how you, a finite being, knows that God, a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, doesn't exist.
> 
> Explain to us how it is logically possible for you to say God doesn't exist.  Tell us what this statement really means:  "I, Hollie, a finite being, know that God (the Creator) doesn't exist."
> 
> But of course:
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Amen. May the force be with you
Click to expand...

Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.
> 
> We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.
> 
> Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.
> 
> Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.*
> 
> Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_.
> 
> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to *know* truth, to know something *absolutely*, to be *omniscient*. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. _Objectively_ means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.
Click to expand...


Commonsense tells us that objectivity is not subjectivity.  They are not the same things.  A dog is not cat.  That is nonsensical. All you're really saying is that we can't have any knowledge without God.   I already know that.  That's the whole point of the TAG. What someone believes is knowledge to them, but that doesn't mean that what they believe is true knowledge.   Commonsense.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.



Explain to us how you, a finite being, knows that God, a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, doesn't exist.


Explain to us how it is logically possible for you to say God doesn't exist. Tell us what this statement really means: "I, Hollie, a finite being, know that God (the Creator) doesn't exist."


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....



You've gotten what you believe confused with what we believe. Spiritual energy created physical existence, there is nothing magical or supernatural to that. You are the one who believes in magic-- where something comes from nothing for no reason, nothing explodes into something, bits of matter rearrange for no reason to form self-replicating matter, for no reason, this makes dinosaurs. The magic keeps on happening until humans are produced for no reason, and then... they invent a belief in something that isn't real but it somehow, for no reason, manages to help them evolve into extraordinary entities capable of amazing things through inspiration in what they imagined.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.
> 
> We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.
> 
> Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.
> 
> Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.*
> 
> Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_.
> 
> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to *know* truth, to know something *absolutely*, to be *omniscient*. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. _Objectively_ means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commonsense tells us that objectivity is not subjectivity.  They are not the same things.  A dog is not cat.  That is nonsensical. All you're really saying is that we can't have any knowledge without God.   I already know that.  That's the whole point of the TAG. What someone believes is knowledge to them, but that doesn't mean that what they believe is true knowledge.   Commonsense.
Click to expand...


Why are you still attacking me? Are you too fucking stupid to understand that I believe, like you do, in a spiritual creator, and I am not the enemy? What is your problem? Why are you defiantly rejecting anything I have to say? It makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever. 

You're a fucking hard head. Plain and simple. You think that whatever you say, whatever your opinion is, is the only VALID argument, and everyone else is wrong. You refuse to even consider what I have said, it just flies right over your silly head because I don't kiss your ass. 

Common sense is very often WRONG! It was once "common sense" that the Earth was flat. It was "common sense" that things had gravity because they longed to be near the earth and other things had levity because they longed to be in the heavens. It was "common sense" that things slow down because they get tired. It is "common sense" which leads Atheists to believe life evolved from a single cell. 

Objectivity is subjective. I told you when I said it that it sounded contradictory, then I explained exactly what I meant, but you completely ignored that. Instead of trying to understand what I said, you jumped on it as something "dumb to say" and completely missed my point. I can't make you try to see my point because you've bowed up at me and decided that you're just going to disagree with anything I have to say. 

But you see... YOU are not the only individual who is reading this post or this thread. Others can read it and determine for themselves if what I said makes sense, and it really doesn't matter what you think.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *R:* To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -
> 
> good luck with that Rawlings.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit.  I have never said that, ever!  I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.  The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired.  That's tautological true.

That is not controversial. 

Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities.  Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've gotten what you believe confused with what we believe. *Spiritual energy created physical existence*, there is nothing magical or supernatural to that. You are the one who believes in magic-- where something comes from nothing for no reason, nothing explodes into something, bits of matter rearrange for no reason to form self-replicating matter, for no reason, this makes dinosaurs. The magic keeps on happening until humans are produced for no reason, and then... they invent a belief in something that isn't real but it somehow, for no reason, manages to help them evolve into extraordinary entities capable of amazing things through inspiration in what they imagined.
Click to expand...

"*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?


----------



## Taz

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to us how you, a finite being, knows that God, a possibility that cannot be logically eliminated, doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Explain to us how it is logically possible for you to say God doesn't exist. Tell us what this statement really means: "I, Hollie, a finite being, know that God (the Creator) doesn't exist."
Click to expand...

Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> "*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
> You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?



No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.



But you are not an agnostic. You repeatedly mock the idea and concept of God and ridicule those who believe in God. You totally dismiss any possibility of God as silly superstitious nonsense that man dreamed up to console his fears. Now, I will agree... you certainly aren't a "thinking person!"


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie:
Here is where you are making a leap

You keep defining God = something magic supernatural that you don't believe in

I agree God is not that thing

So why keep starting the proof there

Are you okay with any of these things, which do you agree exists and explains all the forces and events in the world

God = Life, Nature, forces of Nature
God = collective truth, collective universe, sum of all things ever existent, known or unknown
God = Love, energy connecting all people as one humanity, Unconditional Love that naturally exists
God = Good will for all humanity
God = Wisdom (close to God = Truth or God = knowledge as MD equates to God = Creator)

If we agree that God = colelctive body of all knowledge, truth, wisdom
can we start there

And stp before THIS step
A. the leap MD makes by jumping from God = knowledge to God = Creator that has to exist or it runs into contradicitons
B. the leap you make by jumping from God = knowledge to God = some magical supernatural being that can't exist

What is the step BEFORE those conflicting leaps?

God = knowledge or what?

Can you name one thing that determines
what is going on in the world, what is true or false?

Numan said he called the highest default level
"spiritual reality" and another researcher into prayer
called it "the absolute" that even atheists have a concept of but call it different things

What do you call the central or default point of
where truth and knowledge exists? can we start there where we agree
and define and use only terms that mean something consistent to both people?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
> You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
Click to expand...


Not proveable.

It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.

Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.

i have found this point does not need to be agreed upon
in order to agree on the other points and principles that are universal.

These points and principles work, whether things in creation have a beginning or not.
the laws that affect our world operate the same way and do not rely on agreeing on all things like this question.

If we waste time arguing about that, we don't move to the points and principles we can agree on that make a difference.
this one doesn't have to be an issue.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.



"Is There One *Sound/valid* Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of *God*?"

*1.*  The construct _God_ means _Creator_!  That's what the term _God_ denoting the construct in its *objectively* highest sense means:  a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.

*2.*  In formal logic, the term _argument_ means _proof_.  Logical arguments are logical proofs!  If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified. 

We do not prove or disprove things in science.  We tentatively verify or falsify things in science.  We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic _only_.  If you're gong to use terms like _prove_ or _proof_ in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic.  Check? 

Hence:

"Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God  in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence. 

That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things".  Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Breezewood: Can you please reply to my questions below?
I am trying to resolve why we miscommunicated so badly
that you thought I was like Hitler which is the exact opposite of my approach
that is all inclusive and universalist, treating all people and views as equally important to the whole.

Also below is the humorous approach if that works better!
Here is the serious approach:



emilynghiem said:


> Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
> this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.
> 
> I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
> that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.
> 
> Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
> I am most curious to know.
> 
> As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
> each other and crossed wires.
> 
> 1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
> was falsely hardwired?
> 
> if not I apologize because I thought you were
> negating MD statement about God as Creator
> 
> 2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
> but that MD is misportraying God
> 
> So my questions are this
> a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
> b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
> to inspire anyone to change?
> c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
> d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?
> 
> What is WRONG with this
> A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
> B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
> C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
> D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
> E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
> where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent
> 
> Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
> and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?



Here is the silly response to your statement that made no sense to me, sorry.

Breezewood  is to : Breezewood comparing Emily to Hitler
as
Emily is to : http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/440oolong.jpg

"I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a Bunny with a Pancake on its head"


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've gotten what you believe confused with what we believe. Spiritual energy created physical existence, there is nothing magical or supernatural to that. You are the one who believes in magic-- where something comes from nothing for no reason, nothing explodes into something, bits of matter rearrange for no reason to form self-replicating matter, for no reason, this makes dinosaurs. The magic keeps on happening until humans are produced for no reason, and then... they invent a belief in something that isn't real but it somehow, for no reason, manages to help them evolve into extraordinary entities capable of amazing things through inspiration in what they imagined.
Click to expand...

The problem you share with other religious extremists is that the little science knowledge you have is filtered through creationist ministries. Your really naive and just plain ignorant description of biological evolution is straight from the charlatans at the ICR.

Unfortunately, like many who are loathe to accepting science in deference to religious dogma, you don’t understand that we define terms for the purpose of eliminating ambiguity in communication, and it requires no demonstrating of the validity of science vs. the hopelessness of religious dogma to do so, merely agreement on the meaning of the terms.

Within science, the distinction between "fact" and "theory" is completely unambiguous. There is no debate on the meaning of these words, and there is no debate on the relationship between the phenomena they represent. Therefore, religious extremist slogans such as “spiritual energy" and your really nonsensical slogans describing biological evolution just reek of the most extreme of the Christian fundamentalists. 

That's why the fundamentalists position is so hopeless. You can't even define your gods, magical spirit realms and supernaturalism with any consistency.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?" 

Not as perceived by theists, no.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
> You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
Click to expand...

"Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument. 

If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms. 

We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Amen. May the force be with you
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is you religious extremists who are the ones making absolute claims to a magical, supernatural entity.
Click to expand...


OK Hollie and Justin Davis:
to break up this back and forth business going nowhere,
may I challenge both of you to the Bullring?

My challenge to you is that Spiritual Healing can be demonstrated by science as being consistent with natural laws
of health and healing so this is proveable in terms of how science is traditionally used to VERIFY or falsify things;
that the concept and process of Christian deliverance prayer is the only/unique cure to casting out
demonic voices and personalities making people exhibit schizophrenic or criminal/mentally ill delusions
as in the case of David Berkowitz and the two patients Scott Peck wrote about in his book "Glimpses of the Devil".

So that by using science to prove these things are consistent with real effects and positive cures
of diseased conditions,

then two things result that end the above argument
A. this ends the notion that the teachings in Christianity are all false magical or supernatural 
things that don't exist, because Spiritual Healing can be established to be consistent with natural science
B. that if this is proven consistent, then people like Hollie and Justin agree to use
THIS proof of Spiritual Healing to explain these principles to secular gentiles who rely on science
and agree to QUIT pushing "magical faith-based arguments" that make leaps and make no sense
to secular gentiles.

So I challenge you to 
A. look into spiritual healing and see why I am saying science can explain, document or prove
this is consistent with natural healing health and science, and that it does show how 
Christian healing prayer is unique as the only cure for certain demonic or satanic/occult related disorders
and abuses
B. and this proof will stop the endless argument above between Hollie and Justin and other
theists and atheists, by AGREEING to use the science argument and show it proves the points in religion
without relying on supernatural or magical thinking or belief in things that cannot be proven scientifically

Here are the webpages for resources I would use to set up such a proof of spiritual healing
Home - Christian Healing Ministries
Healing Is Yours
http://www.listentothecriesofthechlidren.org 713 829 0899 my friend Olivia Reiner with this nonprofit outreach has already been trying to set up teams to document the medical cases of spiritual healing over her 35 years of free help to people. Francis MacNutt wrote his book on HEALING in 1974 and updated it in 1999 to include studies by doctors on how the intervention healing prayer had impact on Rheumatoid Arthritis that could only be attributed to the helaing prayer, and at least one man was completely cured from being crippled to walking pain free without needing any medication. 

This would end the argument by bridging the gap between science and religion
and show that the process is natural and works for people of all faiths, not just Christians,
although casting out the demons is done using only the central authority of Christ Jesus so that part is unique and Christians are right about that, too.

Thanks! If you want to look inot this first, I can still set up a thread in the Bullring and challenge both of you to reach an agreement how to set up such a proof to end this back and forth bitching about atheists v theists.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Is There One *Sound/valid* Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of *God*?"
> 
> *1.*  The construct _God_ means _Creator_!  That's what the term _God_ denoting the construct in its *objectively* highest sense means:  a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *2.*  In formal logic, the term _argument_ means _proof_.  Logical arguments are logical proofs!  If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified.
> 
> We do not prove or disprove things in science.  We tentatively verify or falsify things in science.  We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic _only_.  If you're gong to use terms like _prove_ or _proof_ in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic.  Check?
> 
> Hence:
> 
> "Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God  in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
> 
> That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things".  Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.
Click to expand...

As with all religious fundamentalists, you presume that the gods of your familial, geographic circumstances are "the gods". It's actually comical to watch as you cut and paste the same tired slogans of your hastily and carelessly assembled "seven things" after your amateurish "five things" disaster was shot down in flames. 

Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist. 

Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
> You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
> 
> If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie and also Boss:
This indirectly backs up what Foxfyre was saying also.

If things have to have a Creator then who created the Creator?

Boss this is also what I mean by the Creation might exist in and of itself with or without a starting point but infinite
which also can be set equal = God

If we say that God is the Creator/starting point.
Then something had to create that, so that means THAT point is
the Creator/starting point.
But then something had to create THAT, so you call THAT point the ultimate, etc.

If you do this to infinity, then God = infinite with no beginning and no end

So this is perfectly OK to define God = that collective whole
whether you see it as having a starting point or you see it as infinite

Either way God = collective whole of all things


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
Click to expand...


The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.

The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.

“All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!

It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Is There One *Sound/valid* Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of *God*?"
> 
> *1.*  The construct _God_ means _Creator_!  That's what the term _God_ denoting the construct in its *objectively* highest sense means:  a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *2.*  In formal logic, the term _argument_ means _proof_.  Logical arguments are logical proofs!  If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified.
> 
> We do not prove or disprove things in science.  We tentatively verify or falsify things in science.  We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic _only_.  If you're gong to use terms like _prove_ or _proof_ in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic.  Check?
> 
> Hence:
> 
> "Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God  in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
> 
> That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things".  Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with all religious fundamentalists, you presume that the gods of your familial, geographic circumstances are "the gods". It's actually comical to watch as you cut and paste the same tired slogans of your hastily and carelessly assembled "seven things" after your amateurish "five things" disaster was shot down in flames.
> 
> Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
> 
> Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: Please see my other post where I challenge you and Justin to the Bullring.
Please review that msg and recommend any changes to things that aren't clear,and I will copy and post it
with any revisions or clarifications you ercommend, into the Bullring.

Hollie since you take a science approach, and MD has stated very clearly that his proof is based on logic definitions
and not science, we need something else to fulfill the approach you are asking for using science to verify or falsify.

So that is why I suggest we set up science proof around the Spiritual Healing as a process that can
be verified as natural and following all the steps as taught in Christian nonprofits that practice this freely,
not to convert or make money as they volunteer their services purely for healing and helping more people.
so the free groups aer the only ones I ecommend that I have found to be reputable and effective and natural.

For this thread, this will demonstate to MD why more than his logic TAG approach is needed.
We do need to set up the science proofs to reach people who need that, who aren't getting or responding to TAG.

So Hollie do you see the greater benefit of the science proofs of spiritual healing?
it will use the science you need to demonstrate things like normal
and it will show to MD that the logic approach is not enough to prove this point by itself.

We need to use science to reach some people.
And we also need to use the same spiritual healing to
resolve religious and political conflicts in the real world
so people see proof that this works "miraculously" in all situations
so they believe it is universally compelling and true for all people.
But that is a greater proof. Lets start with the spiritual healing.

See the other msg and please reply before I copy into the Bullring
and challenge you and Justin to bridge the gap between science and
religion to stop the deadlocking between atheists and theists. thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.



OK Boss and M.D. Rawlings
if it is possible the quantum vacuum may have always existed,
then if we set God = the highest level of creation or existence,
then God who created the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
So God/Creation = may have always existed without beginning or end.

A. Breezewood seems to take exception to separating God as Creator
from the whole  of the Creation or all things = the Almighty
B. others seem to take exception to Combining God with Creation
and insist on distinguishing God as a Creator

I am asking BreezeWood what is wrong with allowing people to 
personify this part of Creation as Creator and God that way.

So I ask you the equivalent, what is wrong with blending
God in with the whole of Creation?

Can't we still talk about universal laws whether we
personify God = Creator
or see God = Creation or Universe?

Doesn't the proof come out the same?
as long as we agree to define God = something we agree is the ultimate level


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Boss said:

'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'

Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.
> 
> We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.
> 
> Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.
> 
> Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.*
> 
> Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_.
> 
> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to *know* truth, to know something *absolutely*, to be *omniscient*. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. _Objectively_ means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commonsense tells us that objectivity is not subjectivity.  They are not the same things.  A dog is not cat.  That is nonsensical. All you're really saying is that we can't have any knowledge without God.   I already know that.  That's the whole point of the TAG. What someone believes is knowledge to them, but that doesn't mean that what they believe is true knowledge.   Commonsense.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
Click to expand...

There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism. What is comically tragic is that you're unable to make that distinction. That's not uncommon for the most extreme of religious extremists. Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the “god did it” arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that you came up with them on your own.

I don’t think that “faith” or trembling before an angry deity is at all necessary. Holy texts laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason by definition is irrational. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; surely not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease? Reason and empirical evidence verifies our existence, and faith is necessary only when non-authorities and religious extremists attempt to foist their non-authoritative points of view on those gullible enough to either follow or have need to follow.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.

Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Is There One *Sound/valid* Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of *God*?"
> 
> *1.*  The construct _God_ means _Creator_!  That's what the term _God_ denoting the construct in its *objectively* highest sense means:  a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *2.*  In formal logic, the term _argument_ means _proof_.  Logical arguments are logical proofs!  If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified.
> 
> We do not prove or disprove things in science.  We tentatively verify or falsify things in science.  We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic _only_.  If you're gong to use terms like _prove_ or _proof_ in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic.  Check?
> 
> Hence:
> 
> "Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God  in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
> 
> That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things".  Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with all religious fundamentalists, you presume that the gods of your familial, geographic circumstances are "the gods". It's actually comical to watch as you cut and paste the same tired slogans of your hastily and carelessly assembled "seven things" after your amateurish "five things" disaster was shot down in flames.
> 
> Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
> 
> Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
Click to expand...


You dope, it doesn't matter what a person inserts in the place of the God idea.  The God idea as the most perfect being possible is in your head and you prove it every time you deny God exists, but I morph.  I guess because I'm too dumb to learn and understand things on my own, to dumb to learn how to write better and see the same things that everybody else sees because they are objectively apparent to us all.  But maybe, just maybe all these things are an illusion to people like you and Fox who say that what I see to be true is irrational. I'm so confused.  Are the seven things objectively true for all or do I morph?  Commonsense or morph?  No.  I think it's commonsense.  The only morphing, the only lying, the only idiocy going on around here is with morons like you and Fox.  Fox might have more education than me, but she ain't  got more commonsense than this plumber, that's for sure.  And I don't care what Rawlings says, I don't think Fox is "good people" anymore.  I think she's a stuck up hypocrite who thinks it's okay for people to talk to me like I'm crap as she says that the things I believe are stupid but never tells us why they're stupid.  I think she's the  dummy,  lying to herself and to all of us, just like QW lied to me.   

How can people be so dumb?  The seven things are obviously true.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
> she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.
> 
> Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
> Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
> before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
> to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
> will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
> and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.
Click to expand...



Hollie needs a new brain, that's the healing she's needs.  Do you have one handy?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your magic "spirit realms" are just your recent invention of gods. "Spirit Realms", "spiritual energy", etc., etc., are no different than gods and demons which are human inventions to placate our fear of the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
Click to expand...

I've never seen you correct anything. Other than flailing you Pom Poms for Rawling, I've seen you waffle and backtrack as your your nonsensical babbling about "logic" is a fundamentalist shell game with bad analogies, false comparisons and appeals to magic and supernaturalism. 

Your worldview of angry gods, supernatural realms and a never ending hierarchy of gods, designer gods ----> an infinity of designers of your designer gods is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. This means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you extremists can never seem to connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The _cul de sac_ remains forever in place-- "the gawds did it, and that's that." Yet, your gawds are simply the gawds you were given by happenstance of geographic place of birth.

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand the slogan that builds your entire fantasy world of angry gawds, "the gawds did it" is enough for a lot of your christian extremists, but people of careful thought should be deeply dissatisfied with it. That you are _not_ smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough except he qualified it with the modifiers "sound" and "valid" which entails logically correct and factually supported.  That sounds a lot like "proof."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
Click to expand...





> *jd:* I know you've called us those things.



you are the initiator of slander ...

the "theist", and what would that be - you are not willing to state what your 7 "things" represent as a physical proof ... 

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we all know to be necessarily true is that *2 + 2 = 4* in our minds every time we think it, whether we like it or not; i.e., we cannot escape that belief, and that unshakable *belief* is *knowledge* about the human condition, something we *know* to be *true* about human cognition!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to specifically address your posts to me, but I didn't feel compelled to quote all of the volumes you posted, so I pulled this paragraph to sumarize.
> 
> My argument was, we can only _believe_ truth, we can't ever _know_ truth. What we may believe is truth, regardless of how unshakable or logical it may be, regardless of how profoundly we believe, may still not be _THE_ truth. Certainty is a conclusion of faith.
> 
> Let's take your example... 2+2=4. You put two apples in your basket and reach for two more, when you go to put them in your basket, there is only one apple in the basket. Logic and reason tells you that maybe you were mistaken the first time, maybe you only grabbed one instead of two... no problem, you grab another apple from the shelf and off you go... when you get to the checkout counter, there are now 5 apples. So what WAS the TRUTH? There is no explanation which doesn't defy logic. You can believe any number of possibilities... you saw one apple when there were really two... you really suck at math... you had too many beers before shopping... someone is messing with you... apples are magic... all kinds of things can be _possible_ truths.
> 
> 2+2=4 in our understandable universe of logic, math and physics. But does 2+2=4 in quantum reality or a parallel universe? We don't _know_ this. One of the most important principles in quantum physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg stated that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. So we don't really know for certain that 2+2=4, although that is our perception and logical assumption. In short, we _believe_ 2+2=4, therefore, it does.
> 
> Now... there is a wide range of what humans perceive as "knowing" for certain when that isn't really the case. For instance, you can find numerous times in this thread where someone will say, "We know there was a big bang which started the universe.." Well, we don't KNOW that. We BELIEVE that. The same is true with 2+2=4, we don't KNOW that, we BELIEVE that. Does that make it true? Perhaps, but we don't *know* for certain unless we have _*faith*_ in what we _*believe*_ is certain.
> 
> There is no universal or collective perception of reality. Each human entity experiences a different perception of reality, meaning that reality is subject to individual perspective. The reality you experience is different from mine or anyone elses because we have different perspectives. Our perspectives and perceptions may be similar, in fact, so similar that we can concur on "certain absolutes" but that doesn't mean they are truth. Again, it is a matter of our faith in what we believe to be the truth based on our perception of reality.
> 
> As for all your intellectual brow-beating and bullying me in front of the Atheists in order to shame me into embracing your argument, it's not working. I realize this is a tactic you like to use, and it simply doesn't phase me in the least. I believe in a Spiritual God the same as you, and we have a thread full of people who don't. Seems you would be more cordial to someone who shares your perspective on that, but you believe it somehow weakens your argument to acknowledge my perspective, and that's okay. I am accustomed to people not acknowledging my perspectives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Boss, after seeing Justin's post, I read your post again, and I apologize.  I need to be clear here because much of what you say is true.  I don't disagree with those things.  As I already told you,  of course, there's a unique, subjective element to everyone's experience of reality, but that doesn't change the fact of the things that are understood by all of us, like 2 + 2 = 4 and The Seven Things!  You're not wrong about everything, but your basic premise is wrong or irrelevant.
> 
> We have to believe certain things in order to function, do anything in the world beyond the world of ideas, and those things we call knowledge.  But you didn't deserve "the no moral right" thing.  Your beliefs are sincere.  Others are on this thread lying through their teeth about these truths.  It's especially outrageous as my position is not to impose any personal biases on anything or tell anyone what they should decide for themselves about what all these things mean taken together.
> 
> Nevertheless, the basic essence of your premise would, if it were true, but it's not, undermine the evidence for God's existence.  Please don't take offense. I like you, Boss, and it wasn't my intent to put you down.  I know I'm not the most sensitive guy on the planet, but I do not gratuitously insult people.  But it's important to hold these truths up and see them for what they are.  Also, I've already said that objectively speaking we can imagine that everything is an illusion, but what's the practical point of that given that it would make no difference to us even if that seemingly absurd possibility were true.
> 
> Also, things like the Big Bang or any scientific theory at all are in fact less certain than the immediate axioms that are in our minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all. The understanding of the things listed by him are true. What we believe and know are basically the same thing in the end, the real test is are our beliefs true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't get you Boss, nothing you're saying weakens the stuff Rawlings has said at all.*
> 
> Perhaps the reason you don't get me is, I am not disagreeing with Rawlings (or you). I'm not trying to weaken or refute his argument, it is very compelling and well-reasoned, in my opinion. In fact, I might even say it is a quite brilliant argument. However, it IS an _argument_.
> 
> My only point of contention is regarding the human ability to *know* truth, to know something *absolutely*, to be *omniscient*. At the risk of confusing you even more, _objectivity_ is _subjective_. I know that sounds totally contradictory, but that doesn't make it untrue. We assign meanings to words. _Objectively_ means we have evaluated the evidence without bias and considered all possibilities.... but since we are humans with biases and not omniscient, and can never know all possibility, this is impossible. When we say we are being "objective" it is a testament to our faith in the belief we have evaluated all the evidence and weighed all the possibilities. We think we have, we believe we have, we can't KNOW we have, it's not possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Commonsense tells us that objectivity is not subjectivity.  They are not the same things.  A dog is not cat.  That is nonsensical. All you're really saying is that we can't have any knowledge without God.   I already know that.  That's the whole point of the TAG. What someone believes is knowledge to them, but that doesn't mean that what they believe is true knowledge.   Commonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you still attacking me? Are you too fucking stupid to understand that I believe, like you do, in a spiritual creator, and I am not the enemy? What is your problem? Why are you defiantly rejecting anything I have to say? It makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever.
> 
> You're a fucking hard head. Plain and simple. You think that whatever you say, whatever your opinion is, is the only VALID argument, and everyone else is wrong. You refuse to even consider what I have said, it just flies right over your silly head because I don't kiss your ass.
> 
> Common sense is very often WRONG! It was once "common sense" that the Earth was flat. It was "common sense" that things had gravity because they longed to be near the earth and other things had levity because they longed to be in the heavens. It was "common sense" that things slow down because they get tired. It is "common sense" which leads Atheists to believe life evolved from a single cell.
> 
> Objectivity is subjective. I told you when I said it that it sounded contradictory, then I explained exactly what I meant, but you completely ignored that. Instead of trying to understand what I said, you jumped on it as something "dumb to say" and completely missed my point. I can't make you try to see my point because you've bowed up at me and decided that you're just going to disagree with anything I have to say.
> 
> But you see... YOU are not the only individual who is reading this post or this thread. Others can read it and determine for themselves if what I said makes sense, and it really doesn't matter what you think.
Click to expand...


I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been arguing from the concept that everything or anything that exists was created by a Creator.  That is a different argument from what the OP asks.   But until you can PROVE that everything that exists did not have a Creator or any of the other 'certainties' you express, you are whistling in the dark and coming from a position of faith as much as anybody else posting on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Is There One *Sound/valid* Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of *God*?"
> 
> *1.*  The construct _God_ means _Creator_!  That's what the term _God_ denoting the construct in its *objectively* highest sense means:  a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist.
> 
> *2.*  In formal logic, the term _argument_ means _proof_.  Logical arguments are logical proofs!  If the premises of any given syllogistic proof are demonstrably or pragmatically held to be justifiable true knowledge and are coherently related to one another and to the conclusion, the logical proof and it's conclusion are held to be valid until such time that an inherent contradiction is deduced from them or any one of the premises is falsified.
> 
> We do not prove or disprove things in science.  We tentatively verify or falsify things in science.  We prove or disprove things in logic, and in logic _only_.  If you're gong to use terms like _prove_ or _proof_ in the informal sense, then tell us that you are using these terms in the informal sense; otherwise, your posts are confusing, especially to the atheist who understands science, mathematics and logic.  Check?
> 
> Hence:
> 
> "Is There One Sound/Valid [factually and coherently justifiable] Syllogistic Argument [logical proof] For The Existence of God [a sentient, uncaused Cause of all other things that exist]
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin.  It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God  in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
> 
> That's how you handle the Cosmological Argument . . . then assert "The Seven Things".  Better yet, start with "The Seven Things," the incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument; you know, the leading argument that the Bible makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with all religious fundamentalists, you presume that the gods of your familial, geographic circumstances are "the gods". It's actually comical to watch as you cut and paste the same tired slogans of your hastily and carelessly assembled "seven things" after your amateurish "five things" disaster was shot down in flames.
> 
> Your now ridiculous "seven things" I've had to revise because the absurdity was just too good to resist.
> 
> Your other cut and paste slogan, the truly laughable "incontrovertibly objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which includes the bullet proof Transcendental Argument" fails to account for that absurdity being refuted by the claims of others with quantitatively different gods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dope, it doesn't matter what a person inserts in the place of the God idea.  The God idea as the most perfect being possible is in your head and you prove it every time you deny God exists, but I morph.  I guess because I'm too dumb to learn and understand things on my own, to dumb to learn how to write better and see the same things that everybody else sees because they are objectively apparent to us all.  But maybe, just maybe all these things are an illusion to people like you and Fox who say that what I see to be true is irrational. I'm so confused.  Are the seven things objectively true for all or do I morph?  Commonsense or morph?  No.  I think it's commonsense.  The only morphing, the only lying, the only idiocy going on around here is with morons like you and Fox.  Fox might have more education than me, but she ain't  got more commonsense than this plumber, that's for sure.  And I don't care what Rawlings says, I don't think Fox is "good people" anymore.  I think she's a stuck up hypocrite who thinks it's okay for people to talk to me like I'm crap as she says that the things I believe are stupid but never tells us why they're stupid.  I think she's the  dummy,  lying to herself and to all of us, just like QW lied to me.
> 
> How can people be so dumb?  The seven things are obviously true.
Click to expand...

The "seven things", the fraud created after the fraud of "the five things" was exposed as a total failure is simply a desperate mid-course correction to an earlier fraud. 

It's window dressing on a burning building. 

Or, maybe lipstick on a pig?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
> she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.
> 
> Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
> Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
> before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
> to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
> will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
> and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie needs a new brain, that's the healing she's needs.  Do you have one handy?
Click to expand...

Well, when your arguments have been exposed as fraud, what's left for you but the whining of a petulant child.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> "Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
> 
> If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.



Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state. 

The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
> 
> If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.
> 
> The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agnostic is the thinking person's position, as there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you are not an agnostic. You repeatedly mock the idea and concept of God and ridicule those who believe in God. You totally dismiss any possibility of God as silly superstitious nonsense that man dreamed up to console his fears. Now, I will agree... you certainly aren't a "thinking person!"
Click to expand...

I don't mock the concept of god, I question the answers that I'm given as pertaining to god. If someone ever gives me solid proof for a god, I'll have no problem believing there's a god in front of such proof. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie:
> Here is where you are making a leap
> 
> You keep defining God = something magic supernatural that you don't believe in
> 
> I agree God is not that thing
> 
> So why keep starting the proof there
> 
> Are you okay with any of these things, which do you agree exists and explains all the forces and events in the world
> 
> God = Life, Nature, forces of Nature
> God = collective truth, collective universe, sum of all things ever existent, known or unknown
> God = Love, energy connecting all people as one humanity, Unconditional Love that naturally exists
> God = Good will for all humanity
> God = Wisdom (close to God = Truth or God = knowledge as MD equates to God = Creator)
> 
> If we agree that God = colelctive body of all knowledge, truth, wisdom
> can we start there
> 
> And stp before THIS step
> A. the leap MD makes by jumping from God = knowledge to God = Creator that has to exist or it runs into contradicitons
> B. the leap you make by jumping from God = knowledge to God = some magical supernatural being that can't exist
> 
> What is the step BEFORE those conflicting leaps?
> 
> God = knowledge or what?
> 
> Can you name one thing that determines
> what is going on in the world, what is true or false?
> 
> Numan said he called the highest default level
> "spiritual reality" and another researcher into prayer
> called it "the absolute" that even atheists have a concept of but call it different things
> 
> What do you call the central or default point of
> where truth and knowledge exists? can we start there where we agree
> and define and use only terms that mean something consistent to both people?
Click to expand...

Geez, someone open a FUCKING WINDOW!!! It's getting hot, hot , hot in here with all this hot air. God is knowledge? Listen, if you don't know, just say so.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Spiritual energy created physical existence"*
> You just make that up, or have you been living in a fantasy world for a long time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang created "things". Spiritual energy not proven to have been needed.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Not proveable.
> 
> It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.
> 
> Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
> WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
> As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.



I agree we can only believe truth and cannot know it. I also agree that God cannot be proven, but virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. We can only believe things are proven (or disproven.) 

Studying the logic and parameters of the physical universe, it appears it was created. Some estimate it was around 4.5 billion years ago. The fundamental basis for this logical assumption is the motion of the universe and entropy. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no motion because it defies Newtonian laws of motion for that to be the case. So either the physical universe had a beginning, or something incredible set it into motion. In either case, this began a phenomenon we realize as time and a concept we know as reality. 

Entropy is the other piece of evidence. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no entropy because it defies logic. You can't observe something going from order to chaos and conclude it eternally had order. If something is travelling a course it's illogical to say it remains stationary forever.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not proveable.
> 
> It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.
> 
> Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
> WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
> As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree we can only believe truth and cannot know it. I also agree that God cannot be proven, but virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. We can only believe things are proven (or disproven.)
> 
> Studying the logic and parameters of the physical universe, it appears it was created. Some estimate it was around 4.5 billion years ago. The fundamental basis for this logical assumption is the motion of the universe and entropy. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no motion because it defies Newtonian laws of motion for that to be the case. So either the physical universe had a beginning, or something incredible set it into motion. In either case, this began a phenomenon we realize as time and a concept we know as reality.
> 
> Entropy is the other piece of evidence. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no entropy because it defies logic. You can't observe something going from order to chaos and conclude it eternally had order. If something is travelling a course it's illogical to say it remains stationary forever.
Click to expand...

Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.

How Old is the Universe


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> The Big Bang created "things". Spiritual energy not proven to have been needed.



Sounds like "magic" to me.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the idea of being Hardwired by a Deity is a claim made by M.D. Rawlings.
> 
> *
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!*
> 
> "exists in our minds" ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *R:* To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -
> 
> good luck with that Rawlings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit.  I have never said that, ever!  I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.  The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired.  That's tautological true.
> 
> That is not controversial.
> 
> Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities.  Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.
Click to expand...





> I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.



are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?


*is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life*

that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" - 




> Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.



sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.

.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe



 There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic 

_Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
_
So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion. 

You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'
> 
> Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.



Actually, that's nonsense.  It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.​
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out.  Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science:  constructive logic.  And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen!  Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from  _justifiable_ true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities.  Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed.  Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

*The logical proof of  the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!*

*Proceed*, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> I don't mock the concept of god, I question the answers that I'm given as pertaining to god. If someone ever gives me solid proof for a god, I'll have no problem believing there's a god in front of such proof. Can't be any fairer than that.



Well I have seen you mock and ridicule the concept of God and those who believe in God, but if you insist on denying it, that's fine. 

What you are demanding is to be shown physical evidence (aka: solid proof) that God exists. If that could be done, or is ever done, then God ceases to be spiritual. So it's kind of a win/win proposition for you... either show you physical proof of God (impossible) or you won't believe in a spiritual God (default). And that is why you've constructed this false dichotomy. You know that God can't be physically proven and you don't accept spiritual nature.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Breezewood: Can you please reply to my questions below?
> I am trying to resolve why we miscommunicated so badly
> that you thought I was like Hitler which is the exact opposite of my approach
> that is all inclusive and universalist, treating all people and views as equally important to the whole.
> 
> Also below is the humorous approach if that works better!
> Here is the serious approach:
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
> this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.
> 
> I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
> that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.
> 
> Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
> I am most curious to know.
> 
> As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
> each other and crossed wires.
> 
> 1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
> was falsely hardwired?
> 
> if not I apologize because I thought you were
> negating MD statement about God as Creator
> 
> 2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
> but that MD is misportraying God
> 
> So my questions are this
> a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
> b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
> to inspire anyone to change?
> c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
> d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?
> 
> What is WRONG with this
> A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
> B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
> C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
> D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
> E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
> where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent
> 
> Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
> and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the silly response to your statement that made no sense to me, sorry.
> 
> Breezewood  is to : Breezewood comparing Emily to Hitler
> as
> Emily is to : http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/440oolong.jpg
> 
> "I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a Bunny with a Pancake on its head"
Click to expand...


there is no insult intended - to imply all are Sinners as yourself is foolhardy particularly when you are compared with what truly was and will "always" be and then find that objectionable.

Admission to the Everlasting is accomplished before you die not afterwards.


MD's hardwire is ludicrous, insane and factually immoral.

.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.



I know... so why do you believe in such things?


----------



## percysunshine

Boss said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
Click to expand...


.

If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not proveable.
> 
> It is possible for things to have always existed and didn't have a beginning or end.
> 
> Boss it is possible and may be necessary to set up the proof process
> WITHOUT assuming that God/Creation had a beginning since this is faith based.
> As you said we cannot know truth, but can only believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree we can only believe truth and cannot know it. I also agree that God cannot be proven, but virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. We can only believe things are proven (or disproven.)
> 
> Studying the logic and parameters of the physical universe, it appears it was created. Some estimate it was around 4.5 billion years ago. The fundamental basis for this logical assumption is the motion of the universe and entropy. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no motion because it defies Newtonian laws of motion for that to be the case. So either the physical universe had a beginning, or something incredible set it into motion. In either case, this began a phenomenon we realize as time and a concept we know as reality.
> 
> Entropy is the other piece of evidence. If the physical universe always existed, there could be no entropy because it defies logic. You can't observe something going from order to chaos and conclude it eternally had order. If something is travelling a course it's illogical to say it remains stationary forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
Click to expand...


What I am saying is none of us was there when it happened.
So we can never prove it by empirical perception and senses. 

If you are going to use Science to prove something,
I say use it to prove Spiritual Healing because that can be replicated
over and over to each person who asks to see it empirically.

The Big Bang cannot be replicated, it is only one event that happened in the past.

Spiritual Healing can be replicated and it will help each person and each case
that benefits from healing either ill conditions of the mind, body or relationships that are abusive or dysfunctional.

So that is a more practical application of Science to prove something.
Better to prove Spiritual Healing than argue over how Creation began
which was a one time event and cannot be replicated where we can observe the process.

With Spiritual healing we can!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'
> 
> Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.




Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones.  That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant.  Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right.  Theists are fools, idiots, morons, flat earthers, jackasses, liars, creeps, zealots, magical thinkers, charlatans.  I know you've called us those things.  If there's any other names you've called us, you're right about those too.  All of your insults are true.  Theists are worthless, stupid pigs.  They are never right.  They are wrong about everything.  You are the only one who is ever right.  Amen.  May the force be with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to make absolute claims that require belief in magic and supernaturalism and which are utterly unsupported with facts or evidence, well, if the shoe fits....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie:
> Here is where you are making a leap
> 
> You keep defining God = something magic supernatural that you don't believe in
> 
> I agree God is not that thing
> 
> So why keep starting the proof there
> 
> Are you okay with any of these things, which do you agree exists and explains all the forces and events in the world
> 
> God = Life, Nature, forces of Nature
> God = collective truth, collective universe, sum of all things ever existent, known or unknown
> God = Love, energy connecting all people as one humanity, Unconditional Love that naturally exists
> God = Good will for all humanity
> God = Wisdom (close to God = Truth or God = knowledge as MD equates to God = Creator)
> 
> If we agree that God = colelctive body of all knowledge, truth, wisdom
> can we start there
> 
> And stp before THIS step
> A. the leap MD makes by jumping from God = knowledge to God = Creator that has to exist or it runs into contradicitons
> B. the leap you make by jumping from God = knowledge to God = some magical supernatural being that can't exist
> 
> What is the step BEFORE those conflicting leaps?
> 
> God = knowledge or what?
> 
> Can you name one thing that determines
> what is going on in the world, what is true or false?
> 
> Numan said he called the highest default level
> "spiritual reality" and another researcher into prayer
> called it "the absolute" that even atheists have a concept of but call it different things
> 
> What do you call the central or default point of
> where truth and knowledge exists? can we start there where we agree
> and define and use only terms that mean something consistent to both people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, someone open a FUCKING WINDOW!!! It's getting hot, hot , hot in here with all this hot air. God is knowledge? Listen, if you don't know, just say so.
Click to expand...


Yes, to some people God = Wisdom
this is nothing new!

In fact, a speaker on women and the Bible pointed out
there are MORE references to God as Wisdom or Sophia
as an older archetype for God than references to
God as Heavenly Father which is newer.

the references to God as female Wisdom
OUTNUMBER the references to God as male father
by a ratio of 10 to 1 -- in the Bible alone!

If you add all the books in Buddhism where Wisdom is the ultimate source,
then the writings in Buddhism outnumber those in the Bible by about 11 times.
that's a lot more in favor of God = Wisdom or knowledge than God = personified

There is nothing wrong with using
God = to mean collective body of truth, knowledge and wisdom.

If that is the hot air you are talking about
that is 10 times the amount of popcorn
than the hot air about God as the Father!


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
> 
> If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.
> 
> The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical.
Click to expand...


Nope, not an exemption because they are magical, just that spiritual isn't physical. Peyton Manning doesn't get an exemption for not being a Cy Young Award winner, he will never win that award because he's not a baseball player. He probably does know how to play baseball, however.


----------



## emilynghiem

percysunshine said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear percysunshine:
better than a cat, I propose to Hollie and Justin
to prove that Spiritual Healing meets both the teachings in Christianity
and follows natural laws of science and medicine.

So it is both spiritual and natural science.
Documenting the process of how it works
would bridge the gap between religion and science.

Spiritual Healing would satisfy both.

Just like the brain works by both mental process
and physical chemical processes. It is both, not either or.


----------



## percysunshine

emilynghiem said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear percysunshine:
> better than a cat, I propose to Hollie and Justin
> to prove that Spiritual Healing meets both the teachings in Christianity
> and follows natural laws of science and medicine.
> 
> So it is both spiritual and natural science.
> Documenting the process of how it works
> would bridge the gap between religion and science.
> 
> Spiritual Healing would satisfy both.
> 
> Just like the brain works by both mental process
> and physical chemical processes. It is both, not either or.
Click to expand...


.

I was in the middle of quantum mechanics philosophy. I will have to change gears and think about this one.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'
> 
> Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones.  That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant.  Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings and C_Clayton_Jones:

I thanked CCJ for that message because it basically
negated the assumption and mixed up logic about how
"things can't create themselves," etc.

I agree that if you AGREE to symbolize a starting point as God
then that's fine for those people who AGREE to that system.

But for everyone else, if they don't agree to that starting point,
what is wrong with saying "things always existed" and start
with that as the default.

I'm saying the discussion about the universal laws still
can go on within either context, either with God representing
a creating starting point or God equalling all things with no beginning nor end.

The laws WITHIN creation/universe still work the same
and we can discuss and agree on them, regardless if
we ever agree on either God = creator or God = all creation
as the default position. the unviersal laws are so universal
they do not depend on the condition that we agree which
way God means to us, either creator or creation is good enough!

Thanks MD and CCJ

Sorry if it wasn't clear why I was thanking CCJ message.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> you are the initiator of slander ...
> 
> .



^ says BreezeWood who compared me with HITLER? ^

And has not bothered to either qualify, explain or retract that comparison?

????

Question: who is being slandered by comparing the two:
Hitler or Emily?
Maybe we should take a poll...


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm... there is nothing magical about spiritual energy. You are the one who believes in magic... That nothing came from nothing, there was a big bang for no reason, nothing produced something, tiny bits of self-replicating matter magically gathered and made dinosaurs.
> 
> And no... Spirituality was not invented to placate fears of the unknown because that is illogical. Next time you see a spider, say a prayer to 'Imaginary God' and see if that helps you not be afraid of the spider. I'm betting it has absolutely no affect whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing came from nothing" is not an argument I've ever made. The so-called Big Bang was a major disruption to time and space. All of the events surrounding that event are not fully understood. But to automatically assign the magic and supernaturalism of your gawds as the cause tells we don't have any reason to investigate. How does anyone your magical spirit realms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rational and empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be. That observation in no way, shape or form precludes the endeavors of science. Non sequitur.
> 
> The Big Bang did _not _disrupt time and space. It constitutes the moment right after time began as we know it now and the beginning of space.
> 
> “All of the events surrounding that event” are _not_ understood!
> 
> It seems, for example, that the singularity of the Big Bang emerged from a fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that existed before the singularity. We don’t know what the quantum vacuum is beyond the mathematic laws of physics and we don’t know what came before the quantum vacuum, if anything, scientifically. For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  What's funny about all this is that she keeps saying that people like you and me are ignorant about logic and reject science when everything she's says about logic and science is wrong and it's people like you and me who have to correct her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: And this would be cured by providing Hollie the science proof of spiritual healing
> she and others need to see who don't get that this is natural and not magical.
> 
> Please see previous msg where I challenge you and Hollie to the Bullring.
> Can you please tell me whre I need to clarify or correct anything there
> before I copy that msg into the Bullring? I am arguing that using science
> to demonstrate that spiritual healing is natural effective and consistent with science
> will end this argument that theists are pushing supernatural things that can't be proven,
> and will lead to agreements with atheists to use science to demonstrate spiritual healing instead of nonscience arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie needs a new brain, that's the healing she's needs.  Do you have one handy?
Click to expand...


Only as much as the impact of proving Spiritual Healing would change how you look at this also.
Spiritual Change tends to happen in tandem, and affect both sides of a conflict.

it is like the law of conversion, or equal and opposite reactions, Justin.

The deadlock between you and Hollie will change
mutually as much as you open up to see where Hollie is coming from
and she opens up to see where you are coming from.

Right now you both have each other pegged as either "angry Christians refusing to use science"
or "atheists rejecting refusing to use logic" or whatever.

That's why I propose to focus on Spiritual Healing that can be demonstrated by science.
So it satisfied Hollie and other atheists who are wanting to see science prove these things exist.
And it will show that if we use science to explain it to atheists, then there's no more preaching about anything
supernatural they don't get. We prove that it is natural and consistent with science what Christians are teaching.

So it solves the deadlock on both sides, not just changing one side.
Neither side changes their views but remains theist or atheist as before.
What changes is the perception that science and religion clash when they don't;
in reality they can agree and Spiritual Healing can show both are right: the 
Christians are right in how the process of forgiveness and healing transforms people
and the atheists are right that if something is true it should be consistent and demonstratable with science.
Both are correct!


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.



I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English. 

Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.

Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.

Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the initiator of slander ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ says BreezeWood who compared me with HITLER? ^
> 
> And has not bothered to either qualify, explain or retract that comparison?
> 
> ????
> 
> Question: who is being slandered by comparing the two:
> Hitler or Emily?
> Maybe we should take a poll...
Click to expand...



this is what I posted:





> "no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others".


.

I simply recognize the history of Christianity,








there, I hope that helps .... I do not promote your cause is all I am saying.

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hollie said:

“Faith is needed only when reason fails.”

Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know... so why do you believe in such things?
Click to expand...

Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.

Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism. 

Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> *emilynghiem: *OK so we have already established that "belief in God" is hardwired
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no emilynghiem - I do not agree with you ... your posts remind me of another time and the hearts of others.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


^ Here BreezeWood ^
1. then what is the picture of Hitler doing here?

2. I see that you can distinguish your understanding of the Almighty
from what you oppose about the ABUSE of the Christian God to commit genocide.

Why can't you see that my views of God align closer with yours?
Why did you *assume* that my views of God align with the abuse that causes genocide?

I apologize for miscommunicating where you got the opposite impression,
but can you see why your accusation of me is insulting?
When I do not believe in any kind of genocide, but only spiritual healing and inclusion!

I relate more to YOUR open views of the Almighty
which I assume are on the side of universal inclusion.

The main difference between your views and mine
is that you
1. exclude the Christian God
2. you assume the Christian God = genocidal abuse
3. I DISTINGUISH between the right teachings of the Christian God = Spiritual Healing
VERSUS
the false teachings that cause the genocical abuse which is Antichrist not Christ
4. You also lump me in with the false antichrist genocidal abuse of God
while not lumping your view of the Almighty with this

So BreezeWood if you can see that your view of the Almighty
is NOT the same but the OPPOSITE of the genocidal Antichrist God

WHY can't you see that my view is closer to YOUR view of the Almighty
and is ALSO the OPPOSITE of the genocidal Antichrist God

Why didn't you group you and me on the same side?

I don't believe in genocide and understand that came from
the Antichrist side of Retributive Justice.

The Christ side of God is Restorative Justice
which seeks peaceful means through
Forgiveness and Spiritual healing.

So my views of God are about
Healingn and inclusion which is the opposite of Genocide and antichrist.

????


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
> 
> Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
> 
> Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
> 
> Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
Click to expand...


Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.   

As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through.  The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie.  She appears to be a person of an unsound mind.  She has real psychological problems.  Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted.  He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/

Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.

Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Things can't create themselves" puts you in the uncomfortable position of yet again refuting your own argument.
> 
> If your gods (let's call them 1st  order gods), inhabiting your magical 1st order spirit realms didn't create themselves,  then the magical gods inhabiting magical 2nd order spirit realms must have created your magical 1st order gods and their magical spirit realms.
> 
> We're then left to require an entire hierarchy of 3rd order, 4th order, etc., to an infinity of super-super magical gods and spirit realms as the creators of the subordinate magical spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh.. but the spiritual doesn't require creation because 'creation' is a physical concept. It means literally, brought into a physical state of existence. The spiritual doesn't have to be brought into such a state.
> 
> The physical exists, it was created... you believe it was created by nothingness out of nothingness for no apparent reason... magic. I believe it was created by spiritual nature which has always existed as spiritual nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, so magical spirit realms have a special exemption because they're magical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not an exemption because they are magical, just that spiritual isn't physical. Peyton Manning doesn't get an exemption for not being a Cy Young Award winner, he will never win that award because he's not a baseball player. He probably does know how to play baseball, however.
Click to expand...

"Spiritual isn't physical" because it's magical and supernatural. Your weird attempt at sports analogy is a failure. There's nothing magical or supernatural about sports. 

Your revulsion for science, knowledge and rationality is noted. But your attempts to suggest that your spirit realms and magical gawds are extant is based more on wistful nostalgia, willful ignorance and uncompromising allegiance to dogma spewed by your fundamentalist ministries. Every point you attempt to make in furtherance of your revulsion for true knowledge is at best polemically skewed and at worst demonstrably false.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
Click to expand...

Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
> 
> Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
> 
> Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
> 
> Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
> 
> As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through.  The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie.  She appears to be a person of an unsound mind.  She has real psychological problems.  Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted.  He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
> 
> Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
> 
> Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.
Click to expand...

That's true, Boss. Join the cult of _M. Pompous Rawling_ (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be. 

Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 'No, it's just basic logic. Things can't create themselves if they don't exist... it's a paradox. You can't explain it any other way because there is no other logical explanation. The "fantasy" is believing in something totally illogical. That's what YOU believe.'
> 
> Actually this is completely devoid of logic, as this fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody gave you a thank you for that tripe, Jones.  That must have been Hollie, as for Hollie the objective facts of rational necessity and academia are irrelevant.  Never mind that if what you said were true, the foundation for science would be thusly destroyed.
Click to expand...

Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud. 

How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds. 

 Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.

But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”. 

Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are _not_. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the _irrational_.

And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Boss and M.D. Rawlings
> if it is possible the quantum vacuum may have always existed,
> then if we set God = the highest level of creation or existence,
> then God who created the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> So God/Creation = may have always existed without beginning or end.
> 
> A. Breezewood seems to take exception to separating God as Creator
> from the whole  of the Creation or all things = the Almighty
> B. others seem to take exception to Combining God with Creation
> and insist on distinguishing God as a Creator
> 
> I am asking BreezeWood what is wrong with allowing people to
> personify this part of Creation as Creator and God that way.
> 
> So I ask you the equivalent, what is wrong with blending
> God in with the whole of Creation?
> 
> Can't we still talk about universal laws whether we
> personify God = Creator
> or see God = Creation or Universe?
> 
> Doesn't the proof come out the same?
> as long as we agree to define God = something we agree is the ultimate level
Click to expand...


Yep.  And I already addressed that here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10047689/

The logically objective fact of the highest conceivable standard of divinity remains*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness/perfection as the Creator of all other things that exist.

The construct of the transcendent God is greater than that of the pantheistic god. That is an objective fact of human cognition, as the former is absolutely self-subsistent and resides above the cosmological order, while the latter is contingently existent and/or entwined below. Logically, to presuppose the latter, regardless what is ultimately true, is to beg the question in terms of necessity and possibility.

BreezeWood's problem is the purely psychological obstinacy of one who refuses to back out of his paradigm and objectively acknowledge the entire range of the logical possibilities. Fox suffers from this same shortcoming. I, on the other hand, do not. So I objectify apprehend that BreezeWood might be right, but the objectively highest standard of divinity remains. The former cannot be logically eliminated; in fact, the former is what holds up in the rational and mathematical proofs of infinity.

In any event, BreezeWood necessarily concedes that The Seven Things are objectively true regardless of what he thinks God is ultimately like.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
> 
> Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
> 
> Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
> 
> Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
> 
> As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through.  The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie.  She appears to be a person of an unsound mind.  She has real psychological problems.  Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted.  He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
> 
> Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
> 
> Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, Boss. Join the cult of _M. Pompous Rawling_ (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.
> 
> Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.
Click to expand...


Your prostrating before the very same alter, as are we all, so welcome to my world.  Amen.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all we know at this point, scientifically, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Boss and M.D. Rawlings
> if it is possible the quantum vacuum may have always existed,
> then if we set God = the highest level of creation or existence,
> then God who created the quantum vacuum may have always existed.
> So God/Creation = may have always existed without beginning or end.
> 
> A. Breezewood seems to take exception to separating God as Creator
> from the whole  of the Creation or all things = the Almighty
> B. others seem to take exception to Combining God with Creation
> and insist on distinguishing God as a Creator
> 
> I am asking BreezeWood what is wrong with allowing people to
> personify this part of Creation as Creator and God that way.
> 
> So I ask you the equivalent, what is wrong with blending
> God in with the whole of Creation?
> 
> Can't we still talk about universal laws whether we
> personify God = Creator
> or see God = Creation or Universe?
> 
> Doesn't the proof come out the same?
> as long as we agree to define God = something we agree is the ultimate level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  And I already addressed that here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10047689/
> 
> The logically objective fact of the highest conceivable standard of divinity remains*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness/perfection as the Creator of all other things that exist.
> 
> The construct of the transcendent God is greater than that of the pantheistic god. That is an objective fact of human cognition, as the former is absolutely self-subsistent and resides above the cosmological order, while the latter is contingently existent and/or entwined below. Logically, to presuppose the latter, regardless what is ultimately true, is to beg the question in terms of necessity and possibility.
> 
> BreezeWood's problem is the purely psychological obstinacy of one who refuses to back out of his paradigm and objectively acknowledge the entire range of the logical possibilities. Fox suffers from this same shortcoming. I, on the other hand, do not. So I objectify apprehend that BreezeWood might be right, but the objectively highest standard of divinity remains. The former cannot be logically eliminated; in fact, the former is what holds up in the rational and mathematical proofs of infinity.
> 
> In any event, BreezeWood necessarily concedes that The Seven Things are objectively true regardless of what he thinks God is ultimately like.
Click to expand...

And yet, your alleged pwoofs amount to nothing more than ".... because I say so"

Do you realize that people chuckle and sneer as you literally butcher the English language with hilarious attempts at meaningful sentences?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the behavior of persons who are telling us they have no real regard for the dignity, the humanity, the rights of others.  It's not accidental that most atheists tend to be statists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> What you do with that is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. I have never asserted any such thing without qualification. What I have asserted, objectively, and rightly so, is that the incontrovertible axiom that _God exits _is bioneurologically hardwired. That's a rational and empirical fact of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *R:* To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -
> 
> good luck with that Rawlings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit.  I have never said that, ever!  I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.  The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired.  That's tautological true.
> 
> That is not controversial.
> 
> Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities.  Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?
> 
> 
> *is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life*
> 
> that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I'll ask the questions from here on out.

On the face of them, 'til we get to the rational and mathematical  details of #4, is your notion affirmed by or precluded from The Seven Things?i

No.

How could it be?  The Seven Things only pertain to what _we_ can objectively assert.   Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein
Click to expand...

 Narly, dude. Rawling is a funky "New Ager" 

From Amazon book reviews:

*Editorial Reviews*
*Product Description*
Black Whole uncovers scientific proof that we are one. The work of physicist, Nassim Haramein, provides insight into the structure of space-time and a new coherent model of the universe. Using the sacred geometry and codes in ancient monuments and documents, the film presents a new look at the reality of which we live.


How cool is that? "Sacred geometry and codes". Those must have been the sacred geometry and codes left by the space aliens after they built the pyramids.


----------



## Justin Davis

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
Click to expand...


Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.


----------



## Tuatara

Justin Davis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
Click to expand...

Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Breezewood: Can you please reply to my questions below?
> I am trying to resolve why we miscommunicated so badly
> that you thought I was like Hitler which is the exact opposite of my approach
> that is all inclusive and universalist, treating all people and views as equally important to the whole.
> 
> Also below is the humorous approach if that works better!
> Here is the serious approach:
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Breezewood: I already posted a reply querying how you came up with
> this comparison to Hitler which seems the exact opposite of my nature.
> 
> I apologize that the miscommunication between us got so far off the mark
> that you got the opposite impression of what I was trying to say.
> 
> Please reply to that msg and explain how I am anything like Hitler,
> I am most curious to know.
> 
> As for this message, I will try to backtrack and find out where we talked past
> each other and crossed wires.
> 
> 1. weren't you saying that the belief in the Christian God
> was falsely hardwired?
> 
> if not I apologize because I thought you were
> negating MD statement about God as Creator
> 
> 2. Now I saw your msg where you are saying the Almighty exists
> but that MD is misportraying God
> 
> So my questions are this
> a. do you agree that MD's perception of God is hardwired or not
> b. if it can change then why are you insulting him or me as if that is going
> to inspire anyone to change?
> c. if it cannot change then why are you insulting him or me
> d. And WHY can't both ways of perceiving God co-exist?
> 
> What is WRONG with this
> A. atheists and nontheists who see laws and nature in terms of science
> B. Buddhist who see spiritual laws in terms of Wisdom and nature that is interconnected
> C. pagans who may see the world as life energy in the Creation or Mother Earth itself
> D. Christians who personify God as a Creator and distinguish this role from Creation
> E. Constitutionalists who look at laws as coming from Natural Laws and Human Nature
> where some attribute to God as the source and some say these laws are self-existent
> 
> Why can't we focus on the laws we DO agree with
> and not haggle over how we see the source of where they came from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the silly response to your statement that made no sense to me, sorry.
> 
> Breezewood  is to : Breezewood comparing Emily to Hitler
> as
> Emily is to : http://mentalfloss.com/sites/default/legacy/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/440oolong.jpg
> 
> "I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a Bunny with a Pancake on its head"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there is no insult intended - to imply all are Sinners as yourself is foolhardy particularly when you are compared with what truly was and will "always" be and then find that objectionable.
> 
> Admission to the Everlasting is accomplished before you die not afterwards.
> 
> 
> MD's hardwire is ludicrous, insane and factually immoral.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


How would you know it's ludicrous?  You've never once shown that you even understand what it is he's asserting. Unlike your posts we know what MD is talking about.  His stuff is objectively true universally.  We have no idea what your talking about half the time because you keep asserting things from an undefined and unidentified object of subjectivity.  There's a UFO in you head.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know... so why do you believe in such things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.
> 
> Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism.
> 
> Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.
Click to expand...


I've never used the term "supernatural design" and don't have any idea what that might be... Is that what you call it when something comes from nothing through a bang that happens for no reason, causing creation of life through fluke random chance? 

I believe spiritual nature created physical reality. There isn't anything "supernatural" about it and you've not proven it to be. I don't care how much you want to equate me with religion or religious extremists, I totally get why you feel so compelled. I am kicking your ass all over the place and you can't refute my arguments. That's common to respond that way.


----------



## Justin Davis

Tuatara said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
Click to expand...


As for the idea of God, that's nonsense.  You didn't understand did you?  The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought.  It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.  The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.  Nil probability?  You just made that up out of thin air.  That's not why they don't believe He exists.  They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no rational and empirical evidence for magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know... so why do you believe in such things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, obviously, you're befuddled and have to resort to goofy one- liners.
> 
> Unfortunately, you deride science for providing a mechanism for understanding the natural world. You would prefer instead to embrace ignorance and superstition. You would prefer instead to accept “the gawds did it” and go on your way. Unfortunately, that’s been the history of Religious fundamentalism.
> 
> Creationists/supernaturalists/gods did it ‘ists, are obligated to explain what they mean by "supernatural design". The problem with design arguments is there is no baseline from which one may accurately compare something that exhibits design from that which is natural, and because you're unable make distinctions between the two, you're something of the typical religious extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never used the term "supernatural design" and don't have any idea what that might be... Is that what you call it when something comes from nothing through a bang that happens for no reason, causing creation of life through fluke random chance?
> 
> I believe spiritual nature created physical reality. There isn't anything "supernatural" about it and you've not proven it to be. I don't care how much you want to equate me with religion or religious extremists, I totally get why you feel so compelled. I am kicking your ass all over the place and you can't refute my arguments. That's common to respond that way.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss and Hollie:
I challenge you to look at scientific demonstration of Spiritual Healing
as both natural and consistent with science AND following the 
Christian teachings principles and concepts.

It is both spiritual and natural.

so there is no need to argue that something cannot be both.

the people who see it and call it spiritual will agree it is that.
the people who only believe what science will show will see that it is natural
and follows a predictable process of steps and stages.

So both sides will be satisfied.

But the same process is what it is.

One side may focus and describe it spiritually.
the other may only understand the natural science part.

And there is no contradiction, it's the same healing process!


----------



## Justin Davis

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.





Which equals atheism.


----------



## G.T.

I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.


----------



## Boss

Tuatara said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
Click to expand...


*Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the idea of God, that's nonsense.  You didn't understand did you?  The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought.  It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.  The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.  Nil probability?  You just made that up out of thin air.  That's not why they don't believe He exists.  They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.

Some ppl don't agree with that definition.

I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought 
as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:

That God meaning something infinite
can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means

Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl

no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
merely pointing out what I said and also what
MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.


As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
Click to expand...

That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.

If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
> 
> Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
> 
> Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
> 
> Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
> 
> As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through.  The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie.  She appears to be a person of an unsound mind.  She has real psychological problems.  Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted.  He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
> 
> Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
> 
> Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.
Click to expand...


I still maintain that unless we are OMNISCIENT we cannot KNOW truth. We can BELIEVE that we know truth. Our BELIEF may be very well reasoned and logical, and lots of people may concur with it. Our BELIEF may conform to logic and common sense, and might even be true. Some people may even believe they are omniscient and do know truth. 

*Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.*

And I have already told you that the brow-beating me in front of the Atheists isn't going to work, it doesn't bother me, it's not making me change my mind. It actually causes me to lose respect for you. I think you've made some great arguments here, I've made a point to tell you this several times now, I've thanked your posts and defended your positions, but still you seem to want to denigrate me by speaking on behalf of others (including the atheists), when you really have no business doing that.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
Click to expand...


How do you know what "existence" looks like in another universe?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know what "existence" looks like in another universe?
Click to expand...

Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
Click to expand...


Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.



Really? 

*"this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow."
*
Sounds like you did just that.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking you.  I agree with you kind of.  I agree that knowledge cannot exist without God.  That's what you're really saying.  Stop saying  that objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing or that we can't have knowledge and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say objectivity and subjectivity were the same thing or that we can't have knowledge. How about stop acting like a jackwagon who can't read my posts? I keep having to correct you on what I've said, and I am typing in plain English.
> 
> Again (because you seem to be a hard head)... We humans create words to define various things and concepts... "Objectivity" is a word that we assign a certain value to which we call a "definition." Are you following me so far? I haven't lost you or said something you can't comprehend, have I? Now, the word "objectivity" means we've examined evidence without bias to form our opinion. Still following me? Do you not agree with this? Okay.... because we are human, we have bias. Because we are human, we are not omniscient. Therefore, even when we say we have been "objective" or "objectively" evaluated the evidence, we are subject to error as humans who do have bias. I did not say we intentionally do this, or that we are liars. Just that we are human. Our "objectivity" is subject to our own rationalizations and determinations of what is objective to us. In other words, it is subjective.
> 
> Same with knowing truth. Unless we are omniscient, we can never KNOW truth. That has nothing to do with "knowledge" or how we define "knowledge." It has to do with our inability to *know* truth because we are not omniscient beings. We *believe* we know truth... that's the best humans can ever do.
> 
> Now, either you GET what I have explained or you don't. If you don't get it,  just say, _"Boss, I don't get it!"_ No need to denigrate and insult me by twisting my words out of context and spitting them back in my face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, because Justin is talking about knowledge in terms of God's existence from the necessity of axiomatic first principles, he means true knowledge, knowledge about what is actually true. You're saying that we can never know truth. He's saying that we can. So he is not misreading you. Also, it does not follow that because we are finite minds that we cannot know truth. It does not follow that just because we cannot know the whole truth, we cannot know aspects of the whole truth in truth.
> 
> As for what Justin means, how do I know that? Well, it's not magic or because Justin is morphing. LOL! Fox is deluded because she's reacting rather than thinking things through.  The Seven Things are objectively and universally true, and every one of the atheists here know that, except, perhaps, Hollie.  She appears to be a person of an unsound mind.  She has real psychological problems.  Rather, I know Justin's from his posts, including the one he just posted.  He's asserting the major premise of the Transcendental Argument, which holds that knowledge is not possible unless God exists. It follows that if God exists, we can have true knowledge. Now as far as the details of what Justin believes beyond that, I cannot say, but foundationally he's telling you the same thing I told you here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043131/
> 
> Drop the violations of the second law of thought and come to the realization that we can and do know truth.
> 
> Most of those whom you have engaged, including the atheists, know intuitively that you're wrong.  You're only one step away from the realty of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, Boss. Join the cult of _M. Pompous Rawling_ (you can be cult member 2 behind Justin), you too can become all a thumper can be.
> 
> Just memorize "the seven things". That's the shahada for membership and you will prostrate yourself at the alter of "the seven things" at prayer vigils five times per day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your prostrating before the very same alter, as are we all, so welcome to my world.  Amen.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. There's nothing about fraud that have a need to tolerate.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't even IMPLY I knew what it would look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> *"this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow."
> *
> Sounds like you did just that.
Click to expand...

Umm...no. Not at all.

I said if there were multiple universes  they'd become a part of overall existence.

Didn't not a once imply a single descriptive term about what another universe would look like.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which equals atheism.
Click to expand...

Which means you're not understanding a number of very basic precepts.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!
Click to expand...

So then your answer to my original post about proving in an absolute sense that we were created should have been "we can never KNOW that."

I'd concur.


----------



## Tuatara

Justin Davis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the idea of God, that's nonsense.  You didn't understand did you?  The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought.  It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.
Click to expand...

Would you extend this exact rule to every other god? Didn't think so. Now we really see who's statement is contadictory and illogical.



> The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.


Sorry but there has been zero evidence.


> Nil probability?  You just made that up out of thin air.  That's not why they don't believe He exists.  They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.


Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.


----------



## Tuatara

Boss said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universe estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. Created by Big Bang.
> 
> How Old is the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
> Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
Click to expand...

So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which equals atheism.
Click to expand...


No these are Not equals.
Yes and no.

1. When Hollie points out leaps in logic that MD makes
she blames it on "theist bias"
2. When others reject God by making assumption
that is blamed on "atheist bias"

Obviously, leaps in logic are not limited
to either one.

a. you can make leaps in logic and NOT be atheist
b. you can make leaps in logic and NOT be theist
c. you can be atheist and NOT make leaps in logic
d. you can be theist and NOT make leaps in logic
e. you can be atheist and make leaps in logic
f. you can be theist and make leaps in logic

Any combination is possible

What I hear people complaining about is:
THAT PERSON is making a "leap in logic" I don't follow

So let's eliminate the leaps and disconnects
and not waste time blaming one side or the other


----------



## emilynghiem

Tuatara said:


> Faith means believing in something without evidence. Please provide the tiniest shred of evidence. I will even award you the pullitzer prize myself.



Challenge accepted.

The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
(ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.

So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.

So this can be demonstrated using medical science.

Tuatara I can post a reference to a medical study done on Rheumatoid Arthritis
it is not the study itself, but a description of it that is included in 
Francis MacNutt's book on Healing, edition 1999 or later when this study was added later.

I have asked Hollie and Justin to consider this approach to proving
a process within the Christian teachings to be consistent with natural science.

So far, GT has offered to look into it, and percysunshine is willing to consider
this angle.

How about you and Hollie?

If you are serious about this challenge
I agree it is Nobel Prize material to 
bridge the gap between science and religion.

This is huge and would change our mental health systems,
medical and criminal justice systems to focus on diagnosis and rehab
because this same method of healing mental and physical ills
can also be applied to heal criminal illness, drug and sexual abuse/addiction,
and even heal relationships so this would end abuse, crime, violence, bullying, war etc.
by healing people and relations of mental ills, physical ills, social ills, etc.

This is very big.

I hope you can see this by looking into it
and realizing the impact this would have
to share this knowledge scientifically so there 
is no more false division between science and religion,
faith and reason, but these are shown to be consistent systems

Let me know if you are serious Tuatara

GT and Percysunshine seem neutral and objective enough

Hollie and Justin seem more content to poke and slam back
and forth and may not be serious about resolving anything through science.

As much faith as Justin has, if he does not have faith that science can prove
spiritual healing, his faith may not be complete.

And if Hollie were so sure she was right that nothing in Christianity is true,
it would be no loss to look into scientific research of spiritual healing to
see whether or not that can be proven natural and effective.

Maybe Hollie and Justin are too afraid of the implications
of change if science and religion were to show a consistent healing process.

That means forgiveness does work to heal.
And maybe that is too threatening to Justin and Hollie
to forgive other atheists and theists to the same degree
that spiritual healing uses in order to cure these ills.

Maybe that is why they will skirt and avoid the question,
if they are not ready to forgive, and that is the basis of
how and why spiritual healing works; and failure to forgive
is what makes the process fail.

Maybe they want it to fail so they can blame the other.
Tuatara, are you open to proving this authority of God
by science? This has already been shown, but people
like Hollie and Justin aren't ready to look at the process
becuase it would end the fight between science and religion
and they'd rather keep fighting because that's what they are used to.

I don't think they would even know what to do if science and religion
were reconciled and there was no more reason to pick fights!


----------



## emilynghiem

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
> Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.
Click to expand...


No fairies is not equal to what people mean by God.

You would have to substitute something that is equivalent.

God = Life, truth, love, wisdom, good will, universal laws, collective set of all truths
or as MD and Justin are saying God = collective source or set of all knowledge

Tuatara if you believe truth can be verified by science
I propose to apply science to proving Spiritual Healing
according to these sources I have found to be
following/applying and teaching the practice consistently:
http://www.spirtual-healing.us

The reason this is the equivalent of proving God is that
this Spiritual Healing process requires the same forgivnees
to bring healing as it does to reach agreement on God.
And also, the specific applicaitno of Spiritual Healing to
cast out demonic voices, influences and personalities
making people sick uses the authority of Christ Jesus as God
to compel the demonic/satanic entities to be removed from the person's mind.

One of my close friends who is atheist
used this spiritual healing to get rid of demonic rage.
Only after the healing process was he finally able to
get rid of those thoughts he couldn't control before.
He didn't think they would ever leave. But after the process
of forgiveness and deliverance, which uses the authoiryt
of Christ even though he is atheist and doesn't beleive in that,
it still worked. he was able to keep those demonic rages out of his head.

So this can be demonstrated by repeating the process on people
like my friend with that demonic rage from abuse,
and like the Schizophrenic patients in Dr. Peck's book who were
also cured of demonic voices and persoanlities that had taken over their minds.

This would prove that Christians are right that this prayer in Christ Jesus
works to heal people.

And it would show that if someone is atheist, then after they are
healed, they can still remain atheist, they don't have to convert.

I know people who were healed and remain nontheist.

So there is no reason to fear that it is for some religious agenda.

The spiritual process of healing is natural, free, does not
require anyone to join a group before or after and doesn't
necessarily convert anyone unless that is natural for you to do that anyway.

The only requirement is to agree to pray for forgivneess
in order to remove the blocks to healing so that
the natural healing energy can flow through and heal
the mind body spirit and relationships.

Jus tlike going to the doctor.
You would have to agree to go through the medical process
to receive treatment; and with spiritual healing you would have
to agree to go through the steps of asking help with forgiveness
and then it works. Just asking opens the channels for the
help with forgivness and healing, so that's why it works for
peole of any faith background; and that's why it fails if
people refuse to forgive and they block their own healing.

Science can show both the successes and failures
and document the correlation between forgivness and 
successful healing/recovery and the correlation between
unforgiveness and failure to heal or resolve conflicts.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
Click to expand...


Are you sure about that?  How about as a means of reading His mind as He speaks to us about Himself?

While it is true that "math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance", it is also true that the implications of infinity as symbolically or mathematically rendered, particularly in model logic, prove God's necessity. Indeed, these proofs, beginning with Gödel's, have been run through computer simulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html

The calculi that demonstrate the infinite density of vacuum energy in quantum electrodynamics have profound transcendental implications too.

And as I demonstrated on this thread, the principle of identity proves that any given _A_ of a single predicate can be two or more things unto infinity simultaneously . . . and the implications of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals. . . .

But then let's also look at the number line, you know, one of those _As_ of a single predicate apprehended via the logical principle of identity that _is_ comprised of an infinite set of numbers simultaneously. Indeed, it has infinities within it's infinite set of numbers as the law of division holds. You do recall the functional proof I provided in calculus, don't you?

Yeah. Let us consider the implications of the number line in terms of the construct of the eternal now as extrapolated from the logical principle of identity while that line infinity stretches out for eternity on either side of ground *0* at the center of the _now_ in the light of that incontrovertible axiom of divine identity that cannot be logically refuted without proving that God must be: TAG.

Listen up, Fox, God is talking to us all the time, particularly through the mathematics of infinity: I AM!

Objectively speaking, mathematics would necessarily be the purist form of intellectual communication between God and man, as it's nature is _a priori_ and lines up perfectly, yet another proof for the universality of the principle of identity, with the world of a posteriori knowledge. Yep! Where human language breaks down in the explication of the laws of physics, the language of mathematics coherently keeps right on trucking as it defines, delineates and describes. The idea that mathematics is the language of divinity packed with profound transcendental implications is hardly anything new: a tradition of belief that goes back centuries and includes the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Pascal, Einstein. . . .

https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~kvikram/htmls/read/maths.htm

Currently, the most famous proponent is physicist Michio Kaku: http://bigthink.com/videos/dr-michio-kaku-math-is-the-mind-of-god

By the way, because they're inherently premised on the first principle of existence (the cosmological order), the most immediately intuited  and scream the universal language of mathematics via the logical principle of identity*:* the variously asserted transcendental and ontological arguments, in that order, are the most powerfully compelling, not the cosmological.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 + 2 = 4 depending on what value you put on each number.  Assuming each number has the same value then yes, 2 + 2 = 4.  But 2 pounds of bricks plus 2 bags of feathers does not necessarily equal 4 pounds.  This is splitting hairs of course and taking the argument to the brink of absurdity, but it does demonstrate the difficulty any time we speak in absolutes without defining the components of our thesis.
> 
> Math isn't too useful when it comes to comparing pounds of bricks with bags of feathers but it can be used to illustrate the difference between those two things.
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.   However, math can be used effectively to illustrate the improbability of an Earth and its life forms and the universe it occupies all being the way it is purely by chance.  And therein is a good argument for some form of intelligence guiding the process and many people call that intelligence "God".
Click to expand...


So let us review a previous post that summarized what you called—what did you say again?—"irrational and incomprehensible" in the light of that last post addressed to you:


You've never bothered to explain why God's attributions would necessarily be confined to _your_ anthropomorphic, one-dimensional construct of time in the face of the post that annihilated your purely subjective, preconceived notions regarding something nobody else but you and QW, in truth, claimed to understand absolutely from scripture, albeit, in the rather cramped quarters of a cure for a nonexistent problem that would necessarily create a multitude of others. Oh no! We couldn't possibly live in a multidimensional reality wherein absolute omniscience and free will coexist without contradiction . . . and without the staggeringly complex problems of closing the door on God's absolutely perfect foreknowledge.

Are _you_ challenging the validity of multidimensional-field theorems as premised on the calculi of infinitesimals? After all, these are the more complex mathematical functions of infinity that are putatively beyond our ken. These go to the ramifications of infinity as a mathematical construct regarding the experientially affirmed phenomena of quantum fields, including the position-momentum dichotomy in the properties of the wave-like systems of quantum physics. You know, among the kinds of things that QW alleged to be . . . irrational, inscrutable, though in fact they flow like water from one coherent postulate to the next.

Or perhaps you can't imagine how it might be possible to propositionally explore the implications of qualities like _perfection_ or _eternity_ or _absoluteness_ . . . on the basis of absolute infinity, linguistically _and_ mathematically, not just in classical logic, but, in spite of what QW averred, in intuitionistic/constructive logic and modal logic as well!

What's easier for you to understand about the apparent metaphysical ramifications of infinity as inferred from the phenomena of multidimensional space and time and the apparent potentialities of the transcendent constructs of ultimacy? The calculus of infinitesimals and quantum physics, or the more apprehensible implications of it in terms of a first-level function of division by infinity in theoretical calculus coupled with an explication of the compound, simultaneity of entities of a single predicate in accordance with the first law of organic thought, A: A = A?​


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the idea of God, that's nonsense.  You didn't understand did you?  The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought.  It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.  The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.  Nil probability?  You just made that up out of thin air.  That's not why they don't believe He exists.  They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.
> 
> Some ppl don't agree with that definition.
> 
> I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought
> as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:
> 
> That God meaning something infinite
> can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means
> 
> Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
> like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
> we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl
> 
> no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
> merely pointing out what I said and also what
> MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
> that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
> that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
> and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
> God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
> opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
> approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
> some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.
Click to expand...


Rawlings already proved that wrong in his earlier posts and proved that wrong again. It's self-evident to this plumber.  Why are there so many people here with no commonsense?    God would have to be infinite in His being and the idea that we would have to guess about that or can't prove it is the silliest thing I read on this thread.  Infinity is all around us, everywhere we look. What do you mean we can't understand infinity?  It's in our finite minds and we've been doing the ideas and mathematics of infinity for a long time easy.   Obviously God would have to be greater than our finite minds.  If we can do complex calculations in our minds about infinity He is doing that and other things infinitely greater. If God exists He's obviously telling us that He's infinite, unlimited in His understanding and power.   The debate on that is over.  There never should have been any doubt bout this in the first place.  Commonsense.  Commonsense.  Commonsense.  We know God would have to be infinitely great than infinite things that exist in our minds and in the universe.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!
Click to expand...


For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for the idea of God, that's nonsense.  You didn't understand did you?  The statement that "God doesn't exist" violates the laws of organic thought.  It's contradictory and is logically a statement that He does exist.  The evidence for God's existence, rational, mathematical and empirical, is powerful.  Nil probability?  You just made that up out of thin air.  That's not why they don't believe He exists.  They don't believe He exists based on nothing at all but blind, stupid faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: God exists by logic where you and I and MD agreed to define God equals something we agreed exists.
> 
> Some ppl don't agree with that definition.
> 
> I think Tuatara may come from the same school of thought
> as Godel, who I cited and GT and PercySunshine also:
> 
> That God meaning something infinite
> can neither be proven nor disproven by man's finite means
> 
> Only if we AGREE to use God to mean something we AGREE exists
> like collective truth, laws and life then we can prove it using logic because
> we already defined these things and agreed they exist and align consistentlyl
> 
> no need to take issues with Tuatara who is
> merely pointing out what I said and also what
> MD said that science doesn't prove anything,
> that's why he uses the logic proof with global symbols
> that covers all cases. that's fine but the people lik eyou
> and me who follow MD TAG proof AGREE to define
> God as such, so this excludes people who don't agree to that
> opening definition. thanks, this is why I offer to use the science
> approach to demonstrate spiritual healing for poeple who need to see
> some concrete science and don't relate to defining it in terms of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rawlings already proved that wrong in his earlier posts and proved that wrong again. It's self-evident to this plumber.  Why are there so many people here with no commonsense?    God would have to be infinite in His being and the idea that we would have to guess about that or can't prove it is the silliest thing I read on this thread.  Infinity is all around us, everywhere we look. What do you mean we can't understand infinity?  It's in our finite minds and we've been doing the ideas and mathematics of infinity for a long time easy.   Obviously God would have to be greater than our finite minds.  If we can do complex calculations in our minds about infinity He is doing that and other things infinitely greater. If God exists He's obviously telling us that He's infinite, unlimited in His understanding and power.   The debate on that is over.  There never should have been any doubt bout this in the first place.  Commonsense.  Commonsense.  Commonsense.  We know God would have to be infinitely great than infinite things that exist in our minds and in the universe.
Click to expand...


Hi Justin
the way MD explained it
A. he said we "cannot use Science to prove it."
Science can only verify or falsify but not prove all examples which are infinite.

So this is what the atheists are bringing up
that no one has ever used Science to prove it!

So we agree on that.

B. We can use logic to symbolize it globally.
And here, as long as we define God consistently,
then we can agree God = something we agree exists.

What we don't agree on is how to symbolize
and define God to show this is consistent.

is that clear?

Because we don't agree on the definitions
MD cites with the TAG

that is why I offer to go back to A
and use Spiritual Healing as a subset of God/Christianity
that we CAN use Science to verify.

So we can do part of A and explain taht
part to atheists who need to see science verify something
in Christianity is real.

Justin can we try that first?
Try proving something using science
and after we agree on that,
go back and try B again using the logic
and definitions of God to represent the infinite level.

Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.



Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.

The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.

MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.

For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
all other definitions of God.

it's close enough

So for people who want
A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life

C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations. 

So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.

I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.

Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.

That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.



And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.   

Once again:


Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:
Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.

Logic proceeds from _justifiable_ true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

*The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!*

*Proceed*, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.​


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.
> 
> The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
> is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
> with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.
> 
> MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.
> 
> For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
> and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
> just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
> doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
> all other definitions of God.
> 
> it's close enough
> 
> So for people who want
> A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
> B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
> C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
> ==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life
> 
> C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
> genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
> continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
> and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.
> 
> So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
> then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.
> 
> I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.
> 
> Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
> and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.
> 
> That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.
Click to expand...

Md's logic fails.

It begs the question, which is a logical fallacy. It also starts with an unproven premise. You cannot as an absolute state that we were 'created' as opposed to a wide range of other existence theories - until you FIRST and absolutely disprove the other possibilities.

I don't know why such a simple concept is so hard to grasp.

Md's logic is not sound, it is a fallacy. A quite obvious one.

Want to know how to tell if I'm right? Have him disprove as an absolute (key word) that existence in some form or other didn't 'always' exist, thus was not "created" thus god cannot be said to be 'creator' in an absolute logical proof.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> 
> Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.
> 
> So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
> 
> Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
> 
> As I have written elsewhere:
> Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
> All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
> 
> In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.
> 
> Logic proceeds from _justifiable_ true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.
> 
> *The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!*
> 
> *Proceed*, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.​
Click to expand...

 
And once again because you chose to sidestep direct refutations to your pointless blathering. 

Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud. 

How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds. 

Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.

But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”. 

Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are _not_. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the _irrational_.

And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.


----------



## Justin Davis

Tuatara said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> There Was No Big Bang Say Several Leading Cosmologists A Galaxy Classic
> 
> _Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but spacetime.
> 
> Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy -except gravity- can escape or enter and that  that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe. And our membrane may be only one of many, all of which may warp, connect, and collide with one another in as many as 10 dimensions -a new frontier physicists call the "brane world." Stephen Hawking, among others, envisions brane worlds percolating up out of the void, giving rise to whole new universes.
> _
> So there you have it... there is not a consensus that we even had a Big Bang. Keep in mind also, the Big Bang Theory is less than 100 years old, and the actual term "Big Bang" originated as a pejorative from scientists who ridiculed the notion.
> 
> You continue to demonstrate my point, humans can't know truth, they can only believe things are true. You believe the Big Bang is true, you have faith in that belief. But that does not mean it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
> Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.
Click to expand...


You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly.  You're wait late in this debate.  Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.

Quoting Rawlings:

*"The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. "

__________________________

You've got nothing.  There'll  be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in.  All of that silliness is over.  That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.

Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your dishonest tricks again. First of all no one ever stated the Big Bang is the absolute truth. Right now it is the best explanation which is always being fine tuned. All the people mentioned in the article, Stephen Hawking & Alan Guth believe in the big bang but they also put forth other theories like particle theory. They ceratainly don't believe in any god or creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
> Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly.  You're wait late in this debate.  Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.
> 
> Quoting Rawlings:
> 
> *"The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. "
> 
> __________________________
> 
> You've got nothing.  There'll  be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in.  All of that silliness is over.  That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.
> 
> Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.
Click to expand...


"Quoting" your cult leader? That's so cute.

"Quoting" a failed, circular argument, one that was intended to revive a dead " five things" argument is a joke.

Go flail your Pom Poms elsewhere.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.
> 
> The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
> is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
> with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.
> 
> MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.
> 
> For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
> and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
> just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
> doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
> all other definitions of God.
> 
> it's close enough
> 
> So for people who want
> A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
> B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
> C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
> ==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life
> 
> C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
> genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
> continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
> and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.
> 
> So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
> then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.
> 
> I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.
> 
> Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
> and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.
> 
> That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Md's logic fails.
> 
> It begs the question, which is a logical fallacy. It also starts with an unproven premise. You cannot as an absolute state that we were 'created' as opposed to a wide range of other existence theories - until you FIRST and absolutely disprove the other possibilities.
> 
> I don't know why such a simple concept is so hard to grasp.
> 
> Md's logic is not sound, it is a fallacy. A quite obvious one.
> 
> Want to know how to tell if I'm right? Have him disprove as an absolute (key word) that existence in some form or other didn't 'always' exist, thus was not "created" thus god cannot be said to be 'creator' in an absolute logical proof.
Click to expand...


Dear GT:
If you notice the TAG approach A works for MD, Justin and others who already agree with that definition of
God = knowledge/Creator or some variation of that or can forgive the biases in the approach etc.

So fine, let that approach work for the A team.

For the B team, you and I and others may be more open to taking
something that Christians claim, and Demonstrate this is consistent with natural science.

So fine, let's use approach B for that B team.
I actually think this will be the most helpful because of
practical benefit that applies to more cases that affect more people.

Then there are people who don't trust Christians or care for A or B
and just want to see proof that people can make peace in Christ Jesus
and bring on this whole "Kingdom of God" in real life.

So for each case that prevents people from believing in forgiveness
to heal relations and bring peace, let's prove cases under C case by case
to reach those people who would change their minds if they see it work in real life.

I think that will follow once B is proven
and then people want to see B applied to different case;
curing cancer, criminal illness, political or religious abuse, etc. etc.

So GT if you don't see any point to approach A then don't go there.

Let that be for people who come to agreement among themselves,
like theists who need to agree about God = Wisdom or God = Life
and agree that still means the same God as the Source of Life, Wisdom, Knowledge etc.

I'm happy to work with you and Hollie and others who would
LIKE to see science prove SOMETHING about these claims!

I think this will make sense and reach more people than A will.
But A is necessary to get all the theists on the same page, so let it be for those folks!

Thanks GT
Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> “Faith is needed only when reason fails.”
> 
> Or as is most often the case, when reason is rejected or ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so, his nonsense utterly falsified by my previous post he blathers his this nonsense again.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> 
> Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.
> 
> So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
> 
> Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
> 
> As I have written elsewhere:
> Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
> All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
> 
> In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.
> 
> Logic proceeds from _justifiable_ true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.
> 
> *The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!*
> 
> *Proceed*, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again because you chose to sidestep direct refutations to your pointless blathering.
> 
> Oh, you poor dear. What a shame that your nonsensical "the seven things" has been exposed as a fraud.
> 
> How strange that you're carrying on with failed lectures regarding "objective facts of rational necessity" when those elements are not a requirement in your spirit realms and inventions of supernatural gawds.
> 
> Your deductive and perceptive skills are non-existent. On the contrary, my arguments are supported by evidence and reason.
> 
> But what does your argument assert? Nothing except “the gawds did it”.
> 
> Your assertion of your various "gawds" does not tell us what gawds are, it tells us what gawds are _not_. Gawds are not part of the natural world, they are part of some magical, supernatural. Since the natural world incorporates the rational (as per reliable perception is concerned) then by definition the supernatural must define the _irrational_.
> 
> And in fact, your really skewed and twisted inventions including your fraudulent "five things" later trashed in favor of the more deeply fraudulent "seven things" is really a testament to your really bankrupt ability to make a coherent argument.
Click to expand...


OK Hollie so let's prove to MD that a different approach works better and reaches more people.

I proposed approach B to demonstrate how Spiritual Healing works by applying science studies.

Let's do this, and show how many more people respond to SCIENCE proof rather than just LOGIC definitions.

In fact, MD will still get his way, because after more conflicts are resolved and healed by
understanding approach B, then this will help stop conflicts and rejection over approach A. 

But he will be wrong that Science cannot be used to help make these points.
Because either directly it will be used to "verify or falsify" teachings in Christianity,
and indirectly by teaching how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
this applies to resolving conflicts over Approach A anyway!

So either way, it helps resolve conflicts so more people
reach agreement on the definitions he lists in A.


----------



## emilynghiem

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even MD is in agreement that science cannot prove, but can only verify or falsify.
> 
> The closest I can offer to using science to prove something in Christianity
> is to replicate studies on Spiritual Healing to show this works consistently
> with natural science and medicine as a process that follows predictable steps and stages in a pattern.
> 
> MD wants to focus on logic and definitions of God to prove on that level.
> 
> For those who want to try science, I say to apply this to spiritual healing
> and yes, we can go that route, it isn't perfect and doesn't cover all cases
> just because you keep proving each one you study. But God = Creator
> doesn't cover all cases either and it still works to get it one case and then "infer" that it applies to
> all other definitions of God.
> 
> it's close enough
> 
> So for people who want
> A. logical proof by definition ==> use TAG and get on same page with MD
> B. science proof by verifying ==> use medical studies on spiritual healing
> C. case by case examples of applying Christian healing to real life conflicts
> ==> apply this same process to resolving religious and political conflicts in real life
> 
> C is the most empirical level. Take any conflict such as ISIS, forced abortions in China,
> genocidal tribal wars and rapes in Africa, drug and human trafficking across the American
> continents and countries, and show that spiritual healing cures the root cause of ills
> and brings peace by restoring justice and good faith relations.
> 
> So if we are going to prove the Kingdom of God or world peace is established globally
> then in real practice that means resolving ALL conflicts and showing peace is made through Christ.
> 
> I say we start with B and get what this spiritual healing process is.
> 
> Then it can be applied to A to reconcile definitions of God and get on the same page
> and it can be applied to C to show real life examples of curing sickenss and healing relations.
> 
> That is the proof process I propose to MD and to other people I am asking to join in teams around this.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
Boss and GT, percysunshine and Hollie,
TAZ and Tuatara, BreezeWood and Friends:

This is the three point outline I will present to a friend
who has a network of counselors working on spiritual outreach
to resolve issues that are holding people back from uniting in spirit.

I will PM to M.D. and Boss the email and phone number of my friend,
and ask to set up video conferencing to start putting teams together.

It seems Justin Davis Boss and M.D. and I are okay with approach A
but for those who want to see hard science I am proposing B.

Justin and Hollie if you are okay leading up the team to set up
studies on Spiritual Healing for Approach B, I trust you to make
sure the set up is not biases for or against to fail or succeed unnaturally,
but will truly be set up normal as any other medical study on any other
form of therapy to see the process and effects on the subjects.

I will ask Boss and M.D. about setting up a website to
organize a consensus among theists on Approach A.

This is not for everyone, but approach B should appeal and make
sense to a broader audience. And once we prove the correlation
between forgiveness with spiritual healing/reconciliation, then we
can apply Approach B to demonstrate/verify case by case examples
of real life healing of physical, social and mental ills in Approach C.
(ie not just proving cases in a study but picking real life issues
and demonstrating how forgiveness correlates with resolving
conflicts and unforgiveness correlates with failure to solve problems)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> . . . absolutely irrational and incomprehensible. . . .



It's only comments like this that have ever raised my ire, for all your talk that I have gratuitously insulted persons on this thread.

Now, as promised, I'm going to directly address the core of your fallacious criticisms. I'm going to make sure that you're laced up on the facts and on how things are going to go between you and me from here on out should you choose to stick around. We're going to be very clear on some things, you and I.

First, lose the risible stupidity that the only objectively defensible standard of divine attribution _does not _constitute the only open-ended perspective that does not subjectively impose any preconceived notions that would beg the question, nitwit, which is the crux of your inability to understand what I'm talking about in terms of infinity. In other words, the essence of my alleged irrationality is in fact your ignorance and intellect bigotry*: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044563/

You will not give me any more of your lip about my posts being irrational or incomprehensible with impunity. In the face of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin demonstrated by me (*#2697, #2599, #2600*), you have no business telling anybody that my posts are not sound. You couldn't possibly have any practical counter to these things.

I strongly recommend you carefully read the posts in the parenthesis in the above and get a clue!

I _am_ in fact an authority on conceptual analysis, mathematical logic, theology and the pertinent history of ideas and events, and have a solid background in the pertinent science. There's no pretense here, and the terms that I use are correct. They'll be no more of this hysterical tripe about me trying to impress you or anyone else. I'm impervious to the herd mentality and the cheap tactics of attacking the man.

*Bottom line*: I'm no less constitutionally prone to logical errors in expression or in fact than anyone else,. Hence I have no problem whatsoever in anyone bringing such errors to my attention that I might be improved. There'll be no more of *your* pretentious blather implying that you are in any position to access the validity of my posts from your one-dimensional perspective of time, more to the point, as if you understood the rational and mathematical conceptualizations of infinity and the multidimensional simultaneity of the universal principle of identity.

In other words, you will stop pretending that your perspective is an uncontestable absolute of absolute certainty, nitwit. You _will_ pull your ass out of your cramped paradigm and come to terms with mine or shut up. You will not declare the actually existent and objectively demonstrable paradigm of realty to be irrational, illogical or incomprehensible sans justification without having this post follow you every time you open yap on this thread.

We live in a material reality that is infinity divisible and mathematically quantify it using an infinite set of numeric values. We readily apprehend, both rationally and mathematically, the construct of infinity and do all kinds of calculi in infinity with no sweat. Yet you would imagine that God, the Creator of it all, would be something less than infinitely great, something less than the infinities of His creation in terms of attribution?

And since you don't think you have any responsibility to grasp the premise and particulars of my posts before you pop off, when I see you making factually or logically unsound pronouncements on this thread you will see this post again until such time you retract your baloney. For example, you opined that mathematics couldn’t be used to demonstrate anything about divine attribution at all after reading my post on that very same topic. Perhaps you think I don‘t know what I‘m talking about regarding the distinctions between logical proofs and scientific affirmations. *In the meantime, mathematicians have been asserting the opposite of what you averred to be a ridiculous for centuries.
*
The objectively apprehensible facts of the matter belong to us all, not just you. We all have the right to know if what you're implying holds up in the light of what the laws of organic thought evince about the construct of infinity.

Neither your demagogic tactics nor your dogmatic fanaticism is going to fly against the objective facts around here. You're not going rob others from the opportunity of recognizing the self-evident I AM of human cognition and what necessarily follows while I'm around.

Check?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.



Didn't pick up on that from the construct of God itself that's in _your_ mind, eh?  You know, the idea of a Creator that's in _your_ mind that _you_ cannot logically rule out or even logically say doesn't exist.  You know, the idea that makes _you_ an agnostic.  You know the idea of a Creator, which of course, necessarily assigns the value of creation to the cosmological order.,    

My question for you:  why do you keep lying to yourself and others?


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> The Christ side of God is Restorative Justice
> which seeks peaceful means through
> Forgiveness and Spiritual healing.
> 
> So my views of God are about
> Healingn and inclusion which is the opposite of Genocide and antichrist.
> 
> ????



sorry, for me the above makes no sense and is contradictory to past history, if it is your justification then that is for you to decide though that is my point, Christianity is the obstacle ... best of luck.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't just conducted yourself as you have made the accusation ... what Atheists are there you are talking about as perhaps only one comes to mind and no one that fits your description.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it is not bioneurologically anything, you simply do not understand the Almighty ... to bad for you.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The axiom is hardwired, at the very least, bioneurologically, as the fundamental laws of thought are universal. One can objectively and justifiably assert that. To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter. Nevertheless, this assertion in no way, shape or form necessarily precludes that the laws of thought persist above the level of the material realm of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *R:* To assert the existence of an immaterial soul, however, would bias the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so it is your physiology you will be Admitting to the Everlasting and leaving your Spirit behind -
> 
> good luck with that Rawlings.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood, I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit.  I have never said that, ever!  I am saying that the only thing I can OBJECTIVELY or SCIENTIFICALLY assert is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life in terms of physical nature, is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.  The rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, including the three laws of organic thought and the axioms thereof are bioneurologically hardwired.  That's tautological true.
> 
> That is not controversial.
> 
> Stop quibbling, going in circles, talking banalities.  Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that there is no soul or spirit - is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life - is at the very least bioneurologically hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you suggesting there are any forms of life created by the Almighty that are not synonymous with a Spirit - and your Spirit is "hardwired" ?
> 
> 
> *is that which makes us humans, sets us apart from all other terrestrial life*
> 
> that is what you conclude from your "7 Things" -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any more posts from you that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying will be ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, I'm just curious how Flora without a neurological tract becomes hardwired if it is not their Spirit you are talking about .... ( that do not emphatically acknowledge what I am saying ) and no you are not Hitler, you just remind me of that type of persuasion.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask the questions from here on out.
> 
> On the face of them, 'til we get to the rational and mathematical  details of #4, is your notion affirmed by or precluded from The Seven Things?i
> 
> No.
> 
> How could it be?  The Seven Things only pertain to what _we_ can objectively assert.   Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?
Click to expand...













> The Seven Things only pertain to what _we_ can objectively assert -  Do you know what you're dog is asserting, if anything, about the Seven Things?







> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> *5.* However, science cannot currently verify whether or not God exists.




I lost the other two .... my friend above would most likely leave out what is in red, the indecisiveness however that is not to assert in any manner a substitute for the knowledge within for the subject of the Creator and their goals as the same that exists in all that is living - (except perhaps humanity).

really, MDR you do yourself a disservice by not seeing in all of life something you believe is meant only for yourself or humanity.  

do your Seven Things accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? no, that is the point.

.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.
Click to expand...

Everything I present is in the context that I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I could be right, you could be right, or we both could we wrong or right at the same time, or at any given time. Nothing is ever absolute.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't pick up on that from the construct of God itself that's in _your_ mind, eh?  You know, the idea of a Creator that's in _your_ mind that _you_ cannot logically rule out or even logically say doesn't exist.  You know, the idea that makes _you_ an agnostic.  You know the idea of a Creator, which of course, necessarily assigns the value of creation to the cosmological order.,
> 
> My question for you:  why do you keep lying to yourself and others?
Click to expand...

Insisting that god is in my mind is not absolute proof that existence was created.

Want to try again?


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
> (ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
> can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.
> 
> So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
> for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
> AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.
> 
> So this can be demonstrated using medical science.


Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
 Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...



So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God. 

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?

I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.



Wrong.  Nevertheless. . . .


*EDIT: Post #2854*.

*I spelled assess as access.*

See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.

So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.

But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are *assessing* them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!

And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that _does_ follow from them.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . absolutely irrational and incomprehensible. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only comments like this that have ever raised my ire, for all your talk that I have gratuitously insulted persons on this thread.
> 
> Now, as promised, I'm going to directly address the core of your fallacious criticisms. I'm going to make sure that you're laced up on the facts and on how things are going to go between you and me from here on out should you choose to stick around. We're going to be very clear on some things, you and I.
> 
> First, lose the risible stupidity that the only objectively defensible standard of divine attribution _does not _constitute the only open-ended perspective that does not subjectively impose any preconceived notions that would beg the question, nitwit, which is the crux of your inability to understand what I'm talking about in terms of infinity. In other words, the essence of my alleged irrationality is in fact your ignorance and intellect bigotry*: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044563/
> 
> You will not give me any more of your lip about my posts being irrational or incomprehensible with impunity. In the face of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin demonstrated by me (*#2697, #2599, #2600*), you have no business telling anybody that my posts are not sound. You couldn't possibly have any practical counter to these things.
> 
> I strongly recommend you carefully read the posts in the parenthesis in the above and get a clue!
> 
> I _am_ in fact an authority on conceptual analysis, mathematical logic, theology and the pertinent history of ideas and events, and have a solid background in the pertinent science. There's no pretense here, and the terms that I use are correct. They'll be no more of this hysterical tripe about me trying to impress you or anyone else. I'm impervious to the herd mentality and the cheap tactics of attacking the man.
> 
> *Bottom line*: I'm no less constitutionally prone to logical errors in expression or in fact than anyone else,. Hence I have no problem whatsoever in anyone bringing such errors to my attention that I might be improved. There'll be no more of *your* pretentious blather implying that you are in any position to access the validity of my posts from your one-dimensional perspective of time, more to the point, as if you understood the rational and mathematical conceptualizations of infinity and the multidimensional simultaneity of the universal principle of identity.
> 
> In other words, you will stop pretending that your perspective is an uncontestable absolute of absolute certainty, nitwit. You _will_ pull your ass out of your cramped paradigm and come to terms with mine or shut up. You will not declare the actually existent and objectively demonstrable paradigm of realty to be irrational, illogical or incomprehensible sans justification without having this post follow you every time you open yap on this thread.
> 
> We live in a material reality that is infinity divisible and mathematically quantify it using an infinite set of numeric values. We readily apprehend, both rationally and mathematically, the construct of infinity and do all kinds of calculi in infinity with no sweat. Yet you would imagine that God, the Creator of it all, would be something less than infinitely great, something less than the infinities of His creation in terms of attribution?
> 
> And since you don't think you have any responsibility to grasp the premise and particulars of my posts before you pop off, when I see you making factually or logically unsound pronouncements on this thread you will see this post again until such time you retract your baloney. For example, you opined that mathematics couldn’t be used to demonstrate anything about divine attribution at all after reading my post on that very same topic. Perhaps you think I don‘t know what I‘m talking about regarding the distinctions between logical proofs and scientific affirmations. *In the meantime, mathematicians have been asserting the opposite of what you averred to be a ridiculous for centuries.
> *
> The objectively apprehensible facts of the matter belong to us all, not just you. We all have the right to know if what you're implying holds up in the light of what the laws of organic thought evince about the construct of infinity.
> 
> Neither your demagogic tactics nor your dogmatic fanaticism is going to fly against the objective facts around here. You're not going rob others from the opportunity of recognizing the self-evident I AM of human cognition and what necessarily follows while I'm around.
> 
> Check?
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Nevertheless. . . .
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Post #2854*.
> 
> *I spelled assess as access.*
> 
> See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.
> 
> So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.
> 
> But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are *assessing* them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!
> 
> And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that _does_ follow from them.
Click to expand...

Still pressing your abysmal fraud of the manufactured and nonsensical "seven things"? How sad that you pompous, self-promoting thumpers are such dishonest snake-oil salesmen.


----------



## Boss

When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...


When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it. 

...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol


----------



## G.T.

How life evolved is explained by natural processes.

'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was. 

If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.



Yes, I know... Like I said to Taz, whenever you are shown some piece of actual physical evidence to support God, you reject it. You asswipes smugly run around demanding we show you something, we show you, then you dismiss it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what we show you, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of something you are determined not to believe in. 

Emily can hook you up with all the links to this, I'll let her handle that.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.
> 
> ...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol
Click to expand...

As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods. 

It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know... Like I said to Taz, whenever you are shown some piece of actual physical evidence to support God, you reject it. You asswipes smugly run around demanding we show you something, we show you, then you dismiss it. The truth is, it doesn't matter what we show you, no amount of evidence will ever convince you of something you are determined not to believe in.
> 
> Emily can hook you up with all the links to this, I'll let her handle that.
Click to expand...

That was quite a backstroke. As I anticipated, you decided to shuffle-off as opposed to actually make some connection to your gawds, magical spirit realms and healing of disease by supernatural means. 

How can make the pointless claim that you have "showed something" when you have done no such thing"?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> How life evolved is explained by natural processes.
> 
> 'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.
> 
> If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.



How life evolved and how life originated is two different questions. "Natural process" can include natural spiritual process.

Nothing could exist prior to the big bang (or origin of the universe) in which spacetime is created for a physical reality to exist. It's a paradox, things can't exist before they have space and time to exist in. 

It appears to have had a beginning because it's in motion. How did it get to be in motion? According to Newton, something set it into motion. "Supernatural" is just a word that we apply to things we can't explain with physical nature at this time. Rain was once considered supernatural. Spiritual nature is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It enables physical nature, it created physical reality.


----------



## G.T.

You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.

They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.

Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How life evolved is explained by natural processes.
> 
> 'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.
> 
> If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How life evolved and how life originated is two different questions. "Natural process" can include natural spiritual process.
> 
> Nothing could exist prior to the big bang (or origin of the universe) in which spacetime is created for a physical reality to exist. It's a paradox, things can't exist before they have space and time to exist in.
> 
> It appears to have had a beginning because it's in motion. How did it get to be in motion? According to Newton, something set it into motion. "Supernatural" is just a word that we apply to things we can't explain with physical nature at this time. Rain was once considered supernatural. Spiritual nature is not supernatural, it is part of nature itself. It enables physical nature, it created physical reality.
Click to expand...

And yet, your stuttering and mumbling as an explanation for your invention of something you call "spiritual nature" requires a pre-commitment to belief in your invention of "spiritual nature". 

Why not just acknowledge that you're as much a christian Fundie as Rawling?


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.
> 
> ...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
> 
> It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.
Click to expand...


*...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.*
And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.
> 
> ...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
> 
> It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.*
> And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.
Click to expand...

I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.

In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.
> 
> They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.
> 
> Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.



I'm not conflating anything. We don't know of any other universes, we only have theories. Those theories do not conclude that other universes have the same states of physicality as our own, or that any of our physics even apply. 

A quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, so how could it possibly set a physical universe into motion without energy? You see, every physical theory we come up with has some flaw.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.
> 
> ...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
> 
> It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.*
> And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.
> 
> In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what the evidence is. I could present you God's DNA and you'd reject it and not consider it evidence. You don't care about evidence, you never have and never will. You want to reject God and challenge others to try and make you believe in God. Guess what? You win! No one can ever make you believe in God.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're conflating 'our universe' with the possibility of unlimited multi verses.
> 
> They're not ruled out, therefore, nobody can say as an absolute that overall existence even had a beginning.
> 
> Before our universe, a quantum vacuum is theoretically said to have existed. That is something, not nothing. Its so much so something that it even has a name and properties, in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not conflating anything. We don't know of any other universes, we only have theories. Those theories do not conclude that other universes have the same states of physicality as our own, or that any of our physics even apply.
> 
> A quantum vacuum has zero-point energy, so how could it possibly set a physical universe into motion without energy? You see, every physical theory we come up with has some flaw.
Click to expand...

Umm, the whole point is not that multi verses would behave as our own.

The point was - their existence is not ruled out, which means what? It means that we don't know if they're eternal, or can even study them, to be able to assert that in terms of overall existence, 'something came from nothing or else god.'

Its a false choice, as of current knowledge. We are not aware that "nothing" ever was.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Umm, the whole point is not that multi verses would behave as our own.
> 
> The point was - their existence is not ruled out, which means what? It means that we don't know if they're eternal, or can even study them, to be able to assert that in terms of overall existence, 'something came from nothing or else god.'
> 
> Its a false choice, as of current knowledge. We are not aware that "nothing" ever was.



What does"exist" mean? Go ahead, give me your explanation and we can discuss this further. In order to have an intellectual conversation, we must first be on the same page with regard to word meanings. 

We are aware that the universe began because it is in motion, creating spacetime as it expands, where physical reality is enabled. We may not know what happened before the universe began but we know by logic that physical material things couldn't have existed without a space or time to exist in. Now, could these physical material things have existed in some other state? Possible. But they couldn't exist in a material physical state without a physical reality in a universe with space and time.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> 'something came from nothing or else god.'



Misrepresenting what I said. I simply said something can't come from nothing, yet that is what atheists believe. It's more of a "magical" concept than spiritual nature.


----------



## Foxfyre

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
Click to expand...


Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?


----------



## G.T.

Anything that "exists" I would define as in "existence."

Anything at all. 

I would then drop it into a couple categories:

Actual existence - wherein it doesn't just exist as an idea, but separate of anyone's knowledge it literally exists.

Theoretical existence: may or may not exist literally, but certainly exists as a concept within our minds.

When I'm talking about the possibility of multiverses, I am talking about the possibility of their ACTUAL existence, and saying that the fact that WE DONT KNOW if they actually existed or exist or not, we cannot rationally rule them out and so the question: "either there's a creator or else something came from nothing" is a false choice, because we don't know if 'nothing' (the absence of anything actually existing) ever was.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'something came from nothing or else god.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misrepresenting what I said. I simply said something can't come from nothing, yet that is what atheists believe. It's more of a "magical" concept than spiritual nature.
Click to expand...

Its not what they believe unless they tell you they believe that all of existence had a beginning.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.
> 
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, Einstein already proved this, or at least, as much as anything can actually be proven. Existence is enabled by a reality of spacetime, which is essentially the ever-expanding universe itself. Without time and space, nothing can exist, there is no perception of any reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not absolute truth. That's a hypothesis.
> 
> If there are multiple universes, for instance, then this universe isnt all of existence, not the way I mean existence anyhow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I already said there are no absolutes, we cannot KNOW truth, and everything in physical science is a hypothesis. That's why my comment included "at least as much as anything can actually be proven." We can't even "prove" reality exists, it might simply be an illusion... In fact, Einstein also said THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who says there are no absolutes you sure do believe in a lot of absolutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything I present is in the context that I could be wrong, you could be wrong, I could be right, you could be right, or we both could we wrong or right at the same time, or at any given time. Nothing is ever absolute.
Click to expand...


"Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement.  That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though they don't believe that God actually exists, they do believe that the idea of God exists in their mind, and they do believe that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically eliminated.  They would also know upon reflection that it is not possible to logically say that "the Creator does not exist" without presupposing His existence in that statement, which actually means they are logically saying He does exist in that statement.  I wonder if they've ever asked themselves why that axiom of the laws of thought is hardwired in us.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate. Any person will say their is a "possibilty" of such and such existing but the "probability" is nil. This is why they don't believe such and such exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now you've gone beyond the existence of God debate and have gone into a philosophical debate.*
> Which goes back to my original point. You are not capable of comprehending "spiritual existence" so you can't grasp any of this concept at all. In your limited mind, the only "exist" is a physical state of existing, and since you find no evidence of God's physical existence, you deduce there must not be a God. No one can show you physical evidence for God because God isn't physical, yet that's the only kind of "existing" you can comprehend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I just put in the word fairy instead of God. Your argument remains the same. Do you believe in fairies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that analogy is false or you couldn't even make the distinction. The idea of God you have in your mind is not a little fairy and the questions you asked me in the other post are silly.  You're wait late in this debate.  Your stuff is even worse than what the other atheists have said. We're way past first grade.
> 
> Quoting Rawlings:
> 
> *"The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. "
> 
> __________________________
> 
> You've got nothing.  There'll  be no fairy talk or how just any god can be plugged in.  All of that silliness is over.  That's not what you or anyone else things about when they think about the real idea of as the necessarily greatest being possible.
> 
> Bong. Get serious or find another place to play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Quoting" your cult leader? That's so cute.
> 
> "Quoting" a failed, circular argument, one that was intended to revive a dead " five things" argument is a joke.
> 
> Go flail your Pom Poms elsewhere.
Click to expand...


Why would I write them out when I can copy and paste, fool.  You know they're true, still pom poming you're idiocy?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Nevertheless. . . .
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Post #2854*.
> 
> *I spelled assess as access.*
> 
> See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.
> 
> So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.
> 
> But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are *assessing* them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!
> 
> And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that _does_ follow from them.
Click to expand...


I think you intentionally misspelled it the first time it to make a point about "assessing."


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Anything that "exists" I would define as in "existence."
> 
> Anything at all.
> 
> I would then drop it into a couple categories:
> 
> Actual existence - wherein it doesn't just exist as an idea, but separate of anyone's knowledge it literally exists.
> 
> Theoretical existence: may or may not exist literally, but certainly exists as a concept within our minds.
> 
> When I'm talking about the possibility of multiverses, I am talking about the possibility of their ACTUAL existence, and saying that the fact that WE DONT KNOW if they actually existed or exist or not, we cannot rationally rule them out and so the question: "either there's a creator or else something came from nothing" is a false choice, because we don't know if 'nothing' (the absence of anything actually existing) ever was.



You have not defined "exist" yet. You said "existence is something that exists" but that doesn't define what "exist" is. Before we can even get to "theoretical...actual" or any other type, we first have to define what is meant by "exist" or it's pointless. 

Again, we can logically presume that if there is no space or time in which something can have physical material presence, it can't exist as a physical material presence. In other words, something physical can't exist until it has a space and time to exist in, speaking materially. 

However, spiritual nature is different. It does not require physicality to exist because it is not material. This is where we get into the complicated disharmony with what atheists and theists argue. It hinges on how you perceive "exist" and what that word means to you.


----------



## G.T.

And you know other universes don't exist, and/or you know their properties?

Didn't think so.

Carry on. I'm comfortable with us disagreeing with what 'exist' means and not having to keep talking about it. I'm good.


----------



## Justin Davis

QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 10052981, member: 6847"]

So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.

The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.[/QUOTE]

Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.

But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.

So the discussion invariably becomes:
--Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
--Atheists are the spawn of hell.
--Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.

I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?[/QUOTE]

If you're going to  keep being childish and  say things that aren't true I'll keep saying that you're saying things that aren't true.  I never said I could prove God exists to anyone but anyone can logically prove that God exists. It's not my fault you're minds closed and you don't know about the difference between logical proofs that are always objectively true and subjective experiences and it's not fault that you're misusing  the word proof right now.


----------



## Broncho4

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



It depends on your definition of God. According to science, matter can't come from nothing.  This would mean that something that we do not understand and can't contemplate with the available evidence, had to create matter.  In the absence of everything there had to be something.


----------



## BreezeWood

G.T. said:


> How life evolved is explained by natural processes.
> 
> 'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.
> 
> If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.




can you define Everlasting that does exists and whether that would include a physical object ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I'd still love to see someone prove in the absolute sense that existence is a creation.



*GT!*

*I agree with you!*

I don’t have to try again.

* 
 I'm already standing on the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds. That’s the starting point!



Everybody on this thread, HELLO! 

*
Dump the garbage of your subjective, indemonstrable biases and come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds.

Stop cherry picking!

*I agree with you, GT, and I can agree with you on that because that is true from the standpoint of the objectively neutral ground that is logically apparent to us all.

Notwithstanding, it’s necessary to forthrightly acknowledge every fact of cognition on the terrain of the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds first. Stop cherry picking!
*
You asked for a proof "in the absolute sense that existence is a creation."

From the standpoint of the objectively neutral ground that is logically apparent to us all, I gave you the only one there is*:* it _is_ *absolutely* true under the laws of organic thought that are bioneurologically hardwired in humans that to think/say "God doesn't exist" violates these laws. That thought/statement is self-negating. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist.

That's an absolute fact of human cognition!

*Come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds!*

Stay with me.

The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator.  What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
_
*Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*​
Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.

Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!

(Not you, GT, you’re an agnostic for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)

In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.

In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.

We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.

The only reason that _logic_, not science, allows for this hypothesis is because the principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if logic didn't permit it. And in that we have yet another example evincing the fact that QW doen't know what he's talking about.

*Notwithstanding!*

Because the logical principle of identity allows for paradox. . . .

This incontrovertible axiom of human cognition due to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought (which, by the way, Boss keeps violating, as we all can see, making no sense at all) regarding divine origin also tells us that it's possible that this axiom that is *absolutely* true INSIDE the world of our minds might not be absolutely true in the ultimate reality OUTSIDE of our minds, as it might just be a mere accident of nature.

*Notwithstanding again!
*
This does, however, put us into the realm of paradox, as this axiom does not beg the question (stop it, GT, as you're doing a Boss!), for it is an axiom of the very same nature as *2 + 2 = 4*. In other words, it's an axiom based on the very same standard of organic logic that evinces *2 + 2 = 4*. We do not say that axiomatic or tautological intuitions beg the question. If that were so, then mathematics begs the question too, for mathematics is _a priori_, not _a posteriori_!

The conclusion that _God must be_ based on this axiom is coherent, not paradoxical. The conclusion that it's a mere accident of nature, though a conceivably real potentiality, _is_ paradoxical.

Stand on the latter conclusion if you want, but don't tell me that you can honestly stand on the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds and pretend that it's _not_ paradoxical.

That's all.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

Just be real with yourself and me, GT.


----------



## G.T.

BreezeWood said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> How life evolved is explained by natural processes.
> 
> 'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.
> 
> If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you define Everlasting that does exists and whether that would include a physical object ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I can't define what I can't study. But I also cannot rule it out.


----------



## G.T.

I'm being very real here.

Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'

So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> "Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement.  That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.



It's not a double negation because there is no negative value. _Absolute_ means "universally valid" in the context which I am using it. As I have already stated, my comments are delivered in the context that I a may be wrong. i.e.; it's my opinion. When I state that "nothing is absolute" it is not an absolute statement, it is my opinion which may be wrong.... granted, it is not likely, but that possibility exists. Now, I could have really confused you if I said "nothing is universally valid except for nothing is universally valid." 

But now... Let us set aside this silly little semantics snafu you've raised... I want to know what the fuck your problem is? Why do you continue to be contrary, argumentative, disagreeable, defiant, belligerent... toward ME? Did I do or say something to you personally at some time? Have we had some unrelated disagreement on politics or something in another thread? Does my avatar or nickname offend you somehow? What exactly is the reason for all this negative angst I am getting from you? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.  

I have, thus far, gone out of my way to be respectful to you, respectful of your opinions and arguments, but you just keep on nipping at my heels as if you have some kind of a beef with me personally. If you want to turn me into your nemesis, let me just warn you that I can hurt feelings with words. I'm very good at it, and you won't like that side of me. So I am letting you know, one last time, you need to get your attitude in check and stop jumping my shit for no reason.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Nevertheless. . . .
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Post #2854*.
> 
> *I spelled assess as access.*
> 
> See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.
> 
> So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.
> 
> But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are *assessing* them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!
> 
> And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that _does_ follow from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you intentionally misspelled it the first time it to make a point about "assessing."
Click to expand...


Nah.  Didn't think about that.  I'm not that clever, I guess.  I just brain farted. Naturally, I've used both terms on this thread and spelled them correctly, just not that time.  Doh!  I do that sometimes.  I do about 60 words a minute, and sometimes I just do 60 words a minute. Taught myself the skill from a book several years ago because searching and picking at it was driving me crazy. Took me longer to learn than others probably because I had to break a lot of bad habits that kept making my want to look down.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement.  That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a double negation because there is no negative value. _Absolute_ means "universally valid" in the context which I am using it. As I have already stated, my comments are delivered in the context that I a may be wrong. i.e.; it's my opinion. When I state that "nothing is absolute" it is not an absolute statement, it is my opinion which may be wrong.... granted, it is not likely, but that possibility exists. Now, I could have really confused you if I said "nothing is universally valid except for nothing is universally valid."
> 
> But now... Let us set aside this silly little semantics snafu you've raised... I want to know what the fuck your problem is? Why do you continue to be contrary, argumentative, disagreeable, defiant, belligerent... toward ME? Did I do or say something to you personally at some time? Have we had some unrelated disagreement on politics or something in another thread? Does my avatar or nickname offend you somehow? What exactly is the reason for all this negative angst I am getting from you? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.
> 
> I have, thus far, gone out of my way to be respectful to you, respectful of your opinions and arguments, but you just keep on nipping at my heels as if you have some kind of a beef with me personally. If you want to turn me into your nemesis, let me just warn you that I can hurt feelings with words. I'm very good at it, and you won't like that side of me. So I am letting you know, one last time, you need to get your attitude in check and stop jumping my shit for no reason.
Click to expand...

So you do NOT consider it absolute that 'spiritual evidence' exists, then, because 'nothing is absolute' is a quote I'm pulling from the gentleman who claims spiritual evidence exists.


----------



## Broncho4

G.T. said:


> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.



You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?


----------



## G.T.

Broncho4 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
Click to expand...

Something that always was.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> And you know other universes don't exist, and/or you know their properties?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Carry on. I'm comfortable with us disagreeing with what 'exist' means and not having to keep talking about it. I'm good.



Do we disagree with what "exist" means? Did you ever define it? I missed that if you did. I asked for that, but you danced around it. 

I never said that other universes didn't exist or that I knew their properties. I asked you what "exist" means to you. We don't know if other universes exist, or if they exist in the context we understand "exist" which you can't even explain to me. There is no universal law of physics which states that any other possible universe must conform to our universe's laws and principles. That seems to be some mighty hubristic thinking on your part and an invalid assumption you may be making about other possible universes.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know other universes don't exist, and/or you know their properties?
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> Carry on. I'm comfortable with us disagreeing with what 'exist' means and not having to keep talking about it. I'm good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we disagree with what "exist" means? Did you ever define it? I missed that if you did. I asked for that, but you danced around it.
> 
> I never said that other universes didn't exist or that I knew their properties. I asked you what "exist" means to you. We don't know if other universes exist, or if they exist in the context we understand "exist" which you can't even explain to me. There is no universal law of physics which states that any other possible universe must conform to our universe's laws and principles. That seems to be some mighty hubristic thinking on your part and an invalid assumption you may be making about other possible universes.
Click to expand...

Except.....I didnt say they must comform to our laws and principles.

I said very specifically that if they exist, their nature is unknown. If you blew past that to make a gotcha.....then what? Keep wasting time?

I also defined existence. You simple rejected my definition as not a definition. I'm fine with that. We disagree. I'm not losing sleep, I can move onto other things since we are at a stand still on that conversation.


----------



## Broncho4

G.T. said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something that always was.
Click to expand...


So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement.  That's a double negation proving that the positive s true, absolutes do exist, sorry, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a double negation because there is no negative value. _Absolute_ means "universally valid" in the context which I am using it. As I have already stated, my comments are delivered in the context that I a may be wrong. i.e.; it's my opinion. When I state that "nothing is absolute" it is not an absolute statement, it is my opinion which may be wrong.... granted, it is not likely, but that possibility exists. Now, I could have really confused you if I said "nothing is universally valid except for nothing is universally valid."
> 
> But now... Let us set aside this silly little semantics snafu you've raised... I want to know what the fuck your problem is? Why do you continue to be contrary, argumentative, disagreeable, defiant, belligerent... toward ME? Did I do or say something to you personally at some time? Have we had some unrelated disagreement on politics or something in another thread? Does my avatar or nickname offend you somehow? What exactly is the reason for all this negative angst I am getting from you? Because it doesn't make sense to me at all.
> 
> I have, thus far, gone out of my way to be respectful to you, respectful of your opinions and arguments, but you just keep on nipping at my heels as if you have some kind of a beef with me personally. If you want to turn me into your nemesis, let me just warn you that I can hurt feelings with words. I'm very good at it, and you won't like that side of me. So I am letting you know, one last time, you need to get your attitude in check and stop jumping my shit for no reason.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that's one of the first things you learn in the study of the laws of logic, which I had to learn from Lang to understand him.  Saying there's no absolutes is what they call a hidden double negative in classical logic.  What you're really saying is that there's no absolutes but the absolute that there's no absolutes, double negative, violates the law of contradiction.  If there's no absolutes then the absolute that there's no absolutes is not an absolute, so the opposite is true. There are absolutes.  That's how that goes.  There's no way to get around that absolute logically and when you say it out you can that's logically false.


----------



## G.T.

Broncho4 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
Click to expand...

i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> So you do NOT consider it absolute that 'spiritual evidence' exists, then, because 'nothing is absolute' is a quote I'm pulling from the gentleman who claims spiritual evidence exists.



I don't consider it absolute because "exist" has not been absolutely defined, "evidence" has not been absolutely defined, and "spiritual" has not been absolutely defined. It is my opinion that spiritual nature exists and provides plenty of spiritual evidence.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much more absurd  is it to use math to define God?  Pretty much an exercise in futility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Nevertheless. . . .
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Post #2854*.
> 
> *I spelled assess as access.*
> 
> See! Just like I said, a perfect example of the fact that I am no less constitutionally prone to brain farts of wrongful expression or logic. I know how it's spelled, yet misspelled it.
> 
> So, Fox, if you have a legitimate criticism, criticize and improve me.
> 
> But don't me give crap about my posts being off when you are *assessing* them from a perspective that starts from an entirely different premise! My perspective won't follow from your premise! It does follow, perfectly so, from mine!
> 
> And the fact that you cannot, even if you had all of eternity, refute the cogency of "The Seven Things" should be enough to alert to the fact that I'm onto something that _does_ follow from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you intentionally misspelled it the first time it to make a point about "assessing."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.  Didn't think about that.  I'm not that clever, I guess.  I just brain farted. Naturally, I've used both terms on this thread and spelled them correctly, just not that time.  Doh!  I do that sometimes.  I do about 60 words a minute, and sometimes I just do 60 words a minute. Taught myself the skill from a book several years ago because searching and picking at it was driving me crazy. Took me longer to learn than others probably because I had to break a lot of bad habits that kept making my want to look down.
Click to expand...


I learned to key in high school with my girlfriend.  She's why I took the class, to make her my girlfriend, now my wife.  I was all thumbs sometimes on purpose so she would help me.  Thought I was pretty sneaking until she told me that she always liked me too and I could stop faking it now.  Busted.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do NOT consider it absolute that 'spiritual evidence' exists, then, because 'nothing is absolute' is a quote I'm pulling from the gentleman who claims spiritual evidence exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider it absolute because "exist" has not been absolutely defined, "evidence" has not been absolutely defined, and "spiritual" has not been absolutely defined. It is my opinion that spiritual nature exists and provides plenty of spiritual evidence.
Click to expand...

is that greater than, or less than - my *opinion that megyn kelly stole michael jacksons nose off of his corpse?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...



When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Except.....I didnt say they must comform to our laws and principles.
> 
> I said very specifically that if they exist, their nature is unknown. If you blew past that to make a gotcha.....then what? Keep wasting time?
> 
> I also defined existence. You simple rejected my definition as not a definition. I'm fine with that. We disagree. I'm not losing sleep, I can move onto other things since we are at a stand still on that conversation.



Well if we don't know whether other universes "exist" or even what "existing" means in context of one of these possible universes, then they can't be the basis for any argument pertaining to the universe we are aware of. And no... you simply did not define what "exist" means, you dodged the question by stating that "exist means in existence." I don't know if we disagree, you've avoided answering my question, and now you claim it's not important and you're moving on. Well, okay, but it IS important, it's downright fundamental to the debate.


----------



## G.T.

Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.

I'm not arguing that multiverses exist or existed.

I'm saying their mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.


----------



## Broncho4

G.T. said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
Click to expand...


I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...


----------



## G.T.

Broncho4 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm being very real here.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been 'created,' nor is 'something from nothing' the only other explanation other than 'creator.'
> 
> So - using a 'creatOR' in a logical argument is not rational because its not yet proven existence was creatED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
Click to expand...

Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.

Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
Click to expand...

Are you guys saying that scientists have verified exorcisms? Really? Got a link? I'd be interested to read more...


----------



## G.T.

Even this universe - some physicists believe MAY be eternal, and it expands and contracts. I forget the name of the theory but I can look it up if anyone cares.


----------



## Hollie

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can't defend your claims to magical spirit realms, spam is a poor substitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who claims magic, you are. Spiritual nature is not magic, it's natural. Magic is where nothing caused something and everything came from nothing to reorganize into self-replicating bits which produced dinosaurs. That's what you believe, not me. When asked to defend your claim of magic, you shrug and admit you don't have any answer for it.
> 
> ...Then you projectile-vomit split-pea soup in my face! lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I thought, your pointless claim that "the results are in" is a fraud. If you're going to assert that the gods are in any way connected to supernatural healing, you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.
> 
> It's just an unfortunate thing that your ignorance of science is promoted in a public forum such as this. Your really ignorant tirade surrounding dinosaurs is pointless and serves only to demonstrate the dangers of religious extremism. You would be best served to limit your comments to the silliness surrounding your magical spirit realms. We can laugh at that with the understanding that you're just a harmless nuisance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *...you first need to establish supportable evidence for the various gods.*
> And we have already established that will never happen because you will consistently reject all evidence. There are not "various gods" and no one here has made such an argument. Where is that coming from? Your empty little noggin, that's where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't reject evidence you cannot provide. And yes, there are various gods. You may have missed it but your gods are not the only assertions of gods.
> 
> In the meantime, where is the evidence for the various spirits that inhabit your magical spirit realms? You claim to have evidence, so, present the evidence. Just remember that your evidence needs to be rational and subject to quantitative review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter what the evidence is. I could present you God's DNA and you'd reject it and not consider it evidence. You don't care about evidence, you never have and never will. You want to reject God and challenge others to try and make you believe in God. Guess what? You win! No one can ever make you believe in God.
Click to expand...

It actually does matter what evidence can be presented. That's exactly why I've made the point that you continually fail to present evidence of your magical spirit realms while insisting that these realms exist and the spirit realms are inhabited by your gods.

If I didn't care about evidence, I wouldn't be the one requiring you to provide evidence you refuse to submit.


----------



## Broncho4

G.T. said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
Click to expand...


To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.


----------



## G.T.

Broncho4 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
Click to expand...

I am agnostic.

I don't approve or reject origins theories, I study them.

You keep implying these theories are mine.

Nope.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be asking for proof of a negative.  Can you give an example of anything in any application that was not created?
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
Click to expand...


Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing _from nothing, nothing comes_.  Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.  None of the classic arguments for God's existence, _except_ the *I AMs* of the Transcendental and the Ontological,  can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.
Click to expand...

It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing _from nothing, nothing comes_.  Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.  None of the classic arguments for God's existence, _except_ the *I AMs* of the Transcendental and the Ontological, can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.
Click to expand...

Which is why I agree with _M. Pompous Rawling_ when he acknowledges he is not arguing from a position of reason and rationality and thus, must qualify his arguments as deriving from the perspective of Theological / philosophical conventions for pwoofs of his various gods. Why would any qualification in philosophy be necessary? The issues here are not philosophical. The natural world (to exclude such supernatural inventions as gods and spirit realms) are entirely a scientific issue. The natural, ie:, rational world, can be discussed, explored and understood without any necessity of recourse to philosophy.

This is why religionists, supernaturalists, ect., tend to run screaming from actual discussion of the science involved and instead insist that the issues are philosophical or theological. They must set up and knock down irrelevant straw men, otherwise they are directly faced with their lack of scientific evidence or argument.

Philosophy (as eventually separated from science) is among the most futile of human endeavors. It delivers essentially nothing of genuine human utility. It can be used to argue anything, since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing _from nothing, nothing comes_.  Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.  None of the classic arguments for God's existence, _except_ the *I AMs* of the Transcendental and the Ontological, can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.
Click to expand...

I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.

Its water under the bridge at this point.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*
*


Broncho4 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that always was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
Click to expand...


Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you are correct say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable. 

The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!    

But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> 
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing _from nothing, nothing comes_.  Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.  None of the classic arguments for God's existence, _except_ the *I AMs* of the Transcendental and the Ontological, can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.
> 
> Its water under the bridge at this point.
Click to expand...


It does not fail on any level whatsoever, and you know it does not fail, GT, as the only legitimate objection is to say that this axiom of human cognition does not hold outside our minds, though in order to do that you must simultaneously hold, contradictorily/paradoxically, that mathematics, which are equally _a priori_ in nature, apply universally.

So you will _not_ acknowledge the facts of or come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds.  So you are _not_ an agnostic in spirit or in truth at all, but a subjectivist and a materialist-leaning atheist with no interest in objectively sound logic at all.

So your question regarding the issue of the universe being a creation in fact was merely rhetorical with no real interest in following _your_ own logic, the universal logic, to the actual natures of the alternate options.  Check?  I just thought I'd verify that.


----------



## Broncho4

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that the answer to the origin of everything is that there was no origin?  There is no evidence of anything like that in existence.  Life dictates that everything has a beginning and an end.  Planets, suns and solar systems all begin and end.  Am I missing an example of something that "always was"?
> 
> 
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you are correct say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
Click to expand...


While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I agree with Hollie when she says she's not necessarily arguing _from nothing, nothing comes_.  Arguably, the quantum vacuum may have always existed.  None of the classic arguments for God's existence, _except_ the *I AMs* of the Transcendental and the Ontological, can be effectively asserted until the laws of thought and The Seven Things that are objectively true for all, apprehensively and logically, are established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would never entertain the transcendental argument as rational. It fails, to me, on a number of levels.
> 
> Its water under the bridge at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does not fail on any level whatsoever, and you know it does not fail, GT, as the only legitimate objection is to say that this axiom of human cognition does not hold outside our minds, though in order to do that you must simultaneously hold, contradictorily/paradoxically, that mathematics, which are equally _a priori_ in nature, apply universally.
> 
> So you will _not_ acknowledge the facts of or come to the objectively neutral ground of logical truth as it comes to us in our minds.  So you are _not_ an agnostic in spirit or in truth at all, but a subjectivist and a materialist-leaning atheist with no interest in objectively sound logic at all.
Click to expand...

wrong.

I'm an agnostic who is not compelled to think that absolute truth needs or has a creator, and so I reject it as an axiom until something rational proves as much.

It hasnt.


----------



## G.T.

Also..
..

The seven things - many of them are quite arbitrary.


----------



## G.T.

Se*ven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."

Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.

You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
(EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.

__________________________


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Broncho4 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> i believe we don't currently *HAVE* an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
Click to expand...


Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________




I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/


The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?

Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.

*Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
*_


. . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​

Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)


LOL!


So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.
> 
> I'm not arguing that multiverses exist or existed.
> 
> I'm saying their mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.



*Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.*

Well okay, but I have to say this is a rather convoluted definition. It opens the door to questions regarding what you mean by "present/presence" and "objective reality." So we need to define those terms before we can even understand what you mean by "existing." Then you say "having been present" ...does that mean things exist when they no longer exist? Seems to be a contradiction in reason there. Then there is the question of "whether or not it is known to be" ...so things can exist even if we don't know they exist and have no evidence for their existence whatsoever and no way to understand them? 

I am making a point with this exercise, and I realize it is a bit frustrating to you, but the point is important to this debate. It is very difficult to accurately pin down an acceptable definition of what "exist" means. In your definition, we have to rely on "objective reality" which is simply put, our perception of reality. Likewise, the term "presence" can objectively mean different things in our own reality. Therefore, our personal understanding of what does or does not "exist" is dependent upon our own rationalizations, our own comprehensions, our own objective reasoning. There is not a universal understanding here, it's ambiguous. 

And this is why the question of God rages on. After thousands and thousands of years, humans contemplating and arguing, we are no closer to a universal understanding. Some believe God "exists" and others do not believe God "exists" and the beat goes on. 

*I'm saying their [other universes] mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.*

And I agree with this, which is why I corrected your assertion this was MY argument. I've never made that argument. You misread my comment to an Atheist who rejects the possibility of God and assumes something comes from nothing. You're actually making the same point I am making, there are other possibilities, including the existence of God. The notion that something came from nothing is not in accordance with science or physics in our universe because something can't come from nothing. Therefore, such a thing would be "magic" by any definition. There is probably a better explanation. 

Now... I cannot speak for other universes that we don't even know exist, but THIS universe appears to not be "eternal" because it is in motion. We theorize it began with a big bang. Entropy is happening, so it appears order descends into chaos in our universe, which indicates again, our universe is not eternal. Perhaps other universes, if they exist, ARE eternal? Perhaps that is where Spiritual Nature resides? Again... POSSIBILITIES!


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.
Click to expand...


If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name.  Hollie Piffle Vomit.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.
> 
> I'm not arguing that multiverses exist or existed.
> 
> I'm saying their mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exist means present or having been present in objective reality, where said presence is not dependent upon whether or not it is known to be present, or have been present.*
> 
> Well okay, but I have to say this is a rather convoluted definition. It opens the door to questions regarding what you mean by "present/presence" and "objective reality." So we need to define those terms before we can even understand what you mean by "existing." Then you say "having been present" ...does that mean things exist when they no longer exist? Seems to be a contradiction in reason there. Then there is the question of "whether or not it is known to be" ...so things can exist even if we don't know they exist and have no evidence for their existence whatsoever and no way to understand them?
> 
> I am making a point with this exercise, and I realize it is a bit frustrating to you, but the point is important to this debate. It is very difficult to accurately pin down an acceptable definition of what "exist" means. In your definition, we have to rely on "objective reality" which is simply put, our perception of reality. Likewise, the term "presence" can objectively mean different things in our own reality. Therefore, our personal understanding of what does or does not "exist" is dependent upon our own rationalizations, our own comprehensions, our own objective reasoning. There is not a universal understanding here, it's ambiguous.
> 
> And this is why the question of God rages on. After thousands and thousands of years, humans contemplating and arguing, we are no closer to a universal understanding. Some believe God "exists" and others do not believe God "exists" and the beat goes on.
> 
> *I'm saying their [other universes] mere possibility and their unknown nature, as well as things other than 'universes' MAY exist, and MAY have no beginning but are eternal, means 'god, or else something from nothing' are not the only two possibilities to rule in or out.*
> 
> And I agree with this, which is why I corrected your assertion this was MY argument. I've never made that argument. You misread my comment to an Atheist who rejects the possibility of God and assumes something comes from nothing. You're actually making the same point I am making, there are other possibilities, including the existence of God. The notion that something came from nothing is not in accordance with science or physics in our universe because something can't come from nothing. Therefore, such a thing would be "magic" by any definition. There is probably a better explanation.
> 
> Now... I cannot speak for other universes that we don't even know exist, but THIS universe appears to not be "eternal" because it is in motion. We theorize it began with a big bang. Entropy is happening, so it appears order descends into chaos in our universe, which indicates again, our universe is not eternal. Perhaps other universes, if they exist, ARE eternal? Perhaps that is where Spiritual Nature resides? Again... POSSIBILITIES!
Click to expand...

An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.


----------



## Broncho4

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only pose the question because of the trillions upon trillions of examples that have existed throughout history, none of the observable examples would support the "always was" category.  Well the only proposed answer to that question that I know of is God...
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
Click to expand...


Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.  

I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.

Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
Click to expand...



GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
Click to expand...

No, I'm telling you that it is not proven that we were creatED so god being defined as creatOR doesn't make him an axiom....UNTIL you prove existence is a creation.

Sorry its so difficult for you to differentiate between objective absolutes and your subjective opinion.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.
Click to expand...

No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Even this universe - some physicists believe MAY be eternal, and it expands and contracts. I forget the name of the theory but I can look it up if anyone cares.



Some astrophysicists once believed the universe might be cyclical in nature. That matter was tightly compressed into a 'singularity' and the big bang happened, and eventually the entire universe will contract to repeat the cycle. 

However... and this is HUGE... within the past 30 years or so, we have discovered the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in the velocity of expansion. That detail simply nullifies any scientific consideration of a contracting universe. For this theory to work, the expansion would have to be slowing instead of accelerating, as you would expect to find with the velocity of anything which exploded. So now, they are even questioning whether or not there was ever a "big bang" to start the universe to begin with. If the universe is cyclical, it doesn't expand and contract. 

There are also problems with the concept of "singularity" because all atoms require space for the defining electrons to orbit. So if all matter in the universe is tightly compressed and there is no space, the atoms can't exist... there is no space for their electrons. There has never been a logical way around this dichotomy so "singularity" has always been in question.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name.  Hollie Piffle Vomit.
Click to expand...

Such is the level of discourse coming from fundie christian Madrassahs and from those who live and work in the sewers.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.



Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them! 

From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Hollie posts I have to wipe the vomit off my screen first, then I get the picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's always easy to tell when the angry fundies are at a loss to defend their magical gawds and spirit realms: they slam the board with their irrelevant piffle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that's true then that's true about you in spades, for piffle is your middle name.  Hollie Piffle Vomit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such is the level of discourse coming from fundie christian Madrassahs and from those who live and work in the sewers.
Click to expand...



Got it the first time, before all the hundreds of other times you wrote what you mostly always write, and what you wrote again.

Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 

Amen. May the force be with you.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!
> 
> From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.
Click to expand...

A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.
Click to expand...



Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. 

Amen. May the force be with you.

But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Amen. May the force be with you.
> 
> But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...

You're gnat status dude. 

Go fix a p trap.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!
> 
> From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.
Click to expand...


I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!
> 
> From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what you're proposing with your invention of spirit realms. 

It’s not a matter of your liking or disliking a term. It’s a matter of holding to a consistent standard. Neither in a scientific or a rational sense is there any reason to acknowledge the existence of spirit realms or your partisan gawds in preference to other conceptions of gawds. Were left with claims of the supernatural - for which there is no evidence – as qualifying for consideration in the rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us the rational, supportable data that supports your spirit realms.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I did thank you for the post.  Wrong! The evidence, both rational and empirical, overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that God must be, and the term *God as Creator*, in spite of what some are saying, is the first and foremost descriptor in every one of the classical proofs for His existence, with the Transcendental Argument being the hands down most powerfully compelling.   Moreover, the descriptor _*Creator*_ necessarily is the first and penultimate essence of the universal construct of God as the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.    *We do not rationally assume anything less than the highest expression of this construct, sentience, without begging the question.  Hence, Creator!*
> 
> These are proofs, logical proofs.  Science doesn't prove things at all.  Logic proves or disproves things.  Logic tells us what is coherently rational and, therefore, possible.  It is the use of logic and the conventions of philosophy by which we dictate the parameters of science, which only tentatively verifies or falsifies things, and it is logic that is applied to the processes of the scientific method that tells us what things are justifiably verified or falsified, and tells us what the distinction is between the two.
> 
> *Logic necessarily entails propositions of linguistic and mathematical proofs!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
Click to expand...


This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.  

He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.  

The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.  

Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.  

Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Broncho4 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty of theoretical physicists have hypothesis' that overall existence always was. Its not new at all.
> 
> Asking for examples inside of a finite singular universe - though - is a catch 22, everything observed inside of THIS universe is finite but we haven't OBSERVED outside of this universe to even address the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.

If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere*:*

Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
Click to expand...


And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .

Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
*
*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
Click to expand...


I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud. 

The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.


----------



## G.T.

They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.

I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.

I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.

I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.

I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.

Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.

That's why its an argument and not a conversation.

You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the lowlife tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'

Things go south.

Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."

Things go south.

If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.

Things go south.

Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Se*ven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!(the idea existing in our minds does NOT mean 1, its hard wired, or two, that the idea cannot be ruled out. That god exists in our minds is not reason gods existence outside our minds cannot be ruled out, and I've no reason to believe that 'god is in my mind' because its hardwired......above other reasons like "because I've heard of him."
> 
> Freddy cruger exists in my mind the same way god does. They're there because I've heard of them. That's all that is proven.
> 
> You have this nasty habit of claiming things as absolute imperatives that are really subjective assertions.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!(big if)
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!(big emphasis on WHETHER OR NOT)
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!(ITS POSSIBLE TO THINK ANYTHING. THIS #6 IS AS MEANINGLESS AS TWINKIES ON A DIET)
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> (EXCEPT THEYRE NOT. NOT ALL TJINKERS AGREE THAT WE ALL EXIST, EVEN.)
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. " THEYRE LARGELY MEANINGLESS AND DONT MAKE TAG RATIONAL.
> 
> __________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry.  You must have missed this:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> 
> The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What the *bleep* is she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *_
> 
> 
> . . . Also, that's why the talk of fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. Shut up!​
> 
> Then I wrote just under that:  (Not you, GT, you’re an *agnostic* for that reason. You get it. I'm talking to those being stupid.)
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> So now you're telling us that you're an atheist again, right?  Let me know when you make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GT jumps from atheist to agnostic to agnostic to atheist depending on which way the wind is blowing against his latest evasion argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, its that you bozos have reading comprehension issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid. Theists are stupid.
> 
> Amen. May the force be with you.
> 
> But we still see right through you, atheist agnostic, agnostic atheist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're gnat status dude.
> 
> Go fix a p trap.
Click to expand...


From where I'm standing I see a lot of flies getting swatted away, but I morph.  One of the things I dig about all this is the mathematics of it, the part you like to keep from the logic that tells you that what you say is wrong.  It's funny how you like that part but not the God thing, agnostic atheist.  But for something really cool, check this out.

In philosophy, *infinity* can be attributed to infinite dimensions, as for instance in Kant's first antinomy. In both theology and philosophy, infinity is explored in articles such as the Ultimate, the Absolute, God, and Zeno's paradoxes. In Greek philosophy, for example in Anaximander, 'the Boundless' is the origin of all that is. He took the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (ἄπειρον, _apeiron_). *In **Judeo-Christian theology**, for example in the work of theologians such as **Duns Scotus**, the infinite nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint*, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity. In ethics infinity plays an important role designating that which cannot be defined or reduced to knowledge or power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_(philosophy)

Then we look at this.

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Blanc.html

The question I have for the atheist agnostic is why he always runs from the objective facts of logic without admitting them if he's so sure that he's smarter than all the smartest people in history.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atheist rejects god, they don't reject the multitude of other possibilities that you and I agreed may exist......so saying they 'assume something comes from nothing' would require a direct quote from an atheist saying that.......not just merely presuming its what they believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly boob posted an article about it once. So yeah, many Atheists DO believe that and argue vociferously for it. Hollie is on record as saying she "doesn't know" but assumes there is a "natural scientific explanation" which she has never presented here. I'm always interested in hearing about any possibilities you come up with, so give it your best shot... let's hear about them!
> 
> From MY perspective, I adhere to Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely. To me, the simplest explanation is, the Spiritual Energy we are aware of as humans intrinsically, is what caused/created the physical universe and everything in it. I can't PROVE that, but it's what I believe. Could there be another possibility? Sure... I don't rule it out, but I consider it unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple explanation for some imagined spirit realms inhabited by magical gawds is really pretty simple but also useless as an explanation for anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea about "magical spiritual realms inhabited by gawds" and have never argued such a thing existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what you're proposing with your invention of spirit realms.
> 
> It’s not a matter of your liking or disliking a term. It’s a matter of holding to a consistent standard. Neither in a scientific or a rational sense is there any reason to acknowledge the existence of spirit realms or your partisan gawds in preference to other conceptions of gawds. Were left with claims of the supernatural - for which there is no evidence – as qualifying for consideration in the rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us the rational, supportable data that supports your spirit realms.
Click to expand...


Again, don't know what you mean by "partisan gawds" and I've never argued for one. Nor have I argued for "spirit realms" or "supernaturalism." These are all things you attribute to me but I've never argued.

I actually do understand the problem with you understanding spiritual nature and I've tried to explain it to others. It's fundamentally rooted in your understanding of what "exists" in your own objective reality. Spiritual nature is no more "supernatural" than physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists as part of nature. But refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it go away and not exist.

I bet you that at some point in your pathetic and miserable life, you have heard a song or watched a movie which moved you to tears. If you have experienced that, congratulations... you've had a "spiritual" experience. Now, there are indeed some physical signs and evidence to confirm what happened to you, but the essence of what you experienced was spiritual in nature. I'm sure you've probably seen a black woman sing.... maybe the National Anthem or something... toward the end, she starts really "getting into it" as she belts out the lines, holding a hand in the air with eyes closed... well, you are witnessing someone having a "spiritual" experience. Unless you live under a rock and are completely disconnected from the rest of society, you've probably seen many spiritual experiences or had them yourself and didn't know it.

I just want you to realize, it does not matter to me if you acknowledge spiritual nature or not. I don't care what happens to you in life, it doesn't affect me in the least. If you got hit by a bus today, it wouldn't phase me a bit. I do, however, think it is SAD whenever someone rejects spiritual nature because I've found it to be very fulfilling in life. It has always been the thing which filled the void in me and made me feel complete as a person. For many years I didn't have that and I suffered more than I knew. I pray that you will one day find it.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.
> 
> The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.
Click to expand...


I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.


----------



## G.T.

Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.

In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.





Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
Click to expand...


Yea, our ape ancestors came up with those arguments.  Number two is wrong.

The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

_“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.”_ – Lawrence Krauss

_“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”_ – Charles Darwin

Number 15

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.
> 
> The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.
Click to expand...


Number two is wrong.  If it were Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, you'd be out before you even made $1000.

Why there is no god

Number 15 on all the reasons there is no god.


----------



## Broncho4

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To simply state that there is a branch of science that poses a theory that "somethings" always were, without any evidence to support that theory while simultaneously rejecting a contradicting and similarly non-provable theory, is not a sound argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...


I understood exactly what you were saying.  I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God).  I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe.  I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.

Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer.  "_Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:"_  This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning.  It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.
> 
> The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.
Click to expand...


And sometimes their lists get smaller.  Remember when lightening and famine were because the gods were angry?  Today gods don't do anything to us anymore.  We can't point to one thing and say, "that was god".  Yet they still believe this god character exists.


----------



## G.T.

Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.

You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.

Random question just out of pocket....

Have you ever practiced dreaming?


----------



## Broncho4

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the science loathing vitriol spewed by you religious cranks, all that remains is the use of evidence and reason to discriminate between which of our competing theories deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that "gods" exist, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
Click to expand...


The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians.  I am by no means a bible thumper.  I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings.  I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now.  Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.

I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in.  None of these have singular or consistent ideals.  But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the lowlife tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.




Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.
> 
> The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find is funny that you still won't admit that you know these things are true and pretend not to understand why the other two were added, because the first five had to be understood first before adding the other two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Number two is wrong.  If it were Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, you'd be out before you even made $1000.
> 
> Why there is no god
> 
> Number 15 on all the reasons there is no god.
Click to expand...


You don't believe that number two is wrong.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
Click to expand...

See how daft you are?

You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.

I never changed my belief that WE exist.

Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.

Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.

You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.


But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Broncho4 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying.  I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.
> 
> I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God).  I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe.  *I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs*.
> 
> Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer.  "_Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:"_  This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning.  It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.
Click to expand...


And neither do I because I'm not trying to prove anything but that which is objectively true about the issue.  One cannot prove God's existence to another, but one can prove what is objectively and logically true about the pertinent evidence supporting the conclusion for God's existence. 

Right.  I understood you too.  You said *#4* was not true and, therefore *#7* isn't true.  But that's wrong because the standard is generic and always has been in logic.  Polytheism and pantheism are not excluded, which means, now that you know that and why, you do agree that all seven are objectively true logically.

You must!

Look, these "Seven Things," which the atheists on this thread are merely pretending not to understand, assume that the first two are not illusions as a matter of practicality. They already know that. I already told them that. I just keep reposting it from time to time for the sake of others who have never thought about what's right in front of them and so  that everybody can also see the kind of mental gymnastics some atheists engage in, how absurd they become the more they pretend not to see the obvious.  

Anyone whose going to start out by asserting antirealism permits me to say:  So nothing you have to say is real Goodbye. You're dismissed." 

And we all know that these guys are materialists anyway.

These objective facts of human cognition about the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin are true logically. They are universally true for all of us, including the atheist, because of the bio-neurologically hardwired laws of organic/classical thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

I know several atheists who, of course, have no problem admitting that these things are logically true. "“Of course their true!"  But, of course, these are atheists who have no problem with the idea that they might be wrong and that theism is in fact based on reason. They’re not the obnoxious sort. By the way, I'm a former atheist. 

The obnoxious sort have been telling themselves and everybody else that theism is irrational all their lives without ever realizing that these "Seven Things" exist in our minds and are logically true.  They've just never thought it through before  So to now openly admit these logical truths to others. . . .

Young children, not fully developed intellectually, or persons who suffer from mental retardation or some kind of mental illness may not be able to follow. That's all that means. There's nothing controversial about that. There's no insult in that.  That's just a simple fact of life. After about 12 or 13 most all kids can understand why these things are objectively true logically once they're explained to them properly.  What parent in their right mind would not want their children to be able to think these things true and grasp them.  They're objectively true! What are some atheists doing to the minds of their children, screwing up their ability to think coherently?  What the hell? 

Why would I assume that persons who don't fall into one of those categories are unable to see that these thing are logically true?  _That’s_ what would be insulting. So I'm just conceding up front for the sake of objectivity that there are obvious exceptions to this rule.  It's no big deal.  LOL!

Usually, the hardest one to understand for most is not *#4*, but *#6*.   

Also, the issue does involve current science and some fairly complex rational and mathematical issues with regard to *#4*. The basic fact of *#4* is easy. The details about it are not so easy because now you get into science and mathematics to understand what more can be or not be objectively asserted about divine attribution.

Excuse me, but there are people on this thread telling us that we can't objectively determine anything more about *#4*, and that is not true.  Moreover, the additional, objectively derived information seals the deal with regard to the power of the proofs for God's existence.  

Finally, the reason some have come on this thread with opinions that the classical proofs don't hold up, as the OP wrongfully claims, goes to the fact that these people do not know what logic and science are ontologically and, therefore, do not know what they're talking about.


----------



## DriftingSand

Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.  
Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.

There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how daft you are?
> 
> You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.
> 
> I never changed my belief that WE exist.
> 
> Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.
> 
> Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.
> 
> You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.
> 
> 
> But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.
Click to expand...


I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective.  That's something new.   LOL!   

And before we _did_ have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number *#6* was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.

Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?

Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how daft you are?
> 
> You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.
> 
> I never changed my belief that WE exist.
> 
> Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.
> 
> Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.
> 
> You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.
> 
> 
> But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective.  That's something new.   LOL!
> 
> And before we _did_ have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number *#6* was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.
> 
> Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?
> 
> Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.
Click to expand...


He keeps morphing.


----------



## G.T.

Its the dip duck dodge brothers


----------



## G.T.

I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.

And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers 

I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.

Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."

Can one of you dishonest sneaky fucks quote me EVER agreeing to that?

You guys ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.

You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the fuck up.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we come back the reality of the fact, brushing your "religious" superstitions aside, that you necessarily know/believe the following is true. . . .
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:
> *
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I found it interesting just how quickly "the five things" became "The seven things" when the former was dismantled as a fraud.
> 
> The remanufacture of this latest disaster of silliness suffers from the same viciously circular "reasoning", such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And sometimes their lists get smaller.  Remember when lightening and famine were because the gods were angry?  Today gods don't do anything to us anymore.  We can't point to one thing and say, "that was god".  Yet they still believe this god character exists.
Click to expand...


 Keeping telling yourself these things; maybe they're will come true some day.  Not. 

I used a semicolon, but I morph.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.
> 
> And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers
> 
> I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.
> 
> Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."
> 
> Can one of you dishonest sneaky fucks quote me EVER agreeing to that?
> 
> You guys ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.
> 
> You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the fuck up.



So what's wrong with them now?  They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood.  Number seven just summarizes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> I actually do understand the problem with you understanding spiritual nature and I've tried to explain it to others. It's fundamentally rooted in your understanding of what "exists" in your own objective reality. Spiritual nature is no more "supernatural" than physical nature, you just refuse to acknowledge it exists as part of nature. But refusing to acknowledge something doesn't make it go away and not exist.
> .


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.
> 
> And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers
> 
> I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.
> 
> Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."
> 
> Can one of you dishonest sneaky fucks quote me EVER agreeing to that?
> 
> You guys ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.
> 
> You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with them now?  They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood.  Number seven just summarizes.
Click to expand...


It's a  morph thing.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how daft you are?
> 
> You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.
> 
> I never changed my belief that WE exist.
> 
> Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.
> 
> Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.
> 
> You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.
> 
> 
> But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective.  That's something new.   LOL!
> 
> And before we _did_ have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number *#6* was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.
> 
> Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?
> 
> Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things". 

Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.


You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how daft you are?
> 
> You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.
> 
> I never changed my belief that WE exist.
> 
> Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.
> 
> Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.
> 
> You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.
> 
> 
> But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective.  That's something new.   LOL!
> 
> And before we _did_ have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number *#6* was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.
> 
> Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?
> 
> Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things".
> 
> Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, Hollie, but I'm just going to have to cut you off, drop you like a bad habit, like a sack of potatoes.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not the seven things of human cognition. I do not agree, everything that follows is bunk to me for those reasons. I concur with like three of the seven, and even my agreement to those doesn't make them universal.
> 
> I 'believe' we exist. I cannot absolutely prove it.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist. But again, the only thing I can prove (to myself) is that *I* exist. Which is why hundreds of pages back cogito ergo sum was raised by me.
> 
> I do not believe god is biologically hard wired.
> 
> I do not believe "existence" was created. I do not believe existence was NOT created. Therein lies my agnosticism.
> 
> Your trademarked 'seven things' do not advance the conversation because, opposite of your assertion, they are not universally accepted but only by your fellow presuppers.
> 
> That's why its an argument and not a conversation.
> 
> You are lost as to what an axiom is. Instead of acknowledging this, you resort to the tact of Calli g those who don't consider them axioms 'liars.'
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Along with glib comments like "developmentally mature minds agree."
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> If you quit attempting to gloss over your inability to discern between your subjective opinion, and absolute truth by arguing from some sort of authority, maybe then you can begin to HAVE conversations.
> 
> Things go south.
> 
> Until then, you're preaching to your presupper choir and are doing nil to raise the bar of current knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you're pretending that you don't know that these are based on the assumption that the first two are true as a mater of practicality, which was made  clear from the beginning, and you did agree with the first five on that basis earlier.  So now you're changing your story again.  Oh, so now you're pretending that you actually believe in antirealism when we all know you don't.  And so now you're telling a new story about three but saying you can't prove you exist to anyone else which means you have nothing to say that matters right?  Looks like your silly attempt to pretend that you don't know they're all true went south before you got started.  And so now we don't have to take you seriously.  Oh, where did he go?  You disappeared, You were here just awhile ago.  GT, where did you go? I can't hear you anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See how daft you are?
> 
> You can't decipher between belief and what's provable.
> 
> I never changed my belief that WE exist.
> 
> Not one, and not even in the post you just quoted.
> 
> Yet you quoted me saying I believe it, and in response said that I didn't.
> 
> You're dumber than a sack of potatoes. Good fuckin gawdz you're tedious.
> 
> 
> But I notice you were unable to defend that mptag is an axiom. Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you're getting increasingly absurd is what I see, calling things that are objectively true for all subjective.  That's something new.   LOL!
> 
> And before we _did_ have you down for five of them. It's funny how after number *#6* was added things changed, but then that's the clincher that proves that the theist remains logically consistent while the atheist goes off into the world of paradox, where logic goes into shape-shifting mode. Wait! I keep forgetting. You're an agnostic . . . when you're not being atheist, or you're an atheist . . . when you're not being an agnostic. It's hard to keep, too much shape-shifting going on.
> 
> Explain to us again how it's possible for a finite mind to logically think/say that "God (the Creator) doesn't exist" without actually thinking/saying, on the fact it, that the finite mind would not exist if that were the case, or, for that matter, nothing would exist at all. You do exist, don't you?
> 
> Oh, that's right, you just said that you do. LOL! You're really are a riot, a rollercoaster riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny how you charlatans required the need to remanufacture your silly " five things" and reinvent that disaster into the even sillier "seven things".
> 
> Oh, That's right, you make up this nonsense as you go along LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Hollie, but I'm just going to have to cut you off, drop you like a bad habit, like a sack of potatoes.
Click to expand...

Runnin' scared, eh? 

Whack a fundie. It's what the gawds want.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been inconsistent whatsoever.
> 
> And what's sad, is that these charlatans think they're serious thinkers
> 
> I agreed to 'the five' in one of the umpteen ways you worded them.
> 
> Do I need to show you how they've changed? For instance, the one that morphed into "god is bio mechanically hardwired into our brains."
> 
> Can one of you dishonest sneaky fucks quote me EVER agreeing to that?
> 
> You guys ought to be fucking ashamed of yourselves, and you cheerlead at that.
> 
> You're little boys. This is a mans world, grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's wrong with them now?  They're basically the same. One more was all that was really added for obvious reasons after the first five were understood.  Number seven just summarizes.
Click to expand...

Read them as first presented. The first five.

Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.

See absolutely no differences?


Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.

Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........

to now......

God is "biomechanically hardwired."




And that's ME changing my views?


My views have remained steadfast.


I believe that we exist.

I believe the cosmos exist.

Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.

Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them


That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.

I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.
> 
> In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.


And onto substance - the presupper cannot address #'s one and two above.

There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection


----------



## sealybobo

Broncho4 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still cock blocking, I see.  Still spouting pseudoscientific nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians.  I am by no means a bible thumper.  I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings.  I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now.  Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.
> 
> I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in.  None of these have singular or consistent ideals.  But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".
Click to expand...


I'm sure if you ask a Muslim they'll say the same thing about Mohammad.

And I have a problem with Jesus if he said this:  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Only I don't believe he said that.  I think someone who was coming up with a new religion said he said that 100 years after he was supposedly crucified.  

And Jesus said Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days and lived to tell about it.  This was not an allegory.  He said it matter of fact.  Does that stand the test of time?  I doubt it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
Click to expand...


There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

"The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
Click to expand...


I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.  

And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.

Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.  

Is that it?


----------



## sealybobo

At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?  

Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:

*Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.




Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.

Hence:

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Simple.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.
> 
> And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.
> 
> Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.
> 
> Is that it?
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...

None of this proves anything.  NEXT!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
Click to expand...

The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times. 

Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
Click to expand...


Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.
> 
> And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.
> 
> Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.
Click to expand...


Ok then.

*1.* We exist! So what?  
*2.* The cosmological order exists!  So what?  
*3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!  So do Leprechauns.
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!  IF?  
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!  So what?  And you can't verify he does.  Seems to us it's all in your heads.
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)! Why not?  
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Why is this true?

It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
Click to expand...


Boss has given way better arguments for why a generic god exists.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.
> 
> And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.
> 
> Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The revised "seven things". The "five things" was an unmitigated disaster so you needed to immediately start kicking that dead horse argument.


----------



## G.T.

Well, worded like that I no longer agree with #3 - and you DAMN sure changed the wording and owe me an apology. But I don't want one. Its meaningless from a charlatan. Your snake oil faux logic is a terrible joke.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.
> 
> In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.
> 
> 
> 
> And onto substance - the presupper cannot address #'s one and two above.
> 
> There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection
Click to expand...

Presupper dipduckdodge


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Click to expand...


Here are my 7

1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.  
*2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
*3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
*4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
*5.* Theists can't prove god exists.  
*6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Click to expand...


*I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely. *
Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.


----------



## sealybobo

_“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” _– Carl Sagan

_“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”_- Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
Click to expand...


How many days are you going to keep on with this very weak argument?  Why there is no god



*There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief. *
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.


*Atheists should prove god doesn’t exist.*
Russell’s teapot.

The burden of proof is on the person or party asserting the claim; in this case, the theist.

See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
Click to expand...


Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .

Simple.


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with you too, not just Hollie.
> 
> And when did we go from this being the theist argument to you guys telling us god visited your Messiah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Noah, Moses, Adam & Eve & Jonah.
> 
> Maybe your side started making up stories because there are so many holes in your theories that your sided needed more "proof" so they fabricated it.
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you're talking about. The Seven Things are the only thing I'm talking about. The parenthetical is an aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then.
> 
> *1.* We exist! So what?
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!  So what?
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!  So do Leprechauns.
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!  IF?
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!  So what?  And you can't verify he does.  Seems to us it's all in your heads.
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)! Why not?
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Why is this true?
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not
Click to expand...

Number 4 could apply to any and all of the asserted gods. The christian cabal will necessarily default to god, collectively as the christian gods, but there's no reason to do that except to manufacture an argument that presupposes its conclusions. 

Like so much of the Seven Fraudulent Things, the Things are rigged, they're phony, and they're intended to reach a predefined conclusion.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...

The idea of god existing in our minds =\= the idea of god is "biologically hardwired in our minds."

Surely, you know there is a difference there. Nice try on the "okie doke," but developmentally mature minds (sic) don't fall for shit like that.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...

 Simple for a simpleton. 

Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "gods" in your narrative for the slow learners above and your nonsensical claim is exposed as the fraud it is.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?



Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down. 

Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
Click to expand...

I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.


But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.

When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.

Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.

But FULLY awake but in a dream.

This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.

I'm not fully there yet, either.

But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.


Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


We came up with that theory a long time ago when we weren't that educated.  We were also very curious, superstitious animals and we don't like not knowing what we don't know.  

One thing we don't know is how we all got here.  But theists came up with an answer.  Not a very good one.  Not one based on proof but on speculation.  Bottom line is all you know and believe is that something must have created us.  That's all you are really saying.  But that's not true.  At least it doesn't have to be a "god". 

And when you say "god", do you mean "something" that created us or is it the god in the bible or koran?  Do you think god ever visited any human on this planet?  

If the answer is yes then I guess you are too gullible to even talk sense to.  

But if you are talking about a generic "something" that created us?  I can tell you that science has given that question a lot of thought and so far they have not found a god yet.  They have figured out all the things you guys use to think were god ended up not being god.  You didn't get  cancer because god was angry with you or because you were bad.  The eclipse wasn't god.  The flood or tornado wasn't god.  Glass the invention wasn't god or magic as our ancestors believed..  The hot air balloon they invented in the 1700's wasn't god.  None of the things you thought were god were.

So you are basically swallowing an ancient superstition that our uneducated ancestors passed on to us.  Nice.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.
> 
> 
> But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
> 
> When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
> 
> Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
> 
> But FULLY awake but in a dream.
> 
> This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
> 
> I'm not fully there yet, either.
> 
> But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
> 
> 
> Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
Click to expand...


Ever see a dog dream it's running?  So cute.


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.
> 
> 
> But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
> 
> When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
> 
> Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
> 
> But FULLY awake but in a dream.
> 
> This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
> 
> I'm not fully there yet, either.
> 
> But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
> 
> 
> Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever see a dog dream it's running?  So cute.
Click to expand...

Yes I have













On YouTube lol


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


Yes you are simple.  I however am not.  I don't assume anything.  It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.  

For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.  

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

Do you understand this?  That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.
> 
> 
> But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
> 
> When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
> 
> Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
> 
> But FULLY awake but in a dream.
> 
> This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
> 
> I'm not fully there yet, either.
> 
> But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
> 
> Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
Click to expand...


I think I know what you mean. I have been in a dream before and was aware it was a dream. I usually end up "showing off" in the dream... Like this one time, I showed my friends in the dream how I could defy gravity. I was running, taking these really long strides which turned into marathon strides that never ended. My friends were amazed by it. I could stay suspended as long as I liked. 

Seriously, and back on topic.. I think our dreams have some correlation with our spiritual awareness. Not sure to what degree or how that works, but I believe there is a connection.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not in the "dreams have meaning" club, I'm in the club where "your brain is a computer, and when you sleep it defrags itself (organizes files/memories/information) and that's why they typically make no sense.
> 
> 
> But lucid dreaming is this whole other ball park. Starting with a dream journal is a good idea. The trick is, recognizing patterns so much so that they become subconsciously imbedded. Dream journals can work. But other things work better like 'reality checks' where all day long for a period of about two weeks.....you perform a task such as flipping a light switch a few times. Eventually, it will come up in a dream just because of the memory. Well, when it comes up - something will occur in the dream like the light won't go on.
> 
> When and if you can realize you're dreaming, without waking up.....you begin to be conscious within a dream.
> 
> Not semi conscious, like can happen sometimes by accident where you are somewhat in control.
> 
> But FULLY awake but in a dream.
> 
> This takes TONS of time to research and master, and it takes discipline to take steps day and night in practicing for the ultimate.
> 
> I'm not fully there yet, either.
> 
> But the people in the circles of youtubes, etc. That have taught/brought me to this point speak of all kinds of weird spiritual shit. Meeting other versions of themselves.....all kinds of intrigue.
> 
> Whenever I get really close, I get sleep paralysis and drop out. I need more practice, but life is busy and I can't always 'care' to take all the steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I know what you mean. I have been in a dream before and was aware it was a dream. I usually end up "showing off" in the dream... Like this one time, I showed my friends in the dream how I could defy gravity. I was running, taking these really long strides which turned into marathon strides that never ended. My friends were amazed by it. I could stay suspended as long as I liked.
> 
> Seriously, and back on topic.. I think our dreams have some correlation with our spiritual awareness. Not sure to what degree or how that works, but I believe there is a connection.
Click to expand...

It could, and thats what I was getting at.

I'm not ready to say I'm sold yet, but this current avenue I'm studying and practicing has been really intriguing so far.

I'm gonna post more on it tomorrow.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Click to expand...



Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths. 

See how that works?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss I think you and I could come to some sort of mutual understanding out of anyone else I'm seeing argue in the affirmative for a spiritual type existence.
> 
> You seem the most grounded or closest to reasonable to me anyhoo.
> 
> Random question just out of pocket....
> 
> Have you ever practiced dreaming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "practiced dreaming." I used to keep a journal of my dreams by my night stand. Not because I was into the whole "dreams mean stuff" thing, but just because I tend to have some very interesting dreams and I forget them if I don't write them down.
> 
> Also, I have this thing that's kind of odd, for me anyway... If I go to sleep with a movie playing that I am familiar with, a lot of times I will dream the movie is happening with me in it. Really weird. I did this with Tombstone the other night and actually dreamed I shot Johnny Ringo!
Click to expand...


_Tombstone_ rocks!  "I'm you're Huckleberry."


----------



## Boss

Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are simple.  I however am not.  I don't assume anything.  It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
> 
> For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Do you understand this?  That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
Click to expand...


I don't assume God's existence from these things.  I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist.  Period.  That's it.  There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.

THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF!  THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES_ A_ PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.

THAT'S IT.  THERE IS NO MORE.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read them as first presented. The first five.
> 
> Now, read numbers 1-5 of the seven.
> 
> See absolutely no differences?
> 
> 
> Yea, see the problem here is that a couple of the words got arranged differently and changed the meaning completely.
> 
> Such as going from god exists in our minds (which I only agreed with because he exists as an idea in my mind because I've HEARD OF AND LEARNED OF HIS CONCEPT)........
> 
> to now......
> 
> God is "biomechanically hardwired."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's ME changing my views?
> 
> 
> My views have remained steadfast.
> 
> 
> I believe that we exist.
> 
> I believe the cosmos exist.
> 
> Did I change on those? No. I always said the same. I believe them.
> 
> Now, your little minion thought I changed to not believing them when I said I cannot PROVE them
> 
> 
> That's you clowns' reading comprehension issues, not me changing positions.
> 
> I dont expect an apology. Real men do that. But stop being so desperate as to invent things of people out of whole cloth. Its a rather disgusting, especially done in a highfiving juvenile little way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are simple.  I however am not.  I don't assume anything.  It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
> 
> For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Do you understand this?  That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't assume God's existence from these things.  I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist.  Period.  That's it.  There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.
> 
> THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF!  THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES_ A_ PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.
> 
> THAT'S IT.  THERE IS NO MORE.
Click to expand...


What's really weird about all this is the beliefs of folks who seem to think God is someone far away or mysteriously aloof when He's all around us and in everything.  I see God everywhere, in our minds and in our logic and math, in physics.  He's talking to us in everything there is. It's so obvious.  God's thoughts are everywhere and in everything.  Why are people having such a difficult time with all this, even theists imagine Him to be some kind of secretive being who is nothing more to them than their subjective experience.  As for the atheists, I'm convinced now that they're the most superstitious people on the planet.  It's just seven simple, obvious truths that no one escapes because A = A, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle.  Do these things tell you anything about God at all?  Yes, lots if  you think about them.  But on the face of them, they're just seven simple logical truths, objectively true and self-evident to everybody, and Fox freaks me out more than anybody.  You can tell she hasn't really read or thought about any of the things that matter.  She sure likes that cosmological argument though.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

I see how that works. That was a disaster of convolution, predefinition of terms, bad analogies, false comparisons and the worst example of the dangers of religious extremism.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are simple.  I however am not.  I don't assume anything.  It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
> 
> For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Do you understand this?  That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't assume God's existence from these things.  I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist.  Period.  That's it.  There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.
> 
> THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF!  THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES_ A_ PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.
> 
> THAT'S IT.  THERE IS NO MORE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's really weird about all this is the beliefs of folks who seem to think God is someone far away or mysteriously aloof when He's all around us and in everything.  I see God everywhere, in our minds and in our logic and math, in physics.  He's talking to us in everything there is. It's so obvious.  God's thoughts are everywhere and in everything.  Why are people having such a difficult time with all this, even theists imagine Him to be some kind of secretive being who is nothing more to them than their subjective experience.  As for the atheists, I'm convinced now that they're the most superstitious people on the planet.  It's just seven simple, obvious truths that no one escapes because A = A, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle.  Do these things tell you anything about God at all?  Yes, lots if  you think about them.  But on the face of them, they're just seven simple logical truths, objectively true and self-evident to everybody, and Fox freaks me out more than anybody.  You can tell she hasn't really read or thought about any of the things that matter.  She sure likes that cosmological argument though.
Click to expand...

Yes. Zeus is everywhere.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

That's remarkable. You exempt yourself from any pwoof of your baseless claims. How cool is that? You grant yourself an exclusive right to make any pointless, baseless you wushu and you're not under any obligation to support your claims with fact or evidence.

It's like, you're a complete moron.


----------



## DriftingSand

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
Click to expand...


True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:

*Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
*_
*Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
Click to expand...

And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts". 

We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you didn't get these ideas from me.  I never said _God_ existed in our minds or that _God_ is hardwired in our minds.  I said that the _knowledge of God_, beginning with _the idea of God_, is in our minds. The laws of organic logic are universally hardwired, and as result of that the fundamental mathematical axioms from which postulates and theorems are _a priori _developed are hardwired.  In the same way, the understanding via the organic laws of thought that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and one cannot logically assert that _God (the Creator) does not exist_ without contradicting oneself to the effect that one actually asserts that _God does exist_ are hardwired axioms of human cognition.
> 
> Hence:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The _*idea*_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _*exists*_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No God can't be "ruled out".  The cosmological order doesn't prove anything, Number 4 your are starting off with "IF" God exists.  If if's and buts were candy and nuts...
> 
> None of this proves anything.  NEXT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, because_ if_ God exists is objective.  We have an idea of God as the Creator. But the idea is not the same as God.  If that's confusing to you then just read it as "Assuming that there is an actual substance of divinity behind this idea of God. .  . .
> 
> Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are simple.  I however am not.  I don't assume anything.  It is you who is assuming a whole hell of a lot.
> 
> For example, I read those 7 things you posted and in no way does that make me think, "oh yea then there must be a god", but to a simpleton like you it is all the logic you need.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Do you understand this?  That means even your arguments have fatal flaws or more likely explanations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't assume God's existence from these things.  I know these things are objectively true, as do you, and it's not logically possible to say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist without, in actuality, logically, saying/thinking that he does exist.  Period.  That's it.  There are no flaws in any that. Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the mattes of existence and origin. There's nothing assumed.
> 
> THE SEVEN THINGS ARE NOT A PROOF!  THEY'RE A STATEMENT OF COGNITIVE FACTS THAT INCLUDES_ A_ PROOF REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LOGICALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY GOD DOESN'T EXIST WITHOUT ACTUALLY SAYING THAT HE DOES EXIST.
> 
> THAT'S IT.  THERE IS NO MORE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's really weird about all this is the beliefs of folks who seem to think God is someone far away or mysteriously aloof when He's all around us and in everything.  I see God everywhere, in our minds and in our logic and math, in physics.  He's talking to us in everything there is. It's so obvious.  God's thoughts are everywhere and in everything.  Why are people having such a difficult time with all this, even theists imagine Him to be some kind of secretive being who is nothing more to them than their subjective experience.  As for the atheists, I'm convinced now that they're the most superstitious people on the planet.  It's just seven simple, obvious truths that no one escapes because A = A, the law of contradiction, the law of excluded middle.  Do these things tell you anything about God at all?  Yes, lots if  you think about them.  But on the face of them, they're just seven simple logical truths, objectively true and self-evident to everybody, and Fox freaks me out more than anybody.  You can tell she hasn't really read or thought about any of the things that matter.  She sure likes that cosmological argument though.
Click to expand...



You're waxing poetic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?



Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
Click to expand...

"The Seven Self-contradictory Things"


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
Click to expand...

Which version?

Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.

Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.

Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.

A bit uncouth, the two of you.

There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.


----------



## DriftingSand

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
Click to expand...


True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it is important to acknowledge the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof'.  Except for MDR/Justin, there is not one single one of us among the believers, who have claimed that there is proof of God that we can show to another soul.  Our only proof is our own experience and relationship with God and that is something we cannot demonstrate to you or anybody else.
> 
> But while it is not  'proof', there is evidence and logical arguments re that evidence that deserve to be in the discussion.  My personal wish is for a reasoned and amicable discussion with believers and non believers about that evidence and logic, pro and con, that does not involve hateful or childish insults directed at the believers, or hateful insults directed at the non believers.  And when you have believers denigrating other believers who believe differently, it gets even more muddled and futile as any kind of constructive exercise.
> 
> So the discussion invariably becomes:
> --Christians are liars or delusional or brainwashed or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> --Atheists are the spawn of hell.
> --Christians who don't believe as I believe are ignorant or clueless or pick an uncomplimentary adjective of choice.
> 
> I wonder if a reasoned and cordial discussion on a religious topic is possible on a message board?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...


Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

Why do we care?  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

_And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind”_ – William Clifford


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
Click to expand...

You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.

It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.

I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods. 

But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism. 

You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved. 

If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> 
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's remarkable. You exempt yourself from any pwoof of your baseless claims. How cool is that? You grant yourself an exclusive right to make any pointless, baseless you wushu and you're not under any obligation to support your claims with fact or evidence.
> 
> It's like, you're a complete moron.
Click to expand...


Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to _ consider_ new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief – pending further evidence – does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.

We are the ones keeping an open mind.  Just not convinced yet.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
Click to expand...


I'm not going to worry about these brainwashed fools.  Think about the younger generation today who for the first time are questioning all this.  At least they have the internet.  I remember when I was young all I had was my friends, family and society telling me god is real, god is real, god is real.  I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.  So growing up all I was told was either believe or go to hell and I didn't have something like this to look at before deciding.  Why there is no god  I wish I did.  It would have saved me years of debating it in my head.  So glad I let that shit go.    

Oh yea, another benefit we have today is cable tv.  Back when I was growing up, they didn't have the Science Channel or other cable channels that might present the atheists side.  For example the Cosmos.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?



Did you see yesterday I said you make way better arguments for the existence of a god than he does?  This shit is weak compared to you.  You at least got me scratching my head a few times at least.  But then I realized that we've been wondering this and debating this for 200,000 years and we still don't know.  I'm only humans.  Humans don't like not knowing things and this is absolutely one of those things we don't know.  

Especially if you toss out all the organized religions and their lies about when god visited them.  Even you know that's a lie.  So I wonder at what point did theists stop believing in generic god like you do and start making up stories about him visiting them?  Why did they need to lie?  Again, it's because humans hate not knowing.  So whoever made up the stories about god visiting them was just providing people with a service.  

People need to know and religion provided what they needed. 

I myself don't need it.  Neither do you but it is so ingrained in your pea head you can't get it out and you actually think this god talks to you.  And I'm supposed to believe you or Rawlings could mentally butt fuck me?  Ha!


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> 
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> Why do we care?  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> _And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind”_ – William Clifford
Click to expand...


Science is the worst thing that ever happened to you. It is used as an excuse for you to remain ignorant. It enables you to disbelieve what you instinctively know is true. It is your hiding place, your 'safe harbor' from broader intellectual thought. You pervert science for your own purposes and assume science speaks for your banality. You've forged science into a weapon of war against religion and the religious.

In short, you are a much lesser human being because of science. While science has brought mankind many wondrous discoveries, it has contributed to your personal devolution. Science lifted man out of the Dark Ages but has relegated you to the status of a monkey. You would have ended up a better human being had you never heard of science.


----------



## DriftingSand

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the result of its existence.
> Love is unseen by the naked eye but we know it exists by the fruits of its existence.
> Wind is not seen by the naked eye but we know it exists when we feel its force.
> Electricity isn't seen by the naked eye but the result of its power is known to all.
> 
> There are many forces that aren't seen but exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
Click to expand...


Sorry you're so easily duped by so-called "historians" but the "Inventor" of Christianity is Jesus Christ.  He was born to a virgin; He was God in the flesh; He learned the ways of men to show how to overcome sin; He taught wise and true tenets concerning man's relationship to Himself (God) and fellow men; He was murdered by folks like you who hated Him and His teachings; He shed His blood to pay for your sins and mine; He died and was buried; He rose from the grave three days later (the Temple made without hands); and He rose in triumphant glory to take His throne in the Kingdom.  He will return with His angels to clean up man's mess.  He will judge the souls of all mankind.  Those who accept (accepted) Him will live for eternity in His Kingdom while those who reject Him will be sent to hell.

There's your history lesson.  It can be found in the most read book in mankind's history, the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you're so easily duped by so-called "historians" but the "Inventor" of Christianity is Jesus Christ.  He was born to a virgin; He was God in the flesh; He learned the ways of men to show how to overcome sin; He taught wise and true tenets concerning man's relationship to Himself (God) and fellow men; He was murdered by folks like you who hated Him and His teachings; He shed His blood to pay for your sins and mine; He died and was buried; He rose from the grave three days later (the Temple made without hands); and He rose in triumphant glory to take His throne in the Kingdom.  He will return with His angels to clean up man's mess.  He will judge the souls of all mankind.  Those who accept (accepted) Him will live for eternity in His Kingdom while those who reject Him will be sent to hell.
> 
> There's your history lesson.  It can be found in the most read book in mankind's history, the Bible.
Click to expand...

Umm. Sorry, but you obviously have never studied christianity. Paul was the inventor of Christianity. 

Pretty cool how you conceded the evolution of Christianity from earlier pagan polytheism. Those earlier roots are even evident in the polytheistic nature of your three gods. 

Why do you think Paul, in his invention of Christianity, needed to steal the theology of Judaism and even stole Hebrew scripture before assigning the polytheistic christian gods?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> We came up with that theory a long time ago when we weren't that educated.  We were also very curious, superstitious animals and we don't like not knowing what we don't know.
> 
> One thing we don't know is how we all got here.  But theists came up with an answer.  Not a very good one.  Not one based on proof but on speculation.  Bottom line is all you know and believe is that something must have created us.  That's all you are really saying.  But that's not true.  At least it doesn't have to be a "god".
> 
> And when you say "god", do you mean "something" that created us or is it the god in the bible or koran?  Do you think god ever visited any human on this planet?
> 
> If the answer is yes then I guess you are too gullible to even talk sense to.
> 
> But if you are talking about a generic "something" that created us?  I can tell you that science has given that question a lot of thought and so far they have not found a god yet.  They have figured out all the things you guys use to think were god ended up not being god.  You didn't get  cancer because god was angry with you or because you were bad.  The eclipse wasn't god.  The flood or tornado wasn't god.  Glass the invention wasn't god or magic as our ancestors believed..  The hot air balloon they invented in the 1700's wasn't god.  None of the things you thought were god were.
> 
> So you are basically swallowing an ancient superstition that our uneducated ancestors passed on to us.  Nice.




See.  Justin is right.  You atheists are superstitious.  None of your meanderings hold up under the scrutiny of the objective facts or logic of human cognition.

No on escapes "The Seven Things"!

Theists came up with this.  Theists came up with that.

No, gullible one, superstitious one, self-deluded one, pseudoscientific one, pseudo-philosophical one, pseudo-theological one, pathologically irrational one, make-things-up-out-of-thin-air one*:*  it is _you_ who lives in a world of dreams and magic.  No one escapes "The Seven Things"!  They are in _your_ mind just like they're in everybody else's mind!  And these objective, absolute and universal facts of human cognition falsify everything you just spouted.

Bottom line:  this is why the atheists on this thread will not honestly and openly concede the obvious, what we all know to be true logically, as they belie every doctrine of these superstitious, dogmatically obtuse fanatics.

Every time the atheist opens his yap and declares "God does not exist!", in that one statement alone, he necessarily acknowledges that every one of "The Seven Things" are objectively true for all human beings!

The idea of God is a figment of human culture, a mere human invention, imagination run amuck, not, at the very least a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition?!

Really?

Talk about pseudoscientific claptrap!  The very first artifact of belief, the foundation, for everything else the atheist spouts as if from on high (a tiny little, finite mind of a god in the gap fallacy), is sheer fairy dust, a unicorn, a spaghetti monster, a boogie man.

Say "God doesn't exist" again!  I dare you!  Say it again!

Tell us again about how this idea that's obviously hardwired in _your_ head has no substance behind it.  How did you get this idea that has no substance behind it?  Where did you get this idea that has no substance behind it?  How could an idea that's obviously hardwired in your head be a mere figment of human culture?

Quite obviously superstitious one, pseudoscientific one:  it's always been an artifact of human culture _because_ the idea is a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition!

Say "God doesn't exist" again.  Concede the fact of "The Seven Things" in that one statement alone again!


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:*

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The idea of god existing in our minds =\= the idea of god is "biologically hardwired in our minds."
> 
> Surely, you know there is a difference there. Nice try on the "okie doke," but developmentally mature minds (sic) don't fall for shit like that.




See. Justin is right. You atheists are superstitious. None of your meanderings hold up under the scrutiny of the objective facts or logic of human cognition.

No on escapes "The Seven Things"!

Theists came up with this. Theists came up with that.

No, gullible one, superstitious one, self-deluded one, pseudoscientific one, pseudo-philosophical one, pseudo-theological one, pathologically irrational one, make-things-up-out-of-thin-air one*:* it is _you_ who lives in a world of dreams and magic. No one escapes "The Seven Things"! They are in _your_ mind just like they're in everybody else's mind! And these objective, absolute and universal facts of human cognition falsify everything you just spouted.

Bottom line: this is why the atheists on this thread will not honestly and openly concede the obvious, what we all know to be true logically, as they belie every doctrine of these superstitious, dogmatically obtuse fanatics.

Every time the atheist opens his yap and declares "God does not exist!", in that one statement alone, he necessarily acknowledges that every one of "The Seven Things" are objectively true for all human beings!

The idea of God is a figment of human culture, a mere human invention, imagination run amuck, not, at the very least a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition?!

Really?

Talk about pseudoscientific claptrap! The very first artifact of belief, the foundation, for everything else the atheist spouts as if from on high (a tiny little, finite mind of a god in the gap fallacy), is sheer fairy dust, a unicorn, a spaghetti monster, a boogie man.

Say "God doesn't exist" again! I dare you! Say it again!

Tell us again about how this idea that's obviously hardwired in _your_ head has no substance behind it. How did you get this idea that has no substance behind it? Where did you get this idea that has no substance behind it? How could an idea that's obviously hardwired in your head be a mere figment of human culture?

Quite obviously superstitious one, pseudoscientific one: it's always been an artifact of human culture _because_ the idea is a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition!

Say "God doesn't exist" again. Concede the fact of "The Seven Things" in that one statement alone again!


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:*

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We came up with that theory a long time ago when we weren't that educated.  We were also very curious, superstitious animals and we don't like not knowing what we don't know.
> 
> One thing we don't know is how we all got here.  But theists came up with an answer.  Not a very good one.  Not one based on proof but on speculation.  Bottom line is all you know and believe is that something must have created us.  That's all you are really saying.  But that's not true.  At least it doesn't have to be a "god".
> 
> And when you say "god", do you mean "something" that created us or is it the god in the bible or koran?  Do you think god ever visited any human on this planet?
> 
> If the answer is yes then I guess you are too gullible to even talk sense to.
> 
> But if you are talking about a generic "something" that created us?  I can tell you that science has given that question a lot of thought and so far they have not found a god yet.  They have figured out all the things you guys use to think were god ended up not being god.  You didn't get  cancer because god was angry with you or because you were bad.  The eclipse wasn't god.  The flood or tornado wasn't god.  Glass the invention wasn't god or magic as our ancestors believed..  The hot air balloon they invented in the 1700's wasn't god.  None of the things you thought were god were.
> 
> So you are basically swallowing an ancient superstition that our uneducated ancestors passed on to us.  Nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See.  Justin is right.  You atheists are superstitious.  None of your meanderings hold up under the scrutiny of the objective facts or logic of human cognition.
> 
> No on escapes "The Seven Things"!
> 
> Theists came up with this.  Theists came up with that.
> 
> No, gullible one, superstitious one, self-deluded one, pseudoscientific one, pseudo-philosophical one, pseudo-theological one, pathologically irrational one, make-things-up-out-of-thin-air one*:*  it is _you_ who lives in a world of dreams and magic.  No one escapes "The Seven Things"!  They are in _your_ mind just like they're in everybody else's mind!  And these objective, absolute and universal facts of human cognition falsify everything you just spouted.
> 
> Bottom line:  this is why the atheists on this thread will not honestly and openly concede the obvious, what we all know to be true logically, as they belie every doctrine of these superstitious, dogmatically obtuse fanatics.
> 
> Every time the atheist opens his yap and declares "God does not exist!", in that one statement alone, he necessarily acknowledges that every one of "The Seven Things" are objectively true for all human beings!
> 
> The idea of God is a figment of human culture, a mere human invention, imagination run amuck, not, at the very least a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition?!
> 
> Really?
> 
> Talk about pseudoscientific claptrap!  The very first artifact of belief, the foundation, for everything else the atheist spouts as if from on high (a tiny little, finite mind of a god in the gap fallacy), is sheer fairy dust, a unicorn, a spaghetti monster, a boogie man.
> 
> Say "God doesn't exist" again!  I dare you!  Say it again!
> 
> Tell us again about how this idea that's obviously hardwired in _your_ head has no substance behind it.  How did you get this idea that has no substance behind it?  Where did you get this idea that has no substance behind it?  How could an idea that's obviously hardwired in your head be a mere figment of human culture?
> 
> Quite obviously superstitious one, pseudoscientific one:  it's always been an artifact of human culture _because_ the idea is a bio-neurologically hardwired fact of human cognition!
> 
> Say "God doesn't exist" again.  Concede the fact of "The Seven Things" in that one statement alone again!
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin*:*
> 
> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.
Click to expand...


See, I was right. Your arguments are so thoroughly bankrupt, you can't defend them. You're reduced to cutting and pasting the same tired slogans , cliches' and entire paragraphs of your refuted blathering.


----------



## G.T.

*1.* We exist!

Sure we do. That doesn't presuppose sentient creation as opposed to Natural & eternal processes.

*2.* The cosmological order exists!

Sure it does, but we don't fully understand it yet. In fact, the very top experts in the field would agree that we barely know dick in the grand scope of things.

*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Not necessarily biologically hardwired though. It could also be in our minds simply because "we've heard of it from other people."

This is, in effect, meaningless bumblejargain.

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

Doesn't matter. The *if* is a pretty large qualifier there.

Try this on for size: if eternal non-sentient external multi-verses created our universe, thus our knowledge, any argument launched against them proves they are true! (sic)

/TAG is the dumbest shit ever

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

whether or not. meaning? Meaning, _NOTHING. Does nothing to advance the conversation in either direction. _

*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!

This is not a fact. Calling this a fact means that you do not respect the ideals of Reason. It's not impossible to "think that god doesn't exist." This is a mere opinion. You have to presuppose god exists in order for it to be impossible to "think that god doesn't exist."

Does everyone presuppose god actually exists? No, so this is a bunch of horseshit on your part.

*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Except, they're not. You don't respect what "objectively" means, so you're not a very respected "thinker" from my vantage point.



You avoid every post which really calls into question, in a valid way, the "TAG" argument as a proof.

It is viciously circular and begs the question, and an "argument launched against it" does not "prove its true!!" unless you DOUBLY beg the question. Since the argu(er) AGAINST it does not presuppose God as the source of Truth, using "truth," *for them*, is not asserting that god exists. This is why you're called a blow hard because it is mere hubris.

Dodge that, though.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.
> 
> In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection
Click to expand...

Presupper dipduckdodge[/QUOTE]
presupper, dipduckdodge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.



Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?

Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  And you pathological lying about the nature of "The Seven Things" is a straw man.
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
Click to expand...

As usual, dipduckdodge, and ad hom.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go imagining things that aren't real again.  The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs.  Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.
> 
> "The Seven Things," which they all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind!  There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (*#6*), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic.  The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but  not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems.  Hmm.
> 
> But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought,  are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither the proof nor the evidence, but the ultimate ground or substance of both.  And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bioneurologically hardwired.)
> 
> 
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> Why do we care?  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> _And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind”_ – William Clifford
Click to expand...


Say God doesn't exist again.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Say God doesn't exist again.



And equally as ridiculous within the confines of current human knowledge, say god does exist again


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  And you pathological lying about the nature of "The Seven Things" is a straw man.
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, dipduckdodge, and ad hom.
Click to expand...


That's right.  Tells us the truth about the seven things again.  Say God doesn't exist again.  God?  Who said anything about God?  Oh, that's right, the atheist did, something about the idea that's obviously in the atheist's head not having real existence behind it.  Where's that idea at?  Gee wiz, it's in the atheist's head.  How did that happen?


----------



## DriftingSand

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> 
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you're so easily duped by so-called "historians" but the "Inventor" of Christianity is Jesus Christ.  He was born to a virgin; He was God in the flesh; He learned the ways of men to show how to overcome sin; He taught wise and true tenets concerning man's relationship to Himself (God) and fellow men; He was murdered by folks like you who hated Him and His teachings; He shed His blood to pay for your sins and mine; He died and was buried; He rose from the grave three days later (the Temple made without hands); and He rose in triumphant glory to take His throne in the Kingdom.  He will return with His angels to clean up man's mess.  He will judge the souls of all mankind.  Those who accept (accepted) Him will live for eternity in His Kingdom while those who reject Him will be sent to hell.
> 
> There's your history lesson.  It can be found in the most read book in mankind's history, the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm. Sorry, but you obviously have never studied christianity. Paul was the inventor of Christianity.
> 
> Pretty cool how you conceded the evolution of Christianity from earlier pagan polytheism. Those earlier roots are even evident in the polytheistic nature of your three gods.
> 
> Why do you think Paul, in his invention of Christianity, needed to steal the theology of Judaism and even stole Hebrew scripture before assigning the polytheistic christian gods?
Click to expand...


Here's Peter, not Paul, referring to followers of Christ as "Christians": *1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  And you pathological lying about the nature of "The Seven Things" is a straw man.
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, dipduckdodge, and ad hom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  Tells us the truth about the seven things again.  Say God doesn't exist again.  God?  Who said anything about God?  Oh, that's right, the atheist did, something about the idea that's obviously in the atheist's head not having real existence behind it.  Where's that idea at?  Gee wiz, it's in the atheist's head.  How did that happen?
Click to expand...


Justin, just copy and paste "The Seven Things" each time.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  And you pathological lying about the nature of "The Seven Things" is a straw man.
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, dipduckdodge, and ad hom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  Tells us the truth about the seven things again.  Say God doesn't exist again.  God?  Who said anything about God?  Oh, that's right, the atheist did, something about the idea that's obviously in the atheist's head not having real existence behind it.  Where's that idea at?  Gee wiz, it's in the atheist's head.  How did that happen?
Click to expand...

More reading comprehension issues 'lil plumber kid?

"say god doesnt exist again."

Again?

Again?

Never said it once. 



Weren't you the sniveling little charlatan running around like a toddler calling people liars all over this thread? 

Your character attributes as a human being are terrible. Surely if there's a christian god, you're going to have to answer for these little ocd quirks you seem to have. Your negative character is disgusting.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say God doesn't exist again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And equally as ridiculous within the confines of current human knowledge, say god does exist again
Click to expand...



*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justin, your facts of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.
> 
> In logic, you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, keep on with the tired ad hom crutch as we know you will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason for that. Vampires don't see their reflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presupper dipduckdodge
Click to expand...

presupper, dipduckdodge.[/QUOTE]


*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


----------



## G.T.

Justin, your "facts" of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.

In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin, your "facts" of logic are not facts of logic, at least what you glean from them. It is presupper bullshit.
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have not been ruled out and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.




*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


----------



## DriftingSand

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add supernaturalism and gawds inhabiting magic spirit realms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to worry about these brainwashed fools.  Think about the younger generation today who for the first time are questioning all this.  At least they have the internet.  I remember when I was young all I had was my friends, family and society telling me god is real, god is real, god is real.  I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.  So growing up all I was told was either believe or go to hell and I didn't have something like this to look at before deciding.  Why there is no god  I wish I did.  It would have saved me years of debating it in my head.  So glad I let that shit go.
> 
> Oh yea, another benefit we have today is cable tv.  Back when I was growing up, they didn't have the Science Channel or other cable channels that might present the atheists side.  For example the Cosmos.
Click to expand...


The number of Christ's true followers has ALWAYS been small in number.  Broad is the path that leads to destruction while narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and God's Kingdom.  A healthy tree needs the dead wood pruned out.  Quality over quantity. One shouldn't become a Christian because it's the popular thing to do but because he/she was called by the Holy Spirit.  Persecution of Christians is a biblical prophecy and promise so it comes as no surprise that "easy-believism" is falling out of vogue and the "summertime" believers are leaving in droves.  Let them go!


----------



## Meriweather

sealybobo said:


> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.



Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!



Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  And you pathological lying about the nature of "The Seven Things" is a straw man.
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, dipduckdodge, and ad hom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  Tells us the truth about the seven things again.  Say God doesn't exist again.  God?  Who said anything about God?  Oh, that's right, the atheist did, something about the idea that's obviously in the atheist's head not having real existence behind it.  Where's that idea at?  Gee wiz, it's in the atheist's head.  How did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin, just copy and paste "The Seven Things" each time.
Click to expand...


Okay.

But Fox will say we're being irreverent. Actually, I think she needs the seven things too.  She doesn't seem to be aware of them and what they mean.


----------



## Justin Davis

Meriweather said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
Click to expand...


Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?

"The fool says in his heart that there is no God" (King David, Psalms).


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Okay.





this fool is down to following direct orders and everything

oh man


----------



## Meriweather

Justin Davis said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
Click to expand...


From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above nonsense is nothing more than the same goofy slogans and cliches' that have been cult and pasted across multiple pages, multiple times.
> 
> Really, Bunky, how sad for you that even after your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, you're reduced to cutting and pasting the same nonsense in repetitive fashion post after post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> Why do we care?  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> _And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind”_ – William Clifford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is the worst thing that ever happened to you. It is used as an excuse for you to remain ignorant. It enables you to disbelieve what you instinctively know is true. It is your hiding place, your 'safe harbor' from broader intellectual thought. You pervert science for your own purposes and assume science speaks for your banality. You've forged science into a weapon of war against religion and the religious.
> 
> In short, you are a much lesser human being because of science. While science has brought mankind many wondrous discoveries, it has contributed to your personal devolution. Science lifted man out of the Dark Ages but has relegated you to the status of a monkey. You would have ended up a better human being had you never heard of science.
Click to expand...


While I get what you're saying and all and you're right, the only science sillybobo knows, just like Hollie, is pseudoscience. Even this plumber knows more about science than they do.


----------



## G.T.

Meriweather said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
Click to expand...

You don't have to respond to such childish and insulting posts.


----------



## Hollie

DriftingSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> True (since I've never heard of a "gawd").  However, I do believe that God exists in the Heavenly realm.  We know of His existence because:
> 
> *Romans 1:20*_*, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
> *_
> *Jeremiah 51:15*_*, ""He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding."*_
> 
> 
> 
> And others, by happenstance of geography and culture, will have competing gawds as inventions of men who wrote competing versions of "holy texts".
> 
> We know their gawds are true, thus your gawds are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. There are many, many copycat religions but one thing all of them have in common is their belief that there is a power greater than mankind and the universe. There is a truth to be known.  One Truth.  There is only one way by which mankind came to exist and you, Hollie, don't know that Way (though you're high on your personal speculation).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should learn some history regarding the invention of christianity.
> 
> It's interesting that you would use the term copycat religions when that precisely describes christianity.
> 
> I think where you falter is in the futile attempt to un-link your gods from all the earlier human inventions of gods.
> 
> But second, you seem to be unable to conceptually wrap your head around the evolutionary origin of the Abrahamic faiths. For some odd reason, you are unable to draw the necessary conceptual conclusion that what is Islam evolved from Christianity, in the same way that Christianity evolved from Judaism, and Judaism evolved from earlier Canaanite polytheism.
> 
> You seem to have further conveniently forgotten the Canaanite pagan polytheism from which Judaism (and hence all the following Abrahamic faiths) originally evolved.
> 
> If you insist on trying to un-stick the religions from which yours evolved, you cannot fail to embrace its pagan roots without justifying charges of special pleading. Your superstitions regarding gods have done nothing but to replace superstitions. Are you suggesting that when the Greek gods replaced the more ancient Lares of Rome, that too was not an evolution of religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to worry about these brainwashed fools.  Think about the younger generation today who for the first time are questioning all this.  At least they have the internet.  I remember when I was young all I had was my friends, family and society telling me god is real, god is real, god is real.  I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.  So growing up all I was told was either believe or go to hell and I didn't have something like this to look at before deciding.  Why there is no god  I wish I did.  It would have saved me years of debating it in my head.  So glad I let that shit go.
> 
> Oh yea, another benefit we have today is cable tv.  Back when I was growing up, they didn't have the Science Channel or other cable channels that might present the atheists side.  For example the Cosmos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number of Christ's true followers has ALWAYS been small in number.  Broad is the path that leads to destruction while narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and God's Kingdom.  A healthy tree needs the dead wood pruned out.  Quality over quantity. One shouldn't become a Christian because it's the popular thing to do but because he/she was called by the Holy Spirit.  Persecution of Christians is a biblical prophecy and promise so it comes as no surprise that "easy-believism" is falling out of vogue and the "summertime" believers are leaving in droves.  Let them go!
Click to expand...

That's a common theme among various sects and subdivisions of religions, Christianity among the worst offenders.  As the religions splinter into cult-like sects, each sect will adopt the mantra that they alone are the "true christans" and will define the out group as you just described. 

It seems all you extremists have the arrogance and self-centered veneer of infallibility to define yourselves as somehow holding the "real" truth. 

It's a common pathology among cultists.


----------



## Justin Davis

Broncho4 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if I may interpose something, it's not unreasonable for one to assert that an ontological materiality may have always existed.  That's one of the two ultimate options of origin:  materiality or transcendent immateriality.  And as you correctly say, it's ridiculous to presuppose materiality and reject the other out of hand.  What's the grounds for that?  Nothing but the presupposition of materialism, which is not scientifically verifiable at all and never will be, anymore than transcendent immateriality is currently scientifically verifiable.
> 
> The truth of the matter is, objectively speaking, if God does exist, as I believe He does, the latter has a better chance of becoming scientifically verifiable were God to ever "pull back the veil" that currently blocks our natural senses from perceiving the transcendental realm directly than the prospect of us ever affirming the eternal existence of the quantum vacuum from this side of it!  That's a think about it for awhile epiphany!
> 
> But let the materialist assert that, as what I wrote elsewhere, the foundation for understanding the real issues of origin, stands; these facts of human cognition cannot be brushed away*:*
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note:  Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying.  I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.
> 
> I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God).  I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe.  I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.
> 
> Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer.  "_Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:"_  This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning.  It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.
Click to expand...


What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published.  I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.

You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and  condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense.  Rawlings is too nice to you people. 

*"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."*

The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?

* 
"This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."
*
I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that.   Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I'm going to have to cut you off too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1,  Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* _*You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him.  And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.  *_
> *4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing.  _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is of course false.  Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presuppose God's existence again, in order to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator.  That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist.  In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have  to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm.  That's doesn't work.  So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5:  Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence.  Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Every conceivable argument, including yours, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.
> 
> Why do we care?  Because as a functional member of society it benefits everyone if your decision making process is founded on evidence and reason, not on superstition. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.
> 
> _And “No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind”_ – William Clifford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is the worst thing that ever happened to you. It is used as an excuse for you to remain ignorant. It enables you to disbelieve what you instinctively know is true. It is your hiding place, your 'safe harbor' from broader intellectual thought. You pervert science for your own purposes and assume science speaks for your banality. You've forged science into a weapon of war against religion and the religious.
> 
> In short, you are a much lesser human being because of science. While science has brought mankind many wondrous discoveries, it has contributed to your personal devolution. Science lifted man out of the Dark Ages but has relegated you to the status of a monkey. You would have ended up a better human being had you never heard of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I get what you're saying and all and you're right, the only science sillybobo knows, just like Hollie, is pseudoscience. Even this plumber knows more about science than they do.
Click to expand...

Quite clearly, there's no indication of that. I can't help but have noticed that aside from your tedious and repetitive copying and pasting, you haven't even attempted to challenge my direct refutations to your claims to magical gawds and supernatural spirit realms. 

Go crawl back into the sewer.


----------



## Justin Davis

Meriweather said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
Click to expand...


The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.


----------



## DriftingSand

Meriweather said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
Click to expand...


I've known Christians who were idiots and atheists who were pretty intelligent but I've also known some highly intelligent Christians and some idiotic atheists.  Intelligence has little to do with Truth.  I was raised in a nominally "Christian" household but we didn't attend church nor did we really discuss Christianity very much. In my mid-teens I turned from a belief in God and embraced booze and drugs instead.  I wasn't willing to turn back to God until my back was up against the proverbial wall.  My current belief in God is a mixture of personal experience with God's presence in my life mixed with pure logic.  It's simply more logical for me to believe that the design of the universe, the living cell, the eyeball, etc. were "DESIGNED" vs. a belief that all things just *poofed* into existence by pure chance.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
Click to expand...


Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.


----------



## DriftingSand

Meriweather said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
Click to expand...


Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
Click to expand...

The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word. 

Very interesting. 

"Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis


(i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. When an argument such as yours presumes metaphysics, non-objectivity, predetermined conclusions and an _a priori_ commitment to partisan religious dogma, one inevitably concedes to an abandonment mathematical precision, disregard for biological and social sciences and rejection of established earth sciences. 

Basically, your left with the untenable, low IQ mush of the "five things".


----------



## Meriweather

DriftingSand said:


> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.



Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart.  We also have a conscience.  Not every atheist chooses lawlessness.  Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard.  As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone.  My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.  

Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
Click to expand...


Because you are one big straw man that's why.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

_“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins

_“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
Click to expand...


Your pathetic arguments have so many holes in them.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

_“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”_ – Christopher Hitchens


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense— i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics—you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences (physics), as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and social sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. When an argument such as yours presumes metaphysics, non-objectivity, predetermined conclusions and an _a priori_ commitment to partisan religious dogma, one inevitably concedes to an abandonment mathematical precision, disregard for biological and social sciences and rejection of established earth sciences.
> 
> Basically, your left with the untenable, low IQ mush of the "five things".
Click to expand...


Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.


----------



## Foxfyre

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> "Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis
> 
> 
> (i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)
Click to expand...


Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental.   And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction.  Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.

And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.


----------



## BreezeWood

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> "Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis
> 
> 
> (i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental.   And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction.  Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.
> 
> And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> "Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis
> 
> 
> (i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental.   And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction.  Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.
> 
> And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.
Click to expand...



that is to bad -



> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.




they are all lapdogs whether socks or not, the hardwirer's.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
Click to expand...



The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.

"Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."

Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?

"Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it?

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait!  My bad.   

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait!  My bad again.

You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.


----------



## G.T.

Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."


This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.


----------



## G.T.

Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."


This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.


----------



## Broncho4

Justin Davis said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While, admittedly, you manner of speaking/writing gives me a headache.  I think I grasp what you are saying.  *[1]* My question (for now) is on #4.  Your assertion presumes there is only 1 God.  Which, if incorrect, would also nullify #7...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying.  I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.
> 
> I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God).  I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe.  I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.
> 
> Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer.  "_Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:"_  This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning.  It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published.  I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.
> 
> You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and  condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense.  Rawlings is too nice to you people.
> 
> *"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."*
> 
> The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?
> 
> *
> "This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."
> *
> I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that.   Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.
Click to expand...


You know, another definition of the word "prose" is to: talk tediously.  With that in mind, I will agree with your statements.


----------



## Broncho4

sealybobo said:


> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still a crude, ignorant low life, I see.
> 
> For all the warm and fuzzy mystical attractiveness generated from appeals to magical gawds and supernatural realms, I must point out that a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking. Your feelings of gods are firmly in the realm of wishful speculation and it will be a stretch from here to something deserving of serious consideration
> 
> Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data. That we all know, and it is demonstrable, even if folks like you cavalierly dismiss it (and sound laughably like flat-earthers by doing so, by the way). You religious zealots assert a supernatural cause and can't even answer the most fundamentally flawed elements of your own appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've come to learn is a theist can explain everything away.  Look how many of them don't even dare argue anymore that the bible stories are real?  Well they are still Christians, aren't they?  And then how about the ones who can't even argue for Christianity or Islam or whatever so they argue for a generic god, which is exactly where all this probably started.  Our ancient cavemen forefathers invented gods, then eventually the head caveman or king said he was a god and used god(s) to explain things he didn't know, and then one day they made up the Greek, Egyptian, Abraham 3, Mormons say god talked to them in 1800.  We came from a very superstitious people.  Not very bright.
> 
> Anyways, it is a question we have been asking since we were cavemen.  But the fact is, back then we made it up, and god has never visited, and still here we are with all the "mountains" of evidence we have that god was just made up, but still some cavemen in the clan won't evolve.  In fact probably 7 out of 10 people or 6 out of 10 will always believe in god no matter what.
> 
> It's just what degree of crazy are they.  If they just believe and argue for generic god, no big deal.  It wasn't till chief caveman started using god to control the masses and until they started making up stories about how god visited and told them he loved them and to go to war with everyone else that we started having problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all understand that's what _you_ want to talk about, but that's not the topic of the OP.  And the only reason _you_ want to talk about that is so you can redundantly ridicule theism.  Miracles, which would necessarily constitute the very kind of evidence you're demanding, are stupid, right?  Yeah, that's right.  So, in truth, the very kind of evidence that would constitute the evidence you demand is not possible . . . because God doesn't exist in the first place.  Got begging the question?  In other words:  "Look, everybody, I'm an atheist, and look again, everybody, I'm an atheist."  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This weekend this guy on NPR was explaining what it was like here before the big bang for billions of years and then what it was like for billions of years after the big bang but before life on earth and how lucky we were that the meteor wiped out the dinosaurs and if that didn't happen we might not be here today.
> 
> He admitted all the things we don't know and how those things have always baffled us.  We hate not knowing everything.  But the fact is, we don't.  And to pass on the Christian or Muslim lies as factual historic events is just ignorant and has to stop.
> 
> The thing that makes us different from all the other animals, he said, is that we are able to pass on knowledge to the generation after us and we are able to build on that knowledge.
> 
> Anyways, it is all amazing.  And I'm ok with wondering/hoping/believing that there must be something that created all this.  Just know if you belong to an organized religion, you basically are swallowing a lie.
> 
> Someone a long time ago said they met god and you believe it?  You schmuck.  We came from very primitive ancient superstitious people.  I can't believe you are still one of them.  Time to evolve dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians.  I am by no means a bible thumper.  I have no desire to defend the bible or any of it's teachings.  I will say that whether he was real or not, the teachings of Jesus were as true in his day as they are now.  Very few works of literature can stand the test of time like that.
> 
> I find it amazing that people can get caught up in political parties, sports franchises and the country they happened to be born in.  None of these have singular or consistent ideals.  But a group of people who believe in, if nothing else, one of the best men in history are "stupid & misled".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure if you ask a Muslim they'll say the same thing about Mohammad.
> 
> And I have a problem with Jesus if he said this:  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Only I don't believe he said that.  I think someone who was coming up with a new religion said he said that 100 years after he was supposedly crucified.
> 
> And Jesus said Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days and lived to tell about it.  This was not an allegory.  He said it matter of fact.  Does that stand the test of time?  I doubt it.
Click to expand...


Okay


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Foxfyre said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> "Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis
> 
> 
> (i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ergo my suspicions posts earlier--just too many identical misspellings, syntax, and style of posting plus excessive effusive approval and congratulatory posts of each other to likely be purely coincidental.   And too many contradictions within it all to be purely logical and/or personal conviction.  Which led me to believe we are all having our legs pulled.
> 
> And while I can appreciate a clever practical joke with the best of them, there is a limit to how much I am willing to be played for a fool.
Click to expand...



Same _misspellings, syntax, style? What are you babbling about now_?

Justin is trying to learn how to write.

What misspellings of _mine_ are talking about?

But more importantly, what are these supposed contradictions you keep alluding to without ever telling any us what they are? Name them. Put them into evidence. _Prove _them.

No wonder you put no stock in the proofs of organic logic. Apparently, logic and argumentation for you are bald declarations without substance.

Here's what I find fascinating: a theist who claims to be a Christian, but beneath her declarations of theism and her poorly supported arguments for it, we have the same unbiblical, befuddled, subjective mush regarding the nature of logic and mathematics and the like as that spouted by the atheists on this thread.

Jesus Christ is the universal Logos for whom and by whom all things consist.

That is what Justin, a few others and I have written about. You don't seem to see _Him_ anywhere in any kind of concrete or intimate way but in some ill-defined religious experience. He's everywhere, speaking to us all the time in His word and in His creation. Everything that exists declares the glory and the _truth_ of God.

What don't you understand about that?

" . . . God is _*revealed from heaven*_ against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who_* suppress the truth*_ in unrighteousness, what *may be known* of God is manifest _*in them*_, for God has shown it *to them*.  For since the creation of the world His *invisible attributes* are _*clearly seen*_, being* understood* by the things that are made, _even_ His *eternal power and Godhead*, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1: 18 - 20).

To hear you tell it, we can't  know or demonstrate anything of real interest about His attributes and eternal power from the things that are manifest in us or from the things that are clearly perceived and understood by us all!

Paul's just being cute? Doesn’t really mean any of this is true or real?

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, _both_ in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. *He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together "* (Col. 1:15 - 17).

*What are these contradictions?*

Start with this, and explain yourself, Lady, both logically and biblically*:*


The term _God _first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is making the baby talk that logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What is she talking about?

Ultimately, _all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes._

*Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
*

Also, that's why the talk about  fairies or Zeus or spaghetti monsters or whatever is so stupid. We all know, indeed, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the construct of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out.​


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
Click to expand...





> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,




 - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?

.


----------



## G.T.

MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy 
Both think common sense is one word.

Freudian slip?

Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*FoxFyre:

This post of my from earlier directly refutes what you claim to be to be absolutely true, which would necessarily make my post “irrational", right?*

* 
So tells us why the following is wrong, contradictory or irrational: *


The classical _proofs_ are evidence on top of evidence, and logical proofs are . . . logical proofs. Logic is used to prove or disproves things, and according to the proofs of organic logic, the laws of thought, collectively, is God's logic, but to understand why that's necessarily true in organic logic, one must be willing to think the matter through while being intellectually honest and consistent.

[Or you could just read the Bible about the universal Logos and believe what it says about Him.]

"The Seven Things," which they [the atheists] all know to be true, really, except for maybe Hollie, who is not quite right in the head, are logically and objectively true for all with a sound, developmentally mature mind! There're axioms of human cognition, not proofs, _except_ the Transcendental Argument (#6), which _is_ an axiomatic proof for God's existence in organic logic. The denial of the latter's universal ultimacy, though not entirely unreasonable for scientific reasons, maybe, sort of, remains contradictory or paradoxical, given that one must hold that all other _a priori_ knowledge is universal, but not the God axiom, strangely enough, and then go on to do science, again, strangely enough, using the very same kind of _a priori_ knowledge, namely, mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems. Hmm.

But these objective facts of human cognition regarding the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, including the inherent proofs of the *I AM* and the ultimate nature of the laws of thought, are intellectually apprehended. The full realization/experience of the divine reality behind them requires a leap of faith based on their testimony, but the divine reality itself is neither these intellectual proofs nor these evidences, but the _ultimate_ ground or substance of both. And faith is the evidence of the _knower's_ belief in the testimony given.

["Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."]

(In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)​


----------



## G.T.




----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Rephrase your question.   I don't understand it.


What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and  "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.

*Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
> Both think common sense is one word.
> 
> Freudian slip?
> 
> Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD




Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with atheists is that they start with the wrong premise so  much of what they think they know about "the world and surrounding universe" is all wrong, and most lack the commonsense that a child has about the obvious facts of existence.  But like you say that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, but they are wrong about the things that matter most.  And for those of us who understand what science and logic are and have been on this thread can tell you that the atheists here understand very little about either.  But their biggest problem is a lack of commonsense. To understand the ultimate reason why King Davis says that atheists are fools you have to really think about the issues of existence and origin. Once you get the basic facts of these, you see just how foolish they are and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. If you start with the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically falsifiable and defies the objectivity of commonsense, i.e., the _a priori_, organic first principles of logic and mathematics, you inevitably get subjective, pseudoscientific mush, though not so much from the hard sciences, as mathematics keeps them mostly in check, but from the less mathematically exacting, biological and human sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only important part of this post is that both you and justin seem to think commonsense is one word.
> 
> Very interesting.
> 
> "Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb"  - justin davis
> 
> 
> (i thought they were more rural myself, tbh)
Click to expand...



He earlier shared that he has a GED.  He's trying to learn how to write. What's the big deal?  He obviously didn't get _suburb_ from me, but, yes, he could have gotten the bad habit of _commonsense_ from me . . . if he's trusting my spelling.  I know why Fox's nose is out of joint.  She's talking crap that she can't defend, biblically or logically, which wouldn't be an issue with me had she not made the contents of my posts an issue with her unsupported allegations about contradictory and irrational arguments.  Right.  Like any of you have refuted the construct of the principle of identity as premised on the laws of thought, "The Seven Things", the MPTAG, the construct of infinity as it pertains to calculus, quantum physics or divinity.   

Sillybobo got his seven things turned into God's "Seven Things."

*Anytime you're ready, Fox, to actually tell us what's wrong with my arguments, I'll show you how your arguments turn into "The Seven Things" too.  No one escapes them.  That's an interesting number, isn't it?  Seven.*


----------



## G.T.

What's left to do but  though?


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
Click to expand...


I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.

Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!

If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.

What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head. 

Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
Click to expand...


And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it. 

How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."

*The Seven Things
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


----------



## amrchaos

Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us.  There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us.  Yet we all probably forgot.

It is when we were first born.  We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.  

So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities?  Through familiarization from *repeated* experiences.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply.  It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.

I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.  

  I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds.  I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Click to expand...



OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically

But for 2, I have a question.  What exactly is this "cosmological order"?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Ok so we can establish that MD doesn't know that there's a difference between having an idea and having an idea 'biologically hardwired."
> 
> 
> This is the level of intellect we are dealing with? Pass.



If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about:  _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought.  These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition.  Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge.   We don't think newborn infants compute *2 + 2 = 4* as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions.  Is that your point?  _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.

By the way:  Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News


----------



## G.T.




----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically
> 
> But for 2, I have a question.  What exactly is this "cosmological order"?
Click to expand...


Well, as you know our universe may not be the only game in town if it's just one of a potentially infinite number of others within the same multiverse, and the quantum vacuum may have always existed. So I used that term so as not to presumptuously preclude any possibilities. I used _universe_ at one point, but that doesn't work really for that reason. If you've got a better term, by all means please share it and we'll use that. Maybe my alternative is no good either, especially if it causes confusion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us.  There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us.  Yet we all probably forgot.
> 
> It is when we were first born.  We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.
> 
> So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities?  Through familiarization from *repeated* experiences.
> 
> Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply.  It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.
> 
> I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.
> 
> I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds.  I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.



I agree with this.  I too have seen intuition fail where logic holds.  But we're talking about "secondary" kinds of intuitions, yes? The God idea is latently intuited.  The substance it represents can't be logically eliminated, and because it proves itself positive in organic logic, we are thrown into the world of paradox when we suspend it in constructive logic.  While I don't believe this to be this case, speaking objectively, it's arguably a fluke of nature. 

Certainly, the latently innate ideas and those acquired about the external world require time and experience to develop and stick, with most of the former adhering very early.  I think its right to say that the ABCs of morality are necessarily premised on the laws of thought, albeit, as tested and affirmed by human interaction.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
> Both think common sense is one word.
> 
> Freudian slip?
> 
> Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.
Click to expand...


I saw someone else spell it that way and then you did and assumed it was right.  Why is that such a big deal though?


----------



## Justin Davis

Broncho4 said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Broncho4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it give you a headache?  It's clear and precise, unless, perhaps, you're not familiar with quantum physics or some of the other terms.  *#4* _doesn't_ presuppose there is only one god; rather, it asserts the necessity of a supremely unparalleled Being of origin regardless how many "gods" might also being lurking in the transcendental realm of being.  Bottom line:  the idea of a spiritual origin ultimately goes to some form of sentience at the top of the heap. That's why all of the polytheistic religions of history have always had a big wheel at the top.  But even if, objectively speaking, there existed a multitude of gods of equal standing who created the cosmos together, that becomes, collectively, the idea of God that universally exists in our minds for the spiritual option that cannot be logically eliminated.  See how that works?  Four holds and seven holds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the implication of the words "supremely unparalleled"?  Also using the wording "a being" is singular.  The implication is that there is only 1.
> 
> I get a headache because the way you speak is as if you are writing a book.  It is needlessly complicated in a discussion forum.  While I am unfamiliar with your background I can only hope that you are not a subject matter "expert" due to the glaring inconsistencies in your argument.  So I have to assume that you are writing in this manner to try to add weight to your argument.  Much like a peacock shows its feathers to show dominance.
> 
> Neither the peacocks feathers nor your use of complicated sentence structure and "word of the day" vocabulary, actually equate to dominance or expertise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all  wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the  herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you?  Yes, of course, you'd have to.  If not, why not?  While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood exactly what you were saying.  I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7.
> 
> I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God (depending on your definition of God).  I think it is illogical and irresponsible to rule out the existence of something/someone who predates the universe.  I require no admiration, agreement or sympathy for my beliefs.
> 
> Maybe you are unaware of how your thoughts read to a casual observer.  "_Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:"_  This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning.  It can also be stated that to participate in a discussion forum with rhetoric fit for a science forum will also lend itself to average people misunderstanding your intentions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the world is this? I just saw this conversation between you two. It's a contrast between brilliant prose and thinking and rank stupidity so obtuse as to be exponential. Look, buddy, the only arrogant and condescending snob here is you. And you are one obtusely stupid snob at that. I’ve been reading logic and theology for months, learning these things from some of the best. Rawlings' prose and logic are suburb. He could be published.  I know what you are. You're one of those insecure, reverse snobs, an ignoramus without a lick of commonsense. Ive been reading some others like you on this thread, like QW and Foxfrye. All of you guys write well, but Rawlings writes with commonsense while you dummies write gibberish and pretend that his prose is not what it is, good prose, that's witty, penetrating, precise and to the point. What a bunch of phonies some of you people are.
> 
> You understood what he was saying? What a phony. Then why did you say that number 4 was wrong in the first place, and repeat your nonsense and  condescendingly lecture him on vocabulary? Are you kidding me? Who do you think you're fooling? What an idiot you are. And who else would he be talking about but kids and persons suffering from some kind of mental disability? Commonsense should have told you that. What a dunce you are and the fact that you would think something petty like that just shows who the real snob is. You. Since the seven things are obviously true, simple commonsense, anybody with commonsense would naturally assume that everybody else would understand them. You're just a snob with no commonsense.  Rawlings is too nice to you people.
> 
> *"I also stated that the only problem I had was with #4 and by extension #7."*
> 
> The problem you had with it was your lack of commonsense. So you know that number 4 and 7 are true now don't you? Yeah you do?
> 
> *
> "This line would strike most adult males, specifically those who disagree with your premise, as condescending and/or demeaning."
> *
> I'm an adult male and a plumber, and I never thought anything stupid like that. I know Boss and some others never thought anything stupid like that.   Are you an insecure reverse snob with no commonsense? Yes you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, another definition of the word "prose" is to: talk tediously.  With that in mind, I will agree with your statements.
Click to expand...


So we agree. The nonexistent problems in your head and your silly sneers were tedious.  I'm glad we got that settled.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us.  There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us.  Yet we all probably forgot.
> 
> It is when we were first born.  We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.
> 
> So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities?  Through familiarization from *repeated* experiences.
> 
> Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply.  It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.
> 
> I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.
> 
> I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds.  I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  I too have seen intuition fail where logic holds.  But we're talking about "secondary" kinds of intuitions, yes? The God idea is latently intuited.  The substance it represents can't be logically eliminated, and because it proves itself positive in organic logic, we are thrown into the world of paradox when we suspend it in constructive logic.  While I don't believe this to be this case, speaking objectively, it's arguably a fluke of nature.
> 
> Certainly, the latently innate ideas and those acquired about the external world require time and experience to develop and stick, with most of the former adhering very early.  I think its right to say that the ABCs of morality are necessarily premised on the laws of thought, albeit, as tested and affirmed by human interaction.
Click to expand...



Wait wait wait


Let make sure I got this right. You  wish to make reference to two types of intuition--Secondary and Latent intuition?

Latent intuition is akin to knowing how to breathe air(although never having actual lessons in doing so )--it is a knowledge that we are born with. 
While Secondary intuition is akin to sensing danger? The conscious/subconscious relationships we make through daily experience.


And you are claiming that the God idea is latent? Why would you assume that?  Also,  If that was true, why do we have any religion?  

I could be wrong here, but would it not make sense to  think it has to be secondary and begins to form through experiences with our parents/guardians.  

Think about it.  The latent intuition aspects tends to form the basis of most our basic bodily functions to surviving. The God idea does not appear to have any application to this.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow silly boob, Rawlings was brutal... do you need some vaseline?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rephrase your question.   I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and  "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
Click to expand...





> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)





> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.



*
5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...



> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*



well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.

*
MDR: the laws of human thought* ...

maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
> Both think common sense is one word.
> 
> Freudian slip?
> 
> Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw someone else spell it that way and then you did and assumed it was right.  Why is that such a big deal though?
Click to expand...


You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.

The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.  You might be right.  I'm not sure, frankly.  That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently.  That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way _she_ wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all.  If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that?  The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature.  It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying  to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.

And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it.  If she's right in that regard, she can improve me.  I've got no problem with that.   

But you went after the guy who questioned *#4*, which _was_ in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again:  sock puppet and mock accounts and all that.   I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.

My advice: ignore the noise and move on.   armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally.  It is what it is.  We don't have to agree on everything.  Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile.  The dude who went all weird over nothing _was_ rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot.  LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about the cave dweller example is that it can apply to any one of us.  There is an experience in which both our ability to reason(logic) and our ability to intuit failed us.  Yet we all probably forgot.
> 
> It is when we were first born.  We lack the ability to make reason arguments and the world was so new to us we did not have the adequate facility to intuit what was what.
> 
> So how did we develop both our logical and intuitive facilities?  Through familiarization from *repeated* experiences.
> 
> Unfortunately, that seems to be the best way to really understand a grand and new experience deeply.  It has to be repeated enough times in order to fully grasp the characteristics of it--One time experiences can be logically/intuitively misunderstood by the subject.
> 
> I think we finally hit upon a new concept for us atheists--If the logic fails, our intuition could have failed as well.
> 
> I have seen cases where intuition fails but logic succeeds.  I guess what I need are cases where logic fails but intuition succeeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  I too have seen intuition fail where logic holds.  But we're talking about "secondary" kinds of intuitions, yes? The God idea is latently intuited.  The substance it represents can't be logically eliminated, and because it proves itself positive in organic logic, we are thrown into the world of paradox when we suspend it in constructive logic.  While I don't believe this to be this case, speaking objectively, it's arguably a fluke of nature.
> 
> Certainly, the latently innate ideas and those acquired about the external world require time and experience to develop and stick, with most of the former adhering very early.  I think its right to say that the ABCs of morality are necessarily premised on the laws of thought, albeit, as tested and affirmed by human interaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait wait
> 
> 
> Let make sure I got this right. You  wish to make reference to two types of intuition--Secondary and Latent intuition?
> 
> Latent intuition is akin to knowing how to breathe air(although never having actual lessons in doing so )--it is a knowledge that we are born with.
> While Secondary intuition is akin to sensing danger? The conscious/subconscious relationships we make through daily experience.
> 
> 
> And you are claiming that the God idea is latent? Why would you assume that?  Also,  If that was true, why do we have any religion?
> 
> I could be wrong here, but would it not make sense to  think it has to be secondary and begins to form through experiences with our parents/guardians.
> 
> Think about it.  The latent intuition aspects tends to form the basis of most our basic bodily functions to surviving. The God idea does not appear to have any application to this.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.  Good point!  I'm thinking intuitions about empirical things:  things that seem/feel right at first blush, but turn out to be instinctual reactions that are not well-reasoned.   I've had my share of those.  Doh!  I thought that was the kind of thing you meant.

Regarding the idea of God, I hold it to be latently innate in the sense that it's _a priori _knowledge due to the fact of "the God axiom," which is of the same nature as *2 + 2 = 4*, which comes faster, and the Bible talks about the age of accountability. But that intuition doesn't come until after some intellectual development and experience. So, yes, I agree with what you're saying.

It seems to me that the conscious apprehension of the God idea requires some rational and empirical experience before it dawns on us in a personally significant way. The earliest I can remember experiencing the idea up close in my own right was around the age of five or so when I tried to imagine nothingness, and it seemed to me that I bumped into this Guy the adults had talked about it. It was like an epiphany, not just a word or some Guy out there, and I talked to Him. Years later life happened and I went atheist for a while.

Also, in the above you mean the development of survival skills to preserve life, right?  Just making sure.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

, 





BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not trying to be brutal.  LOL!  But no one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> 
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rephrase your question.   I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and  "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.
> 
> *
> MDR: the laws of human thought* ...
> 
> maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


No.  I'm not thinking those weird things.

Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.

Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

These things are not hard to see, but there can be a struggle for those not practiced in the art of objectivity.

There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters.  You can't see those kinds of things in them anyway, not about any creed at all.  Just let yourself see the idea of God in these things first as it comes at you, then let Him sort all the rest out with you should you dare go that far, i.e., beyond the mere intellectual apprehensions.

Leave me out of it.  I'm nobody.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
> Both think common sense is one word.
> 
> Freudian slip?
> 
> Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw someone else spell it that way and then you did and assumed it was right.  Why is that such a big deal though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.
> 
> The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.  You might be right.  I'm not sure, frankly.  That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently.  That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way _she_ wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all.  If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that?  The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature.  It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying  to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it.  If she's right in that regard, she can improve me.  I've got no problem with that.
> 
> But you went after the guy who questioned *#4*, which _was_ in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again:  sock puppet and mock accounts and all that.   I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.
> 
> My advice: ignore the noise and move on.   armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally.  It is what it is.  We don't have to agree on everything.  Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile.  The dude who went all weird over nothing _was_ rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot.  LOL!
Click to expand...


I'm just not sure that all of the detailed stuff about number 4 is objective, though most of it is to me.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.



then why are you even participating in this thread ? -

to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...

and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which version?
> 
> Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True.
> 
> Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically.
> 
> Then, you and your ankle biter Justin accused ME of changing my position.
> 
> A bit uncouth, the two of you.
> 
> There's also a post of mine that's purposefully being avoided but don't worry about THAT one, I knew it would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rephrase your question.   I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and  "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.
> 
> *
> MDR: the laws of human thought* ...
> 
> maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not thinking those weird things.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.
> 
> Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> These things are not hard to see, but there can be struggle for those no practiced in the art of being objective.
> 
> There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters.
Click to expand...


no, the logic you believe is simply construed for a self defined construct you call humanity, not Spirituality and specifically the Spirituality of the Everlasting derived from all life forms "Created" including the hungry Lion applying its appetite despite your words of condemnation.


the Spiritual and true syllogism for proof of the Almighty is found for the very reason of existence in the Garden of Creation - not in a persons "hardwire" brain ....

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD and his #1 boy-crush fan boy
> Both think common sense is one word.
> 
> Freudian slip?
> 
> Sock account is the likely case. Justin fawns over md's word salad in a bit of an over the top fashion for someone hoisting logical fallacy after logical fallacy and pretending they're an authority. justin likely IS MD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I’ve always spelled it as one word. Thanks for the tip. Apparently, he got that bad habit from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw someone else spell it that way and then you did and assumed it was right.  Why is that such a big deal though?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had it right the first time, so don't assume my spelling on everything is gospel, especially because I mostly write on the board fast.
> 
> The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but they're nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.  You might be right.  I'm not sure, frankly.  That's not the sort of thing that's worth getting into. At the personal level, God deals with people differently.  That's the same point Fox is making too, but the way _she_ wants to make it, for all her pretense of civility, is to take drive by shots at those things I'm arguing to be universally absolute by implying that her notions are universally absolute, which makes no sense at all.  If what I'm arguing is wrong, then where's her argument showing that?  The problems would necessarily have to be of an objectively apparent nature.  It's all hooey, of course, because what she's implying  to be of that nature is just her indemonstrably subjective experiences or opinions, and it's interesting to see who blindly goes along with her guff, the other denizens of subjective superstition.
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture. If her actual complaint goes to what she thinks is contradictory at that level, well let's see it.  If she's right in that regard, she can improve me.  I've got no problem with that.
> 
> But you went after the guy who questioned *#4*, which _was_ in fact a mountain over no-hills at all, and that riled her again:  sock puppet and mock accounts and all that.   I wished you'd left that alone, but, water under the bridge.
> 
> My advice: ignore the noise and move on.   armchaos is cool to talk to because he doesn't take this stuff personally.  It is what it is.  We don't have to agree on everything.  Fox's assessment of the situation is delusional and hostile.  The dude who went all weird over nothing _was_ rude for no reason and wrong about everything to boot.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just not sure that all of the detailed stuff about number 4 is objective, though most of it is to me.
Click to expand...


The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.

For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance. 

If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.

Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.

Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _*idea*_ of God is hardwired!  I didn't change anything!  And you just affirmed that fact.
> 
> "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. *True*."
> 
> Yeah.  That _is_ true, isn't it?
> 
> "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."
> 
> Changed it?
> 
> These statements are true and are one and the same thing!
> 
> The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle:  comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired.  Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_  has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.
> 
> Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!
> 
> Oh wait!  My bad.  You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter.  Oh, well, moving on. . . .
> 
> Now, this axiom of human cognition,  this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.
> 
> The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!
> 
> But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition!  You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad.
> 
> Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading.  Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an innately latent axiom, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!
> 
> And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the  fact and the nature of this cognition.
> 
> Oh, wait!  My bad again.
> 
> You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is!  The idea of God is in our brains!  That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.
> 
> Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an innately latent axiom of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> - but MDR humanities existence at best is only a fraction of time since life on Earth began and was not an original form from nothing - where / when did the Hardwire get programed ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rephrase your question.   I don't understand it.
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired. We all recognize the law of identity, the law of contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle, and  "The Seven Things” are true, logically, for us all.
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (In the meantime, the Bible, as an aside, you understand, tells us that God has in fact proven to mankind, with rational and empirical evidence, that He exists via the very logic that is universally apparent to us all, as it is universally impressed on the soul and bio-neurologically hardwired.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is this: the laws of human thought are absolute and universally hardwired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists - the Bible,tells us that God exists ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Also, what are the contradictions regarding these things as alleged by FoxFyre?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, for one - you specify (currently) science can not verify whether or not God exists but in your "wired" mind you believe an unverified bible "tells us God exists" - via the very logic ... as a proof not afforded #5 science that no such proof exists.
> 
> *
> MDR: the laws of human thought* ...
> 
> maybe it should be you in a room with a hungry Lion and not Bossy, or better why not try your logic on the Ebola virus ... since by your wired mind you rule over them, no problem as surly God "wired" them the same in response to your humanly presence.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not thinking those weird things.
> 
> Perhaps if you were to just let "The Seven Things" be what they are and stop imaging things or projecting things that aren't there, you wouldn't waste so much energy on illusions and rudeness. Now I'm trying to be nice.
> 
> Empty your mind, back out of your paradigm, which appears to be some form of pantheism. Stick with the immediate facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> These things are not hard to see, but there can be struggle for those no practiced in the art of being objective.
> 
> There's no specific religious creed or religious dogma in them at all. I'm not in them at all, not me personally or anything I personally believe. So stop confusing yourself with attacks on me, Christianity or the Bible. None of that’s there, none of that matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, the logic you believe is simply construed for a self defined construct you call humanity, not Spirituality and specifically the Spirituality of the Everlasting derived from all life forms "Created" including the hungry Lion applying its appetite despite your words of condemnation.
> 
> 
> the Spiritual and true syllogism for proof of the Almighty is found for the very reason of existence in the Garden of Creation - not in a persons "hardwire" brain ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


All truth is spiritual. The ground of all things that exist is spiritual. God is immanently everywhere and in everything, albeit, non-contingently, speaking to _you _all the time.

I don't matter. Stop fighting with me. They have nothing to do with me at all.  Just let them be what they are.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Treeshepherd said:


> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _



Okay.  So it can't be done for you.  I agree. As long as you insist that logic is merely a thing, as that's the significance for you . . . as others refuse to get at them at, not even on the intellectual level, which everyone may do, theoretically. 

 But the fact remains, that the Logos is everywhere and in everything speaking to you in a perfectly rational and coherent fashion that you were created to understand. 

"The Seven Things" stand and in them, if only you would let them be what they are, divulge profound things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
Click to expand...


I disagree.  I know what you mean, but this is misleading,.  The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively.  It simply is what it is.  We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks  down. That's all.   We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on.  Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along.  No sweat.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but *they're* nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.



You spelled their they're.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but *they're* nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You spelled their they're.
Click to expand...



Oh, my.  Don't you do that. 

Yeah, that's because I started to write "they're such and such" and forgot to go back.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big deal, really, is not that, but the fact that you and I agree on most things, even though we know there's a disagreement between us on a number of points, but *they're* nature goes to personal experience or to things I'm wary of trying to argue on any objective grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You spelled their they're.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my.  Don't you do that.
> 
> Yeah, that's because I started to write "they're such and such" and forgot to go back.
Click to expand...


They're I go again morphing.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.



And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.

You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
Click to expand...


*I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
*
It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments. 

It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.


----------



## Truman123

DriftingSand said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
Click to expand...

You should be answering those questions on your own. 


They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.


----------



## DriftingSand

Truman123 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
Click to expand...


Another way of saying that you have no legitimate answers.  That's all you had to say.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I know what you mean, but this is misleading,.  The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively.  It simply is what it is.  We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks  down. That's all.   We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on.  Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along.  No sweat.
Click to expand...



I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?

No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.

Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can consstruct improved models of the electron through logic.


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
Click to expand...


I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.

  Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.

Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.

Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.


----------



## amrchaos

OH--by the way

This thing we call the "experience"--the observation.  Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".

It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!

How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.

Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
Click to expand...


Actually Dawkins and anti theist science is something new.  For years we weren't allowed to talk.  Remember?  Hence why religion is "hard wired" into us.  AKA Brainwashed over the centuries.

And science has come a long way in the last 40 years so our arguments are new.  And every time we show you guys that what you think is god isn't, your god gets smaller and smaller.  To the point you are now back where you started, which is defending a generic god.  

That's what we did when we were cavemen and the Greeks had every argument that you and I are having back when they had Greek gods.  So in some ways our arguments are thousands of years old and in some ways they are new.  

We have always wondered how/why.  We hate not knowing.  And the truth is, we don't know.  But you liars say god came and visited Noah, Adam, Moses and then came and humped Mary.  Some of you even claim god has visited you.  You should all be locked up.


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
Click to expand...


I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this:  "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity."  Boss has all these things.

Here is where he goes wrong.  Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god.  It even talks to him and helps him in life.  

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically
> 
> But for 2, I have a question.  What exactly is this "cosmological order"?
Click to expand...


The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically
> 
> But for 2, I have a question.  What exactly is this "cosmological order"?
Click to expand...


Cosmological argument - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I understand that 1 is an assumption we have to make to get anywhere philosophically
> 
> But for 2, I have a question.  What exactly is this "cosmological order"?
Click to expand...


*Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this:  "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity."  Boss has all these things.
> 
> Here is where he goes wrong.  Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god.  It even talks to him and helps him in life.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
Click to expand...


And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
Click to expand...


I never said that logic failed. I said our perceptions of logic failed. You're saying our perceptions of logic are intuitive, and I have no argument with that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I know what you mean, but this is misleading,.  The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively.  It simply is what it is.  We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks  down. That's all.   We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on.  Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along.  No sweat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> [Premise:] I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> *No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can construct improved models of the electron through logic*.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but the your premise is not well-founded, and the emboldened portion of your post does not follow.

First of all, when scientists say that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level defy our normal perception of things at the Newtonian level of physics, they're speaking informally. They don't mean that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are in actuality irrational, incomprehensible or even inconsistent with the currently revised edition of Newtonian physics.

But to understand why all of the above is true we begin with the correct philosophical understanding of things*:*

Assuming I understand you correctly, if we were to all go along with what you're suggesting, we'd be going backwards in our understanding of things, not forward, and we'd be doing so in defiance of what the laws of thought (comprehensively, the principle of identity) are telling us to be true. In other words, the laws of thought are not confounded by these phenomena at all. How could that be true? If what you're suggesting were true, in effect, that scientific methodology precedes or has primacy over logic, over agency, how could we possibly know what the reasonably practical hypothetical propositions would be or understand what experimentation is telling us about these things, let alone understand what they are in fact doing in terms of their characteristics?

Science does not have and never will have primacy over logic and, by extension, over the philosophy of science.  That's simply _not_ possible.  That's _not_ the order of things.  It's axiomatic that we begin with what is known about things and what might be possible about things via the laws of thought, which inform us how to go about intuiting the right hypotheses in order to advance our knowledge about these things. 

The question is do we or do we not know what these things are doing?

Answer: Yes! It’s the laws of thought coupled with the universally applicable language of mathematics that allow us to know what they're doing and, to a lesser extent, how they're doing it.

So in science with the laws of thought and using the language of mathematics we can know what things are doing. In science, we will always know less about how they're doing it and never anything about why they are. To know _the why_ one would have to be willing to allow for and go to theology.​
If you'll stay with me, I'll indisputably prove what should already be self-evident out to you in my next post.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
Click to expand...


Correct.  The logic of quantum physics is rock solid.  But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science. 

It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and _they _never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.

Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would _not_ be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.

This is axiomatic.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this:  "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity."  Boss has all these things.
> 
> Here is where he goes wrong.  Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god.  It even talks to him and helps him in life.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.
Click to expand...


Coming from the biggest cherry picker I know.  You aren't a Christian but believe in heaven and hell and think this invisible man actually talks to you and cares about you.  

And because you can't even swallow any organized religions bullshit, you have resorted to the lame old arguments our ancestors came up with long before some guy came down from a mountain claiming god talked to him.   

Fast forward to today and now god talks to you?  Whatever boss.  

Same reasons you believe in heaven is the very same reason why our scared, superstitious and dumbfounded ancestors came up with god in the first place.  The question, "what happens to me after I die?"  "What happened to grandpa?"  

You primitive ape.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  The logic of quantum physics is rock solid.  But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.
> 
> It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and _they _never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.
> 
> Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would _not_ be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.
> 
> This is axiomatic.
Click to expand...


The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain gd.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hate to defend boss because he is wrong, but I was looking at my favorite atheist site for a point that explains why you are right, and I came across this:  "The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity."  Boss has all these things.
> 
> Here is where he goes wrong.  Remember, Boss is absolutely 100% SURE there is a god.  It even talks to him and helps him in life.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, with all your wind and copy/paste from atheist blogs, you can't disprove a word I've said. You constantly bounce between "we simply don't know" to "we know you're wrong!" Obviously, both cannot be true at the same time.
Click to expand...


Allah Akbar Boss.  Allah Akbar.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
Click to expand...


I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.

As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.

My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.

"Dad, I can't do it anymore."

"But, son, it follows!"

"Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.

As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.

Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse

*"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*

I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
Click to expand...


The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  The logic of quantum physics is rock solid.  But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.
> 
> It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and _they _never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.
> 
> Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would _not_ be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.
> 
> This is axiomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
Click to expand...


You're repeating yourself.

Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical *proofs*, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.

All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.

Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.

None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.

*Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.*


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?
> 
> I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.



Dear GT:

The book by Francis MacNutt describes a study done by a medical team
on Rheumatoid Arthritis. So this team was independent unless you are saying
that they were willing to do the study which makes them biased?

Dr. Scott Peck's book on Glimpses of the Devil was written 10 years after he changed his mind.
The initial observations were done from his opinion and belief that the psychiatric science was
valid and would prove the demonic manifestations were "delusions" and "not real" in the patients' mind.

So you would have to travel backwards in time and redocument the process he went through
BEFORE he changed his mind AFTERWARDS.

When he went into it, he believed he was right, he was biased toward his rejection and against
the notion than any of this demonic or deliverance stuff was real. 

GT THIS Is why I am ASKING to replicate the studies!

When Peck realized the profundity of what he observed, it took him 10 years to process the changes
he went through. He realized in the rest of the world, this division between religion and science, faith
and reason was blocked off with huge walls and barriers.

And what he found toppled that whole mindset.

So there isn't a widespread common knowledge of this  yet.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING TO DO.

If we had this knowledge already studied and out there
WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS DEBATE BECAUSE IT WOULD ALREADY BE ESTABLISHED.

This spiritual healing woudl be treated like dreams or gravity as something we already accept as naturally occurring.

So I can show you what I found, and maybe there are other studies out there
but suppressed because of this "public divorce" between science and religion
that are treated as opposites of each other.

I can try to contact the healing ministries I recommended,
and see if we can set up a formal research study in Houston since there
are institutes and programs there just for addressing religion, ethics and medical practice.

Until more people ask, then the research has been scattered.

We need a central, public study done to establish this formallhy.

That's EXACTLY What I am asking for.

So you are asking me for what I asking to be set up so we CAN have it!

BTW GT I hope you are not asking something like this:
"someone cite a study that shows science is valid without following the scientific method
because that would impose a bias if all the people looking into it are either scientists or believe science to be valid."

the people doing the study do NOT need to be Christian or believe in Christianity,
but they DO need to be openminded enough to do the study.

And it is rare to find those people.

Many people who believe are open to Christianity so it makes sense to them already.

Most people who do NOT believe in Spiritual Healing either REJECT Christianity or Science or both
so if you are looking for people like Scott Peck who didn't believe it but still did his own study anyway, good luck.

You are one of the rare people willing to look into it who doesn't already believe in it.

Dr. Phillip Goldfedder had to observe it on his own, and he changed his mind when he saw proof.

But now he sees that it is valid enough to make it worth doing studies on it,
he already counts as biased because he believe it already!

So we'd have to find more people (like Scott Peck) who believe in doing the proof,
but aren't believers in Spiritual Healing yet.

He was rare, as he was even biased AGAINST it and went his own studies using the scientific method.
And his conclusion was that t his needed formal research and studies to establish this publicly
as a regular, valid method to be used with other forms of mental and medical treatment.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
Click to expand...


Very good, Sealybobo.
And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.

The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.

So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.

People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.



I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass. 

We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> OH--by the way
> 
> This thing we call the "experience"--the observation.  Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".
> 
> It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!
> 
> How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.
> 
> Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.



False.  Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science.  It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order. 

Using logic we prove or negate things.  Agency.  Using science we verify or falsify things.  Methodology.  Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective. 

To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical  construct  of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted. 

This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.

Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good, Sealybobo.
> And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.
> 
> The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
> that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.
> 
> So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
> shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
> but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.
> 
> People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.
Click to expand...


Junk science.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.
> 
> We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.
Click to expand...


So you're putting empirical perceptions ahead of rational apprehensions?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
Click to expand...


W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out

A *Faith healing which is fraudulent/false 
is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.*

MAJOR point (like not comparing geocentric beliefs with heliocentric 
and saying "all that science is the same")

The effective healing is based on the effects of forgiveness,
so there is a deep spiritual change that happens to invoke a change in body, mind or relationships.

False faith healing can SKIP the step of deep forgiveness
and just declares things verbally so it fails.

Like the difference between SAYING you fixed a car,
and magically expecting it to suddenly run right,
and DOING the diagnosis to troubleshoot and find the problem
and fixing it to make the car work.

You cant just say "all automechanics are frauds"
Though the majority of them or their reputations are fraudulent.

You ahve to go to the good mechanics with reliable reputations
to get your car fixed, and don't  judge them in the same category as frauds.

B. Also the DARK spiritual energies are in CONFLICT and OPPOSITE
of the Positive life-giving forces

These are NOT the same

This is dangerous like saying alcohol and water are the same
because they are both clear liquids.

Excuse me, but I would not even confuse the different types
of alcohol with each other, much less confuse with water!

Hollie, the tarot cards, ouija boards, things that deal with
sorcery, spiritism, witchcraft, spells, curses, occult, voodoo, black magic, etc.

are NEGATIVE energy

and not the same as
Natural lifegiving energy that your mind/body use to heal itself.

Sorry Hollie I have to stop  you because this is
DANGEROUS to say they are the same

I have friends who lost people to very sick situations
who played with these forces. They are not to be taken lightly.

I believe science should be used to show the difference between
dark and light energy
just like proving radioactive energy and materials are dangerous
and not to be exposed to them.

This is not all the same and mixing the energies
can cause all kinds of damage and destruction.

This needs to be studied and estblished by science
as part of the reason I push for spiritual healing to be studied.

the same research on spiritual healing which is natural. healthy and harmless
would reveal how
fraudulent and HARMFUL forms of spiritual manipulation are dangerous.

We'd solve both problems at once with the same research!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.
> 
> We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're putting empirical perceptions ahead of rational apprehensions?
Click to expand...


No I'm saying you can have all three:
proving it is consistent with mind, body and spirit.

O ye of little faith!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Junk science.



Bullring challenge!

I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
ie VERIFIED through science and that
fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
steps in effective spiritual healing.

M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.

Shame on you, really.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH--by the way
> 
> This thing we call the "experience"--the observation.  Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".
> 
> It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!
> 
> How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.
> 
> Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science.  It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order.
> 
> Using logic we prove or negate things.  Agency.  Using science we verify or falsify things.  Methodology.  Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective.
> 
> To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical  construct  of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted.
> 
> This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.
> 
> Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.
Click to expand...

Was anyone else getting a chuckle over that confused, disjointed, rambling screed?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> How life evolved is explained by natural processes.
> 
> 'Something coming from nothing' isn't an argument because nobody knows what existed prior to big bang, or even what may or may not exist currently outside of our universe,  and if it that all even HAD a beginning or just always was.
> 
> If it always was, doesn't sound supernatural at all, to me, whereas spirits do sound supernatural to me and always will until they're proven to exist.



Dear GT the same way that dreams are experienced on some other level,
the visions that people see of God or demons or angles are on some other level.

PratchettFan mentioned he had a spiritual vision or experience where he saw a huge
frog the size of a small dog appear during a meditation.

so what level of perception did that appear?
It certainly wasn't real because frogs are not that size.

But he saw it and experienced it, so it was real on that level.

What Peck said in  his book was that 95% of what he witnessed
with demonic voices/personalities that spoke to him and then were removed by the deliverance process
could be explained away using science. But 5% that he felt,
without a doubt in his own mind, cme from some spiritual reality outside the patient's minds
becuse he experienced it with them and his team and they all verified seeing the
snakelike contortions and weird visions that are not normal to this world.

How do you document that?
Peck said there was one video that caught a profile of the patient making
the demonic snakelike faces that were not normal or human but like hallucinating them,
except the whole team saw it, not just him.

My friend Olivia who does exorcisms says the snakelike thrashing and faces
(and head turning) has happened and she could see it but could not explain it scientifically
because the head cannot turn around lik e that physically. So it has to be on the
spiritual plane, similar to dreams we see but these happen during waking sober states,
not while on drugs.

I don't know if we can use digital or analog technology sensitive enough to
capture the actual visions or voices, but the dream states can be measured in the brain.

so it is possible to show WHEN a patient has demonic states,
and WHEN these go into remission or completely quit manifesting,
or the patient demonstrates ability to choose NOT to let them manifest
when they couldn't control them while they were sick.

So even if we cannot prove the spiritual part, we can demonstrate
the manifestation as brain responses or psychological patterns of behavior
and improvement/recovery int he patient, similar to drug or abuse recovery
when theh patient reports having fewer or no more  panic attacks they can't control.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH--by the way
> 
> This thing we call the "experience"--the observation.  Or whatever you may wish to call "receiving new information about our reality" or what I will now lovingly call "the information dump".
> 
> It is neither an intuitive or logical process!!
> 
> How we go about understanding it begins with intuition(assumptions and guesses based on previous experiences) and logic(how we can form new premises with it) follows behind.
> 
> Normally, if there is nonsense conclusions being reach from logical arguments, it is probably due to our intuitive assumptions being wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False.  Logic precedes all, philosophical definition follows, then science.  It has never been and can never be any other way in terms of order.
> 
> Using logic we prove or negate things.  Agency.  Using science we verify or falsify things.  Methodology.  Agency precedes and has primacy over methodology. Using logic, from first principles, we determine what is rationally possible and thereby keep scientific inquiry from meandering into scientism, while simultaneously keeping the doors of scientific inquiry wide open with regard to its true objective.
> 
> To reverse the necessary order of things, in actuality, to imagine the reversal of the necessary order of things, is to confound the imperatives of logic and to impose arbitrary standards which mislead or blunt our understanding of things. In fact, because the order of things is inescapable, the imaginary reversal of the natural and necessary order of things is the imposition of a logical contradiction, followed by the philosophical  construct  of materialism, which is not scientifically demonstrable, followed by a scientific model yielding verifications and falsifications that cannot be trusted.
> 
> This is what materialistic atheism is doing to science.
> 
> Fortunately, the more mathematically exacting physical sciences are less vulnerable to this bastardization, though not all of them, but we are getting a lot of junk science from the life and social sciences, especially, as a result. We are also getting more and more junk from the physical sciences of ecology and meteorology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was anyone else getting a chuckle over that confused, disjointed, rambling screed?
Click to expand...


Not to worry Hollie.

When spiritual healing is proven, there won't be such a need to argue in "syllogistical circles."
The people who need to work things out with MD on that level will have an easier time anyway.

Everyone else will be too busy applying forgiveness and healing to change themselves
and their relations with others and won't have time to argue about terms, but will be too busy applying the concepts!

Too bad if you reject science proving spiritual healing the way MD nixed the idea.

Hollie if you pursued it, and MD was the one rejecting it,
you'd have the tables turned and corner him with his own scoffing at skeptics!

If MD is smart he will open up his proof to include
science as a valid way to VERIFY the spiritual healing
process that ALLOWS people to reconcile on the TAG part of the proof.

I give MD credit though. For him to pursue this part without the benefit
of knowing spiritual healing can be verified by science, shows he has strong conviction which is admirable.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
Click to expand...




> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.




*"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.

life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.  

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Spiritual Healing process that requires Faith in Forgiveness
> (ie agreeing to pray for forgiveness first, and then receiving healing afterwards)
> can be demonstrated as effective, natural, valid and consistent with science and medicine.
> 
> So you can prove both that this process is real and works following the same pattern or process
> for all people though the results vary because people's ill conditions vary in complexity and length to recover and heal,
> AND you can prove it is valid what Christians teach
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick.
> 
> So this can be demonstrated using medical science.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
Click to expand...


Yes, this can be demonstrated to work naturally and follow a process
consistent with science and medicine.

You can read up on it, I'll send you the book by Scott Peck
"Glimpses of the Devil" where he scoffed, too, and was convinced
he coudl prove it was all delusional.

he changed his mind by the second interview, went through
the deliverance process with two schizophrenic patients,
noted the stages and changes they went through,
and it took 10 years to write this out in books he published on it.

So the next step is to replicate this in formal medical
studies so it can be established like any other treatment.

In Great Britain, some steps were being taken to validate
deliverance therapy as a valid form of treatment by the health authority.

In America, most people who practice it do it freely through the
independent groups. So they can already access it.

To establish it as a choice for all people to access,
that is why I want to prove it medically to remove the
stigma and rejection of "church and state' and fear of religion attached.

It's a natural process based on forgiving all levels of conflict
or unresolved issues that the negative mindsets and energies are attached to.

In Buddhism they do regression therapy which is similar -- it identifies
unresolved issues in the past to be forgiven, let go and healed.

The one person I met who had a phobia healed this way
wen through a therapist who used both Buddhist regression meditation
and Christian prayer to cast out or remove the addicted fear, and 
so the person could be freed of the  phobia tied to spiritual past generations
she was connected with. So this is still a form of generational therapy.

You can call that sin or karma or demons passed down,
but it means negative conditioning in the spirit that
manifests in the mind, body or relations until it is rooted out and healed.

YES this can be shown to be healed through therapy.
Both the past life therapies and the generational  healing
follow similar patterns and process of helping people heal
and restore their natural minds and health.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  The logic of quantum physics is rock solid.  But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.
> 
> It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and _they _never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.
> 
> Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would _not_ be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.
> 
> This is axiomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.
> 
> Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical *proofs*, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.
> 
> All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.
> 
> Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.
> 
> None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.
> 
> *Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.*
Click to expand...


No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe.  And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.

_“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So we don't exist?


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


If his arguments were sound they'd teach it in school. Fact is his arguments are the same flawed arguments our ancient ancestors made when they were about 2 steps out of the cave.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
Click to expand...


We do, gods don't.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  The logic of quantum physics is rock solid.  But be careful with the idea that our perception of logic is premised on what we know. On the contrary, it's the laws of thought that tell us that any given scientific theory is tentative, subject to partial (revision) or total falsification. In other words, logic precedes science.
> 
> It's our perception of any given, extant conclusion that's subject to change with more information. The laws of thought tell us that and _they _never change. They stand and hold, and because they stand and hold, we know that it's possible to infer an incorrect conclusion from bad or incomplete knowledge.
> 
> Hence, logic, in and of itself, as consistently applied, is never wrong as far as we could ever possibly know, even when it produces a wrong conclusion, as the fault would _not_ be with consistently applied logic, but with the data to which it is applied.
> 
> This is axiomatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The logic on quantum physics might be rock solid but every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself.
> 
> Whether you understand why it's true or not, I have falsified the notion that any of the classical *proofs*, as properly premised on the imperatives of the problems of existence and origin, breakdown in any actual sense at all.
> 
> All you're doing, once again, is falsely implying what is now for you and others, who have been around from the beginning, the inexcusable ignorance of confounding the metaphysical facts of logic and science with regard to the distinction between proofs/negations and verifications/falsifications, respectively.
> 
> Enough of this superstitious gibberish of QW-Foxfyre and Company, especially after this last round of dogmatic fanaticism. This tripe has been roundly refuted. It is not true and cannot be true! Indeed, it is absurd for a theist to argue the Cosmological sans this understanding.
> 
> None of you have overturned the fact of this formal and necessary distinction; none of you have done anything at all in this regard but made false and irresponsible allegations. And this garbage about my posts being inordinately technical or verbose as if the motive were to impress is utter bullshit! The reason that QW-Foxfyre and Company's thinking is so far off is because they fail to be exacting in their expressions and terms in their minds before they put them to this thread.
> 
> *Newsflash: the persons who need to be cut off are those who go on spouting this gibberish. It is they who any sensible person would no longer give ear to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe.  And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo:
1. What about the percentage of people who have gone to war?
Versus the people who are like the Dalai Lama?
Does that mean we should all keep making war since more peopel do that
than people who win the Nobel Prize for Peace like the Dalai Lama?

Since the Dalai Lama and Nobel Laureates who believe in peace
are "fewer" that makes them "stupid" for believing in peace?

2. What % of the population believe or understand Einstein's theories?
What % don't give a rat's ass what Einstein, Mozart or Jefferson contributed
because it doesn't apply to them directly?

Sealybobo are you REALLY going to go with the majority
just because that's more common?

How many people are as smart as you are Sealybobo.
What % is that?

Would you trade how smart you are for whatever 50-90% of the population thinks like?
Just because that is a greater %?

Really?

This doesn't sound like the consistent reason I think you are driven by, SB.
Are you sure you really mean what you sound like you are saying?
Please tell me you were mouthing off and don't really expect to go by percentages.

The majority of population in Texas doesn't score as high on their academic exams
as the minority I'd rather have going through medical school and engineering
to practice medicine and design structures and machines.

Please tell me you don't expect to call the minority part of the population
"stupid" compared to the majority based on % of the population alone. Really?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe.  And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin



total nonsense.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, gods don't.
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo depends how you define god Gods or God

Are you okay with
God = Wisdom
does Wisdom exist?
God = Love
does Love exist?
God = Life
does Life exist?
God = Collective Truth or knowledge
does Collective Truth exist?

Sealybobo which makes less sense to you
1. someone who keeps believing and pushing god or gods that don't exist
2. someone like you who DOESN'T believe in them
but keeps insisting that's what god or gods Mean and
KEEP pushing that = something that doesn't exist!

Compared with the corrective approach that makes sense to me and I recommend:
A. QUIT pushing definitions of god that conflict or don't exist
B. FOCUS on definitions or meanings associated with God that
people DO AGREE exist and are HELPFUL to use to get something positive done!

Now which makes more sense or gets more accomplished:
you and others arguing about 1 and 2
or
people making peace by quitting A and focusing on B where we AGREE
to focus on things God means that we agree are helpful, practical and beneficial to all

Which makes more sense?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
Click to expand...


You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.

When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality. 

Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.  

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
One point I got out of what BW is saying above,
loosely, that the knowledge or understanding of "life beyond"
can be part of someone's "understanding of God"
and not be included or addressed in your proof.

What my approach hopes to do is to 
take what cannot be proven, and still find the
best way to express it that is agreeable to both
sides as valid and not needing proof, so no need to argue.

For example
1. proving people carry karma connected to past lives of
other people is interpreted and taken on faith
2. some people interpret these memories of past generations
as "demon spirits" who do have access to this knowledge
influencing or making people think or feel things connected to that other time, event or person

a. So using your way you don't address this at all as having anytihng to do with God
b. using science people can argue about how to interpret the information
and some may or may not believe that person is really connected to memories from the past
c. however the way i recommend
does NOT requiring proving reincarnation of karma one way or another

it says let BOTH people interpret it THEIR WAY
1. one person calls it the karma reincarnating int hat person
2. the other person calls it demons and negative spirits

I say that's close enough,
bad karma that isn't forgiven and healed can repeat and cause
phobic or adverse reactions in people in the future
and this is what demons do also, it's both NEGATIVE ENERGY

BOTH are healed by Forgiveness and
generational healing by a combination of either Buddhist
mediation and letting go or Christian prayer for forgiving past generational issues passed down

So I am saying it is STILL the SAME spiritual process

Do you see how the approaches using
a, b, and c
are different and some will lead to more conflicts
but c will ask to resolve conflicts by NOT changing people's views
merely ALIGNING them

faith in God is like that.

People like BreezeWood may express what God means to them
and it may not fit your proof outline but cause arguments.

that doesn't mean someone doesn't believe in God
just because we fail to ALIGN the understanding we  DO have of God

BW believes in some manifestation of God
but claims up and down it is not the same as yours or mine or the Christian God

So what can we do to ALIGN so we ARE talking about the one and only God that is source of
all these representations and manifestations, even if they are flawed or seem conflicted.

HOw do we show we MEAN the same God?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
Click to expand...


OK back up

Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
to your proof.

So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations

And Science works alongside it to address objections
that can be resolved by Science.

These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
Click to expand...




> mdr: So we don't exist?



*
Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*


the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...

*
2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!

yes,


for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!

in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.

proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist:  existence may not have been created = / =  the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.

only the Everlasting is certain - not God.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdr: So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not to definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes,
> 
> 
> for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> 
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist:  existence may not have been created = / =  the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> 
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


And so one can define God  to be = the Everlasting, the Almighty
and this still speaks to "agreeing that God = something that exists)

no proof or argument needed
if there is already agreement God exists


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out
> 
> A *Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
> is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.*
Click to expand...


Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things.  Inserting the term _natural_ in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of *spiritual *healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term _supernatural_ is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as the Creator, which is in our minds, denotes potentially actual Being, thus, a natural Being, albeit, of a higher order of being.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how do I know that for sure, because the things I'm sharing however imperfectly it may seem to some at times are not just _common sense, _but affirmed by scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Hey BreezeWood I have an idea
Since you find the Seven Points not addressing the Whole of the Almighty/Everlasting

Do you like these Seven principles better? (Unitarian Universalist)
Unitarian Universalist Principles - Seven Principles of Unitarian Universalism

Or these Seven principles? (Kwanzaa)
http://www.k12connections.iptv.org/pdfs/kwanzaa.pdf

BreezeWood can you write out
how YOU would spell out the EQUIVALENT
of MD's seven points,
but CLARIFY what he is leaving out?

What if you name God = to be the Almighty and Everlasting that you look at
as greater than how the Christians teach God as Creator and heavenly Father

How would YOU list 7 points or principles?

Maybe your system would make more sense to people.
Can you show me how to make that work for your understanding
of the Almighty and Everlasting? Maybe yours would work where MD leaves out the bigger picture?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out
> 
> A *Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
> is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things.  Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of *spiritual *healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term _supernatural_ is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.
Click to expand...


Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.

So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
So there is no contradiction.

This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.

There really is real practical application to science and medicine
that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem do you have any links To studies that are not done by religious-based sources - on the spiritual healing thing?
> 
> I'm deff. Willing to look at some objective source without a bone to pick.



Hi GT

1. Negative results (but did not study Forgiveness as the key to healing therapy)
There was a publicized study on intercessory prayer at Harvard that
showed NO effect of "intercessory" prayer on recovering heart patients, or WORSE conditions:
HMS Press Release 
But I see NO REFERENCE to any factor of FORGIVENESS therapy
to  induce a CHANGE in the patient that would correlate with freer flow of natural healing energy.
So these studies may have LEFT OUT the KEY factor that spiritual healing is BASED on:
forgiving anything blocking maximum healing.

2. Positive results but using generic prayer (not specific spiritual healing methods):
here is one study that also used "generic prayer" and showed EFFECT on helping
patients with depression/anxiety
http://baywood.metapress.com/app/ho...l,33,186;linkingpublicationresults,1:300314,1

3. here is a reference to the Rheumatoid Arthritis study that did use the Spiritual Healing
methods. But if you look up Dale Matthews you would consider him biased:
Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. - PubMed - NCBI

there is no reason this study cannot be replicated to MAKE SURE it is not biased.

the only "bias" being the people have to AGREE to conduct such a study
(and agree to include the same process Dr. MacNutt uses with FORGIVENESS)
and not just "intercessory prayer" without that, while "magically" expecting anything to change
(unless you make generic prayer one of the control groups, like a placebo prayer that
does not require the deep spiritual therapy of diagnosing and forgiving past issues blocking the healing)

I thought I posted an excerpt of the results of this RA study
If I find that text, I'll copy it here. For the full passage in MacNutt's books
I'd have to type that in anew.  I'll look and see if I can add it.

Just plain "intercessory" or personal prayer (in #1 and #2 above)
are generally NOT going to work to cure deeper conditions such
as cancer, drug addiction, and severe schizophrenia/criminal illness.

So I am more focused on the type of healing process in #3
that is very pronounced.  Dr. MacNutt explains in his book
the difference between the personal type of prayer you can do yourself,
the intercessory type of prayer, and the deliverance and exorcism that requires
someone capable of taking on that role, which is DIFFERENT from other forms of prayer.

Dr. Peck took on that role, but I would not have recommended that
because it is too dangerous for inexperienced people
to be exposed to dark forces of energy in severe cases as he took on with a team:

_In his 1983 bestseller, People of the Lie , Peck devoted a chapter to exorcism. In this astonishing new book, the megaselling author of The Road Less Traveled reveals his work as an exorcist and attempts to establish a science of exorcism for future research. Peck knows that many readers will be skeptical of or flummoxed by his report, and thus he emphasizes that he himself scoffed at the idea of demonic possession before encountering Jersey Babcock;_ *Peck became involved in her case mostly to "prove the devil's nonexistence as scientifically as possible." But a comment by Jersey at their first meeting "blew the thing wide open." Jersey, a Texas resident who believed she was possessed and who was neglecting her children as a result, said that her demons were "really rather weak and pathetic creatures"—a statement so at odds with, as Peck puts it, "standard psychopathology" that his mind began to change.*

_Peck describes two cases in this book, that of Jersey and the more difficult case of Beccah Armitage, a middle-aged woman who grew up in an abusive family, married an abusive husband and was practicing self-mutilation when Peck took her case. Both cases result in full-blown exorcisms with Peck as the lead exorcist, and both, according to Peck, involved paranormal phenomena, including Beccah acquiring a snakelike appearance. Peck intersperses his calm but dramatic recitation of these cases with set-off commentary, and he concludes the book with a reasoned proposal for a science of exorcism ("An exorcism is a massive therapeutic intervention to liberate, teach, and support the victim to choose to reject the devil"). A report from what is to most of us a strange and distant land, Scott's book probably won't convince crowds, but it's powerful and concisely written enough to interest many, and maybe to give a few pause for thought. (Jan. 19)
====================

Here is that excerpt I did find from the RA study:
[excerpt from one of the exceptional healings from the rheumatoid arthritis study with Dr. Matthews] "Mike" a 65-year-old man had been diagnosed with RA when he was in his 20s. In the intervening decades, he had been through a great deal of pain, suffering, and medical treatment. Like many RA patients, Mike can describe a history of treatment with strong medications, from Prednisone to Cytoxan to methotreate; repeat surgeries and courses of physical therapy; and periods of remission, then relapse. Mike walked stiffly with a cane at the beginning of the session. He had severe pain in his hands, which had been operated on a number of times. A

fter receiving many hours of prayer and laying on of hands for healing, Mike reported dramatic results. "Look, no cane today!" he said. "I couldn't have walked without it yesterday or the day before. My feet are in good shape today. I'm able to walk a pretty good distance, and I couldn't have done this a night or two ago." [Mike also reported reduced pain and restored flexibility in his hands after prayer where he felt a warming sensation like energy vibrating down his hands] ... Relieved of the pain and disability his RA has caused, Mike is now living a full and active life. Ten months after the first healing-prayer sessions, Mike continues to report a remarkable improvement. He is, in fact, pain-free and able to go without *medication* of any kind for his arthritis. He says he feels better today than ever before in his life." (The Faith Factor, Dr. Matthews)

Although a few doctors in the past (such as Dr. Paul Tournier and Dr. William Standish Reed) have spoken and written about the value of prayer, I have a sense that we are truly on the verge of a new era where the false opposition between science and Christianity will finally be broken down. Already the dialogue has begun."
_
So this is the study cited above. With Dr. Dale Matthews working with Dr. Francis MacNutt.

*GT I would like to conduct replicate studies on patients
with EATING disorders, either bulimia, anorexia, other eating phobias or anxieties,
self-mutilations, cutting and purging and other such dangerous self-destructive addictions
and see if these methods would start saving  minds and lives, and allow people to heal
sooner and recover faster. The longer people abuse themselves, they shorten their lives and lower their chances of full recovery. So the sooner they get help, the better their chances.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> When Hollie posts, I picture Linda Blair from The Exorcist...


No, Hollie doesn't believe in anything supernatural.

However, my friend Olivia who has done Exorcisms and Deliverance prayers to heal people
HAS seen this snakelike writhing, spitting tongues, and heads turning around backwards to curse at her.

So if you are serious about studying this level of spiritual experiences and process, she is definitely one of the sources I would include, along Dr. Francis MacNutt and Dr. Phillip Goldfedder.

You think this stuff is a joke, but the people who have seen it,
will tell you it gets extreme.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Boss!*

I think your down for all of  "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true _logically_ is not the same thing as _knowing_ these things to be true.   It's that a fair statement?


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in your fantasy world, 2+2 doesn't equal 4, but in the real world, it's true, 2+2=4. I swear!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are failing to read and comprehend my posts and simply lobbing shit bombs at me. You've taken what I said out of context and want to imply that I live in fantasy world. I live in the same material reality that you live in.
> 
> If you read up on electrons, you will find that electrons appear, disappear, exist in two places at the same time or nowhere at all. So... whenever the electron is not appearing to exist, does it still exist? What about when it exists in two places at the same time? How can 2+2=4 if any one thing can be present in two places at the same time or not appear to exist at all?  ...yeah... it's bizarre, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so arrogant that I would presume that everything I think is true. And I never said that I could be an omniscient being... You just made that up.
> 
> 2+2=4 IS true. What you're trying to say is look at that tree, we don't know if that's a tree, because we haven't explored every single possibility that might exist in the universe. Which of course is absurd. A tree is a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who said, and I quote: "No,because it is true." Unless you are claiming to be omniscient, you cannot *know* something is true. You can *believe* it is true, and many others may concur with your belief. Whenever you state something is "not possible" it can only mean that you have examined and correctly evaluated all other known and unknown possibilities. If you are not omniscient, this is not likely.
> 
> A tree is a tree because we defined the parameters of a reality where a material thing exists in our perception which we labeled a tree. We believe the tree exists because we have faith in our perception.
> 
> 2+2=4 is a formula comprised of values we invented to define material reality. It doesn't mean it's true, it means we believe it is true because our perception appears to confirm it and we have faith in our perceptions.
> 
> But perceptions can be deceiving.  In a subatomic or quantum world, 2+2 may not equal 4 or anything else. We don't know. This is why we developed "quantum mechanics" to help us understand things beyond our perception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world. It would be cool if we did, but we don't.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sadly, humans do not live in a subatomic world.*
> LMAO... Sadly, some humans don't realize that we certainly DO live in a subatomic world. This is one of the dumbest comments ever. It's like saying we don't live in a microscopic world or telescopic world. I guess  we can dismiss everything we know about microbes and distant galaxies since we don't live in those worlds, huh?
> 
> smh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If you can show me a cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time, I will admit that I am wrong about this. However, you have to produce the cat.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Infinity and Beyond Transcending our Limitations by Nassim Haramein
Click to expand...


.

That is not a cat. I win.

Schr dinger s cat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss!*
> 
> I think your down for all of  "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true _logically_ is not the same thing as _knowing_ these things to be true.   It's that a fair statement?



That's pretty much it. I like your presentation and I don't disagree. I am pretty sure some ancient philosopher has articulated it much better than I can, but we can't ever 'know' things, we can only _believe_ that we know things.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> No coincidence that of all the dumb humans on earth, 95% of them believe in god but then of all the scientists only 50% of them believe.  And the other 50% would admit they don't know, they believe.
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin



Hi Sealybobo:
1. What about the percentage of people who have gone to war?
Versus the people who are like the Dalai Lama?
Does that mean we should all keep making war since more peopel do that
than people who win the Nobel Prize for Peace like the Dalai Lama?

Since the Dalai Lama and Nobel Laureates who believe in peace
are "fewer" that makes them "stupid" for believing in peace?

2. What % of the population believe or understand Einstein's theories?
What % don't give a rat's ass what Einstein, Mozart or Jefferson contributed
because it doesn't apply to them directly?

Sealybobo are you REALLY going to go with the majority
just because that's more common?

How many people are as smart as you are Sealybobo.
What % is that?

Would you trade how smart you are for whatever 50-90% of the population thinks like?
Just because that is a greater %?

Really?

This doesn't sound like the consistent reason I think you are driven by, SB.
Are you sure you really mean what you sound like you are saying?
Please tell me you were mouthing off and don't really expect to go by percentages.

The majority of population in Texas doesn't score as high on their academic exams
as the minority I'd rather have going through medical school and engineering
to practice medicine and design structures and machines.

Please tell me you don't expect to call the minority part of the population
"stupid" compared to the majority based on % of the population alone. Really?[/QUOTE]

1.  Notice how popular the Dali Lama & Ghandi and MLK are/were.  Not very.  Why? 

2.  I see what you mean.  I often do that in this debate.  I say people who believe are stupid but then I realize the validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

3.  I know that the popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

If it weren't for a very small percentage of humans who invented glass, fire, motors, gas, electricity, etc. we'd be still living in caves.  I include myself in the masses when it comes to this because if electricity went away tomorrow I'd have to figure out how to rub 2 sticks together and when my cloths wore out I wouldn't know how to knit myself a new sweater.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
Click to expand...


Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
Click to expand...


There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:


Infinite Regression
Argument from Poor Design
The Atheist’s Wager
Non-belief Paradox
Omnipotence Paradox
Free Will Paradox
Argument from locality
Argument from Non-reason
Argument from incompatible properties
Fate of the Unlearned
Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell
Lots of reasons your story makes no sense.


----------



## sealybobo

According to Dawkins, this logic is self-defeating, as the theist must now explain if the god itself was created by another intelligent designer, or if some process was able to create the god. In his view, if the existence of highly complex life on Earth is the equivalent of the Boeing 747 that must be explained somehow, the existence of a highly complex god is the "ultimate Boeing 747" that truly does require the impossible to explain its existence.


----------



## sealybobo

One formulation of the _Atheist's Wager_ suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.


----------



## MaryL

Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


OK but just because something hasn't been demonstrated yet by science
is no reason to call someone stupid!

Edison had to have FAITH that a light bulb could be invented
or he would not search for the right combination that PROVED it could be.

Same with finding cures for cancer, leprosy, Ebola, etc.

Why is it STUPID to have faith that a solution can be found
in advance of Science proving it?


----------



## Boss

percysunshine said:


> That is not a cat. I win..



Here you are Percy... a cat that is both alive and dead:


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're extremely long-winded (do you actually think that most of us don't just gloss over your posts?).
> and bat-shit crazy. C'mon, you can scientifically verify that "
> by calling on the authority of Christ Jesus or authority of God
> to cast out demonic influences making these people sick"?
> Wait! Let me get some more popcorn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out
> 
> A *Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
> is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things.  Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of *spiritual *healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term _supernatural_ is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
> would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
> and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.
> 
> So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
> It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
> So there is no contradiction.
> 
> This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
> against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.
> 
> There really is real practical application to science and medicine
> that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
> that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.
Click to expand...


Well, I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.  

This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically,  that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, gods don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo depends how you define god Gods or God
> 
> Are you okay with
> God = Wisdom
> does Wisdom exist?
> God = Love
> does Love exist?
> God = Life
> does Life exist?
> God = Collective Truth or knowledge
> does Collective Truth exist?
> 
> Sealybobo which makes less sense to you
> 1. someone who keeps believing and pushing god or gods that don't exist
> 2. someone like you who DOESN'T believe in them
> but keeps insisting that's what god or gods Mean and
> KEEP pushing that = something that doesn't exist!
> 
> Compared with the corrective approach that makes sense to me and I recommend:
> A. QUIT pushing definitions of god that conflict or don't exist
> B. FOCUS on definitions or meanings associated with God that
> people DO AGREE exist and are HELPFUL to use to get something positive done!
> 
> Now which makes more sense or gets more accomplished:
> you and others arguing about 1 and 2
> or
> people making peace by quitting A and focusing on B where we AGREE
> to focus on things God means that we agree are helpful, practical and beneficial to all
> 
> Which makes more sense?
Click to expand...


What makes more sense?  Someone who says there is no god and pushes for a more intelligent society that isn't kept stupid by a stupid concept.  I don't think god is good for people.  Look at Isis in Iraq.  That's god honey.  

And I already told you you can't say "God is Wisdom or love".  Point number 17:  


*God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.

_“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.”_ – Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## Boss

MaryL said:


> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.



You might want to start praying.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good, Sealybobo.
> And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.
> 
> The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
> that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.
> 
> So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
> shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
> but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.
> 
> People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.
Click to expand...


Do you really believe that we are "meant for something"?  So you believe in fate?  So my cousin who died of a heart attack in his car in his early 50's shouldn't have wasted his time dieting and exercising because that heart attack was already pre written?  

What if I went to church tomorrow and got inspired to become more like you?  So I am ok being a former theist because that's the way god designed me?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> One formulation of the _Atheist's Wager_ suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.



1. First of all why can't you both BELIEVE in higher good AND do higher good in this lifetime?
Why can't you do both, and leave it Unconditional either way.

it is just as "conditioned or selfish" to do "good" as a condition that God exists
or as a condition that God does not exist. Why not do good for the sake of God which is the meaning
of God = unconditional love. Love for lovesake is the whole point anyway, either way!

2. Secondly "God rewarding" is synonymous/consistent
with cause and effect, or good intention/actions leading to good results.

The issue is to have good intent to begin with.
Good will begets good will.
Ill will begets ill will.

This does not require faith in a personified God to understand.
This is natural law which God represents, regardless if someone uses that symbolism or not.

it is STILL true that
Forgiveness ==> allows h ealing and correction to improve, build and destroy relations
Unforgivness/ill will ==> blocks and destroys

3. Sealybobo as long as you believe in general
that good intent tends toward good actions and results
and bad intent tends toward bad things going wrong,
that is basically the same law of good influence vs. bad influence.

When you get to more advanced levels, instead of
labeling things "good or bad" you learn how Forgiveness
corrects things that were even bad.

How we ALLOW the good to overcome and replace the bad
is why it is important to understand the spiritual process.

It does not matter if we describe this using a personified God
or we just talk about how the process works anyway.

God is not about imposing a condition; that's the religion
part that the Protestant movement challenged with the Reformation.

The point was salvation from hell/suffering
was based on faith in forgiving the past so we can receive.

It is NOT about "dictating some magic words or ritual" to be saved.
That would be a condition and God's grace would not be free.

The only step is agreeing to give permission
and that is why we have to CHOOSE to forgive
and CHOOSE to get go of problems before receiving a solution.

The key is really Forgiveness, and then all else follows
once we understand we change things by forigving and letting go.

4. Yes BTW I do believe in general the script in life is
written to get to a happy ending. I can't know all the ups and downs
because I'm supposed to learn from those like everyone else.
But in general things are heading toward truth peace and justice for all people
as one spiritual family. And all the conversations we have are helping prepare
us by resolving issues from the past so we can build better relations and society
for future generations that will finish teh work we don't complete in our lifetimes.
We do the most we can with what we have in life and inherit some things
from previous generations and leave some things to future generations.
But the general learning curve is to break free from negative patterns, learn from past mistakes
isntead of repeating them, and start investing in positive solutions, process and patterns that work better in the present and are more sustainable for the future.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The primary psychological role of traditional religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good, Sealybobo.
> And this applies also to people in denial on BOTH sides.
> 
> The logical NEUTRAL position is that God represents something
> that can neither be proven nor disproven by empirical science.
> 
> So either accepting God on faith or rejecting God on faith
> shows a bias toward something not empirical proven but could still be fallable, false or change
> but we are CERTAIN it is or isn't.
> 
> People believe what they are meant to believe at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that we are "meant for something"?  So you believe in fate?  So my cousin who died of a heart attack in his car in his early 50's shouldn't have wasted his time dieting and exercising because that heart attack was already pre written?
> 
> What if I went to church tomorrow and got inspired to become more like you?  So I am ok being a former theist because that's the way god designed me?
Click to expand...


1. It's not that he "wasted his time" it's that we should do the right thing for its own sake
and not have our happiness "dependent" on getting a certain outcome we aren't guaranteed.
Something can always go wrong, and it helps to reduce stress by being okay with that.
If you are constant uptight from micromanaging to the point it's not natural for you, 
that's not enjoying life anyway.  The key is finding a BALANCE: yes, we have to do
what is right and healthy, if we want things to go effectively and sustainably. We have to be reasonable wise and practical.
But we can't go to such an extreme it becomes unlivable;
like refusing to leave the house because it lowers our risk of a car accident.
We can try to make things fun, and get satisfaction from doing things well.

Why frame everything as either or?
Why not find a way to enjoy doing things rights for their own value and
not focus on "conditions" being met as the only value.
We can enjoy both the journey and destination, not compromise one for the other.

2. Sealybobo i don't think you or I or anyone can become something that isn't natural for us.
We can learn to add more skills or understanding, but we will always be ourselves.

Going to church does not change you into something else;
like going to a science lab and learning how physics works does not convert you into a rocket scientist engineer.

If that is someone's specialty, let other people focus on that.

The main thing is to have a fuller understanding of all sides of something,
knowing the good points and also knowing the weak spots,
just like the best way or worst way to use a tool in the tool box or an instrument in the orchestra.

We need to learn enough to work with each other,
but no, we don't expect to convert people from one thing to another.

As the Bahai teach it, you add knowledge and wisdom from each different source.
Like learning multiple languages, wha tis wrong with learning what different
religious systems teach, the terms they use, and where these align with others?

What is missing from one approach may find balance in another, so we need all of these
together to cover all the bases.

SB my atheist friends pretty much stay nontheist
and my Christian friends stay theist. You may open
up to understand more about the opposite view,
but that does not require converting, Most people keep their native
language and just add other languages in addition not in place of!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point theists went from trying to use logic to prove God exists to lying about him visiting them.  Why did they start lying?  Maybe your arguments don't hold water?  Because I have heard many scientists talk about the possible reasons why our universe is here, how long it too, the process, the evolution, the mind blowing amount of time that existed from when the big bang happened and us puny humans appeared on earth.  Were Dionosaurs gods mistake?
> 
> Anyways, you are trying to prove that "something" created all this.  Ok  maybe something did.  Why does that something have to be a god?  And why the lies?  Why lie and say god visited your ancestors?  I know!  It's because will all 7 "truths" you keep putting out there as proofs, even though they aint, even with all those 7 points, that still doesn't prove a god that cares about you put you here, cares about you and is waiting for you in heaven.  That's a dumb pathetic humans wishful thinking.  Grow up.  And point number two is wrong:
> 
> *Complexity/Order proves god exists. *
> The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull!  I've already falsified that rash of nonsense on this very thread!  The atheist's claim about what the Teleological Argument asserts is utterly false, a straw man.  Let me know when you're ready to deal with the actual thrust of the argument.  Why are you still lying about the nature of "The Seven Things", arguing against a straw man?
> 
> Tell me something, little man, why do you always attack straw men?  Don't you have the balls to face the real article and refute that?  Of course not, because the real deals would compel you to state the obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you are one big straw man that's why.
> 
> Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, speciation, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.
> 
> Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.
> 
> By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.
> 
> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> 
> _“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”_ – Charles Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you go right on with that pagan  tradition of earth worship as you label everything with your finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacy.  Neither you nor  Dawkins are anything new, the same ol' religious dogma.  In the meantime, Jews and Christians have trusted in and worshipped God the Creator, not his creature or any part of it.
> 
> How  did those seven, finite-mind-of-a-god-in-the-gaps fallacies work out for you?  Not so well, did they?  No one escapes "The Seven Things."
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Dawkins and anti theist science is something new.  For years we weren't allowed to talk.  Remember?  Hence why religion is "hard wired" into us.  AKA Brainwashed over the centuries.
> 
> And science has come a long way in the last 40 years so our arguments are new.  And every time we show you guys that what you think is god isn't, your god gets smaller and smaller.  To the point you are now back where you started, which is defending a generic god.
> 
> That's what we did when we were cavemen and the Greeks had every argument that you and I are having back when they had Greek gods.  So in some ways our arguments are thousands of years old and in some ways they are new.
> 
> We have always wondered how/why.  We hate not knowing.  And the truth is, we don't know.  But you liars say god came and visited Noah, Adam, Moses and then came and humped Mary.  Some of you even claim god has visited you.  You should all be locked up.
Click to expand...


If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to start praying.
Click to expand...


Boss is that accurate about the seven things? Just wondering.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to start praying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss is that accurate about the seven things? Just wondering.
Click to expand...


Is what accurate? That Mary should start praying? I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for her. I mean, she has come to the understanding that all the universe is pretty much smoke and mirrors, but it's a pretty damn impressive illusion.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do, gods don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo depends how you define god Gods or God
> 
> Are you okay with
> God = Wisdom
> does Wisdom exist?
> God = Love
> does Love exist?
> God = Life
> does Life exist?
> God = Collective Truth or knowledge
> does Collective Truth exist?
> 
> Sealybobo which makes less sense to you
> 1. someone who keeps believing and pushing god or gods that don't exist
> 2. someone like you who DOESN'T believe in them
> but keeps insisting that's what god or gods Mean and
> KEEP pushing that = something that doesn't exist!
> 
> Compared with the corrective approach that makes sense to me and I recommend:
> A. QUIT pushing definitions of god that conflict or don't exist
> B. FOCUS on definitions or meanings associated with God that
> people DO AGREE exist and are HELPFUL to use to get something positive done!
> 
> Now which makes more sense or gets more accomplished:
> you and others arguing about 1 and 2
> or
> people making peace by quitting A and focusing on B where we AGREE
> to focus on things God means that we agree are helpful, practical and beneficial to all
> 
> Which makes more sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes more sense?  Someone who says there is no god and pushes for a more intelligent society that isn't kept stupid by a stupid concept.  I don't think god is good for people.  Look at Isis in Iraq.  That's god honey.
> 
> And I already told you you can't say "God is Wisdom or love".  Point number 17:
> 
> 
> *God is the universe/love/laws of physics.*
> We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading.
> 
> _“To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.”_ – Arthur Schopenhauer
Click to expand...


Hi SB
1. Again, why can't people "push for a  more intelligent society" REGARDLESS if people believe in god or not?
why is it framed as either/or that we cannot both have intelligence and faith in God? Why not have it ALL, take
the best of all of it and use that to check the weak spots we all have. 
So where faith helps calm people down and stay strong during crisis, let's use it for that when it helps people.
And where not being caught up in religious stuff helps to stay objective, let's use objectivity where it helps.
And where we need both working together, let's use teams that have both to troubleshoot and solve problems better.

I don't see the need for any either/or diametrics here.

2. What I DO see is the need for forgiveness.

if you look at ISIS
if you look at Chinese crackdown on people 
if you look at people who take their issues and project them onto victims of bullying, abuse and crime

Sealybobo the COMMON FACTOR is UNFORGIVENESS
it is NOT GOD
* the shooters at Columbine challenged others and wanted to rebel against God - there were things they couldn't forgive
and wanted retribution instead
* the Aurora shooter wanted to get back at being rejected for the field of study he wanted to excel it but was denied the chance
So he couldn't forgive that and ask help from others, he sought revenge to show these people he could outsmart the system
* the shooter in Washington could not forgive his cousin and killed several people in a state of retribution for killing his spirit

the issue is FORGIVENESS

3. Sealybobo as for names for God these are already established
this is nothing  new

Wisdom as a name for God is older and more numerous in the Bible
than God as Heavenly Father.

If you don't like God = Wisdom
then why are you defining God = imaginary bogeyman
either

What do you believe is the driving force in life, the ulimate culmination or collective of all truth or all things.

Name what you consider the source of all truth or things in life
or if this is beyond you, that's fine. but align/equate God with that "highest thing above all other things"
and we can still hve the same conversation about
what causes things to work out in life and what causes things to go wrong.

We don't have to agree perfectly that God = ___________________
What matters is that we forgive when we frame things differently
and try to find a way that works for both of our backgrounds so it includes us equally.

Of course we are going to have differences, that can't be a requirement for peace
or all people would never get t here because we'd never agree enough!

Even husbands and wives who are happily married all their years
do not agree on some things. The key is forgiveness and working through the hardships anyway
because the relationsihp is greater and teh effort made in good faith has value for its own sake.

We love and share for the sake of loving and sharing and that's good enough.
We grow by understanding the other person comes from a slightly different perspective,
and we make room for each other. That's never going to be perfect, we just keep forgiving when it goes
wrong, and try to do better and learn and benefit from the experience.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.



The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma. 

You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

MaryL said:


> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.




Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism.  In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did.  And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness.  It's not nothingness.  The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy., 

 99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.
> 
> You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.
Click to expand...


Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism.  In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did.  And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness.  It's not nothingness.  The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy.,
> 
> 99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson
Click to expand...


So true...


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.
> 
> You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!
Click to expand...

Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?



I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK back up
> 
> Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
> to your proof.
> 
> So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations
> 
> And Science works alongside it to address objections
> that can be resolved by Science.
> 
> These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.
Click to expand...


That's what I said. There's no conflict, but there is a problem for atheism. 

Due to its inherent limitations and the nature of its necessary premise, the notion  of science ever falsifying any of the axiomatic proofs of organic logic is paradoxically absurd, though it is logically conceivable that we might be able to verify the substance of the "God axiom" of organic logic someday with science if God ever willed it to be so. Essentially, there are only two, seemingly absurd, paradoxical hypothesis of science, which entail the suspension of two axiomatic proofs in organic logic:  (1)  the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_, (2) the "God axiom", which holds that the fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another, proving the positive,  in their statement/assertion that _God (Creator) doesn't exist_.

*See posts*:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/


----------



## emilynghiem

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
Click to expand...


Hollie: does this mean that if you reject MD just saying they're true by stating them,
then you are doing similar by rejecting them as false just by stating so.

At least I offered to prove that Spiritual Healing can be verified as consistent by Science,
so that shows that more can be done than just rely on the syllogistic Logic by itself to change anyone's perception.

Science could be used to demonstrate why there is something
both unique and universal, both natural and spiritual (at the same time!) in Christian practice/teaching

So Hollie this would show both you were right about objecting to MD leaving this out, if it is the KEY to demonstration.
And he would be right that the Christian teachings are universal concepts and any denial of that will meet with contradiction.

You would both be right on some points and equally omitting others that hte other person is objecting to.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK back up
> 
> Science is used for ONE LEVEL or approach to falsify or verify the OBJECTIONS
> to your proof.
> 
> So your proof works on one level to address LOGIC definitions and consistent relations
> 
> And Science works alongside it to address objections
> that can be resolved by Science.
> 
> These are not in conflict at all but complementary levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I said. There's no conflict, but there is a problem for atheism.
> 
> Due to its inherent limitations and the nature of its necessary premise, the notion  of science ever falsifying any of the axiomatic proofs of organic logic is paradoxically absurd, though it is logically conceivable that we might be able to verify the substance of the "God axiom" of organic logic someday with science if God ever willed it to be so. Essentially, there are only two, seemingly absurd, paradoxical hypothesis of science, which entail the suspension of two axiomatic proofs in organic logic:  (1)  the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_, (2) the "God axiom", which holds that the fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another, proving the positive,  in their statement/assertion that _God (Creator) doesn't exist_.
> 
> *See posts*:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10053705/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Click to expand...


Yes our statements don't disagree then.

I am using Science to VERIFY Spiritual Healing which is not mentioned in your Logic proof.
But it is the key to helping with the forgiveness and healing process so people can work out 
differences surrounding objections or conflicts with the proof. This helps with the process around it.

but since you put a disclaimer you are focusin gon the logic not science, these are not in conflict.
they complement and work together jsut fine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.
> 
> You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
Click to expand...



Based on the various assertions you've made on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, we have you down for five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, we have you down for the other two, *#6* and *#7*, implicitly.  Only, you ain't packin' a full deck, so we also have you down for you-know-what and giggles.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
Click to expand...

The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, but remember, you put yourself down for "The Seven Things" as *(1)* you conceded their necessity with the logic of  your very own words in which* (2)* you necessarily stated that _God exists!_ via the incontrovertibly positive proof under the very same organic laws of logic that *(3)* you necessarily presupposed in order to assert your failed attempt to refute them. Given that all of this is true, you're claiming that the contradictorily paradoxical world of atheism is bigger than the logically consistent world of theism.  That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thing you have to remember with silly boob is, he continually contradicts himself. I have literally seen him do this within the same paragraph. He calls himself an "agnostic atheist" because he believes that God is totally made up bullshit while also believing that he doesn't really know if God exists but it's possible. He doesn't believe in anything spiritual, that's all in our heads... but he believes in Karma.
> 
> You'll notice this most of the time when he posts first person, but we rarely get to see it because he so often copies and pastes from his arsenal of atheist blogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. He's does have quite an arsenal of the stuff all which necessarily concedes "The Seven Things"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the various assertions you've made on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, we have you down for five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, we have you down for the other two, *#6* and *#7*, implicitly.  Only, you ain't packin' a full deck, so we also have you down for you-know-what and giggles.
Click to expand...

You actually have nothing of the kind. You do have an issue with contingent reality and you have problems with inventions of what you hoped others have written as opposed to what they actually did write.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but the pope just said that the big bang theory  is now acceptable to Catholics. Funny thing about science. It says that matter is made up of 99% nothing and the remaining percent is questionable, so life and everything we know is a dance of nothingness...I don't know were to go with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first of all the Big Bang theory was never problematical for theism.  In fact, it poses more problems for atheism than steady state theory did.  And it not true that 99% of the universe's mass is nothingness.  It's not nothingness.  The rest is invisible, dark matter and dark energy.,
> 
> 99 of the Mass of the Visible Universe Not Explained by CERN s Discovery of Higgs Boson
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, the Big Bang is a huge problem for your Christian fundamentalists. The very idea of a universe that is billions of years old is in direct contradiction to your notion of a 6,000 year old planet.


----------



## MaryL

Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might  be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief.* Conversely, scientific theories are inherently **falsifiable** – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.*
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. *Faith is an *_*unjustified belief*_* based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking*.
Click to expand...


Justified true belief/knowledge is not merely bottomed on scientific theory, but also on the philosophical and mathematical maxims of the organic laws of thought, which serve as the epistemological and ontological foundation for science and scientific methodology.

So why do you keep making absolute declarations in the name of science about spiritual matters?  That's weird.

Take the absurdity that faith, for example, in and of itself, has anything whatsoever to do with the construct of_ justified true belief/knowledge_. That's ridiculous, absurd, risible, poppycock, hooey, pseudoscientific and -philosophical claptrap, la-la, discarded underwear, the newspaper your dog relieves himself on, a wet, snot-stained hanky.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

MaryL said:


> Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might  be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?



Science is not based on observable facts and any religious belief worth having is not based on faith, but reason, with being the substance of affirmation.  
Science is based on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another, a methodology of knowledge that is used to make empirically verifiable/falsifiable inferences about the material realm of being.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might  be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is not based on observable facts and any religious belief worth having is not based on faith, but reason, with being the substance of affirmation.
> Science is based on one metaphysical presupposition of naturalism or another, a methodology of knowledge that is used to make empirically verifiable/falsifiable inferences about the material realm of being.
Click to expand...

You got that confused,  pointless drivel from Harun Yahya, right?


----------



## Mr. H.

MaryL said:


> Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might  be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?


Al Gore gives us the internet.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss!*
> 
> I think your down for all of  "The Seven Things"; however, you hold that your belief that these things are true _logically_ is not the same thing as _knowing_ these things to be true.   It's that a fair statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it. I like your presentation and I don't disagree. I am pretty sure some ancient philosopher has articulated it much better than I can, but we can't ever 'know' things, we can only _believe_ that we know things.
Click to expand...


Well, I see that I didn't say it very well either, actually.  Sort dashed that off.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because _none are made_. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an _unjustified belief_ based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK but just because something hasn't been demonstrated yet by science
> is no reason to call someone stupid!
> 
> Edison had to have FAITH that a light bulb could be invented
> or he would not search for the right combination that PROVED it could be.
> 
> Same with finding cures for cancer, leprosy, Ebola, etc.
> 
> Why is it STUPID to have faith that a solution can be found
> in advance of Science proving it?
Click to expand...


Seelybobo's comment about faith is false anyway.  That's not part of  his quote.  That's him talking nonsense.  The construct of justified true belief/knowledge has no bearing on faith in general, let alone any given faith based on justified true belief/knowledge. 

This construct strictly applies to established scientific theories, which are still subject to falsification, and to the philosophical and mathematical maxims of human cognition and the well-founded  postulates and theorems thereof.  We necessarily put our faith in any number of things in order to function and achieve, including the seemingly cogent constituents of justified true belief/knowledge, and we know this or at least hold this to be true based on the laws of organic thought.  That's why you really need to seriously consider the foundation I gave you for the construct of spiritual healing.  Stick to the formal terms and their imperatives and you have a sold  foundation, logically and scientifically.


----------



## BreezeWood

MaryL said:


> Jesus..Religion is faith based, science is based on observable facts. Science gave us the internet. Religion, prayer. If I post here , I am not sure anyone reads this or if it matters. But if I pray, I get equally ambiguous nothings in reply. But, if you add a acid to a base, you get the same old same old. 2+2 still equals 4.Pray to god that your cancer ridden father might  be cured, forget about it. He dies, game over. Nature doesn't care about prayer. Were is God?


.
if you are praying, you are not living.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*


.





BreezeWood said:


> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.



Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things." 

First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  . 

The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?

Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.

*Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*

Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.

Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.  

In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.

In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.

We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.

The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
Click to expand...



Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> then why are you even participating in this thread ? -
> 
> to do so is by your logic an admission the "holy" book you claim as your source of certainty is a failure ...
> 
> and the christian agenda repeats that error on infinitum without the least sense of impropriety.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!  But you won't let yourself see these things because you still won't let them be what they are first!  You're still fighting them as you fight with me!  I have nothing to do with them.  They are objectively self-evident to all.  Let them be so.  Make that choice about them, and forget about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Seven Things" reveal profound truths!* - no as GT and others point out you simply ignore the flaws and inequities it presents disguised by condescending comments ... attempting to using a sledgehammer to kill an ant is not profound.
> 
> life after expiration of the Spirits physiology as a cause made possible is not encompassed honestly by your seven things than "logically" it is possible "in a persons mind" and certainly is not proved and is a basis for the implied God of this thread you do not address.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdr: So we don't exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not to definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes,
> 
> 
> for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> 
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist:  existence may not have been created = / =  the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> 
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so one can define God  to be = the Everlasting, the Almighty
> and this still speaks to "agreeing that God = something that exists)
> 
> no proof or argument needed
> if there is already agreement God exists
Click to expand...


That's what some keep saying, but there are profoundly important things revealed in "The Seven Things" about human logic and what we may know about what God must be like, assuming "The Seven Things" hold outside the logic of our minds.  You don't just brush that aside given the importance of the issue.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
Click to expand...

you failed to refute a single one of my objections.


you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat. 

you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection. 

Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> *
> It's not considered illogical because we've observed it and know it happens logically. Again, what is "logical" and what do we mean by that? At one time, it was not "logical" to think you could travel around the "flat" world. It wasn't "logical" to expect rainfall for your crops unless you did the rain dance and made offerings to the appropriate gods. Our concept of what is logical is determined by what we observe through science and know is valid logically. How the electron behaves is considered logical, which is why I put quote marks around the word in my comments.
> 
> It appears to not be logical for matter to vanish from existence and reappear or be at two places at the same time. This seems to defy logic, but it happens, therefore it's logical. I have no problem with logic or arguments based on logic, but it's important to remember that logic does not always determine truth. What may seem logical is not always true. Our perception of logic is based on our incomplete knowledge which is subject to error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing logic with intuition.  Intuition is the key to forming a premise without enough observation.--for instance, the Earth was flat  was intuitive.
> 
> Logic is the process of going from one premise to another.  For instance, if we travel around the  flat Earth, we would fall.
> 
> Another intuitive  premise is that there is a rain god. Another intuitive premise is that if you please this rain god, he would send rain.  Then the logical argument leads to arrangements such as dancing to please the rain god.
> 
> Note: All the examples you used started with a faulty premise.  It can leads to faulty conclusion.  These faulty premises did not come abut due to logic failing, they came about due to our* intuition* failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that logic failed. I said our perceptions of logic failed. You're saying our perceptions of logic are intuitive, and I have no argument with that.
Click to expand...


If we include "perceiving illogical arguments as true" as part of that perception.

If you go back and take a look at how some of these assumptions were form, you will also note that there are several  logical fallacies involved in forming both the assumptions and providing reason to form a conclusion.

Why we do this is simple, IF we do not risk making a mistake, we will not get anywhere.  The act of associating things we think we understand to new things is a normal process--However, there is a risk of a logical fallacy in doing this in itself!

The logical fallacy of equivocation and the logical fallacy of over-generalization are usually the main problems.  That is why you need some method to verify if the assumption is correct.

However, this is the underling problem of perception itself--how do we know what we sense exist, or is true?  Apparently we commit a potential fallacy by guessing an association.  That is not logical, but our intuition tell us to ignore this.

So our perception of "correctly processed logical arguments forming a false assumption or conclusion" is not the problem.  The problem is the perception of accepting potentially faulty assumptions as true without recognizing the  logical pitfalls of doing this.  That is an intuitive process!


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our ability to understand things is equal, but our perception of understanding differs. We have different perceptions because we have different perspectives. Our ability to rationalize or be objective stems from our perceptions. We don't all see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some may not even see the glass at all, while still others may see a totally full glass.
> 
> We hinge our faith in what we believe on words like objective, reasoned, logical, axiomatic, because these help bolster our faith in what we believe as truth. At the most elementary level, everything we claim to know as truth requires faith. Ironically, this may be the greatest proof for God.
Click to expand...


You see that's the kind of things I was telling Rawlings.  I agree with all of this.  That's why I couldn't figure out why you got mad at me because the only thing I don't agree with is the idea that we can't know truth.  I believe we can because we can trust in the laws of human thought as real knowledge  because they're the same for everyone, so they must come from God.  People just let all this other stuff get in the way of being objective about things, and also we can't trust what a lot of the atheists are saying  because they're not honest with us.  The reality is that most of them do see the seven things and we can tell from the things they've said.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> One formulation of the _Atheist's Wager_ suggests that one should live a good life without religion, since Martin writes that a loving and kind god would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, a good person will leave behind a positive legacy. The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. First of all why can't you both BELIEVE in higher good AND do higher good in this lifetime?
> Why can't you do both, and leave it Unconditional either way.
> 
> it is just as "conditioned or selfish" to do "good" as a condition that God exists
> or as a condition that God does not exist. Why not do good for the sake of God which is the meaning
> of God = unconditional love. Love for lovesake is the whole point anyway, either way!
> 
> 2. Secondly "God rewarding" is synonymous/consistent
> with cause and effect, or good intention/actions leading to good results.
> 
> The issue is to have good intent to begin with.
> Good will begets good will.
> Ill will begets ill will.
> 
> This does not require faith in a personified God to understand.
> This is natural law which God represents, regardless if someone uses that symbolism or not.
> 
> it is STILL true that
> Forgiveness ==> allows h ealing and correction to improve, build and destroy relations
> Unforgivness/ill will ==> blocks and destroys
> 
> 3. Sealybobo as long as you believe in general
> that good intent tends toward good actions and results
> and bad intent tends toward bad things going wrong,
> that is basically the same law of good influence vs. bad influence.
> 
> When you get to more advanced levels, instead of
> labeling things "good or bad" you learn how Forgiveness
> corrects things that were even bad.
> 
> How we ALLOW the good to overcome and replace the bad
> is why it is important to understand the spiritual process.
> 
> It does not matter if we describe this using a personified God
> or we just talk about how the process works anyway.
> 
> God is not about imposing a condition; that's the religion
> part that the Protestant movement challenged with the Reformation.
> 
> The point was salvation from hell/suffering
> was based on faith in forgiving the past so we can receive.
> 
> It is NOT about "dictating some magic words or ritual" to be saved.
> That would be a condition and God's grace would not be free.
> 
> The only step is agreeing to give permission
> and that is why we have to CHOOSE to forgive
> and CHOOSE to get go of problems before receiving a solution.
> 
> The key is really Forgiveness, and then all else follows
> once we understand we change things by forigving and letting go.
> 
> 4. Yes BTW I do believe in general the script in life is
> written to get to a happy ending. I can't know all the ups and downs
> because I'm supposed to learn from those like everyone else.
> But in general things are heading toward truth peace and justice for all people
> as one spiritual family. And all the conversations we have are helping prepare
> us by resolving issues from the past so we can build better relations and society
> for future generations that will finish teh work we don't complete in our lifetimes.
> We do the most we can with what we have in life and inherit some things
> from previous generations and leave some things to future generations.
> But the general learning curve is to break free from negative patterns, learn from past mistakes
> isntead of repeating them, and start investing in positive solutions, process and patterns that work better in the present and are more sustainable for the future.
Click to expand...


1.  I don't think the meaning of love is god or the meaning of god is love.  What it all boils down to is does this god character exist and is it necessary or just confusing.  Because you could just explain love as an emotion or in scientific or physical terms and we'd save a lot of time if you didn't finish each sentence with praise god.  Then we go WHO? and then you try to explain and we have a whole bunch of questions that you can't answer and then we get off the subject of LOVE.

2.  I don't argue that good begets good and bad bad.  Agreed. 

3.  So a good person who doesn't believe in god doesn't go to hell?  Simple yes or no will do.

4.  I often think, what if I fixed all the things that are wrong in my life.  Could I re invent myself?  Do you know for years I believed that my church was the only true church.  Like all the other sects, they all offer something a little different so that their members can feel special.  Born agains, Jehovas, Mormons, Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Chaldean, etc.  Then it dawned on me mine is made up too.  But I still love the community, people, priests.  I would NEVER tell them they are swallowing a lie.  They'll have to figure that out on their own.  I'm only on USMB talking about it because if you come here to debate it, you are asking for our honest thoughts, correct?  So some of us may be blunt debating you guys, but that's better than burning us at the stake or ostrasizing us for not believing your way.  I know Kim Jung Il would kill a christian, but he doesn't represent atheists.  

_“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”_ – Steven Weinberg

Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true.

Religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful than otherwise.  Compare America where we have a lot of atheists and agnistics to the Middle East where everyone believes in God.  Just not your god.  Also consider how many of us liberal atheists pro science people are anti war vs the Christians who want to "bomb bomb bomb  bomb bomb Iran".  Riddle me that.


----------



## Justin Davis

Truman123 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know one atheist growing up.  No one questioned god.  Not out loud anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
Click to expand...


They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Junk science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullring challenge!
> 
> I believe Spiritual Healing can be "demonstrated"
> ie VERIFIED through science and that
> fraudulent faith healing or why methods fail
> can be "falsified" by showing they didn't follow the
> steps in effective spiritual healing.
> 
> M.D. if you reject science validation of the things taught in Christianity
> you are HARDLY one to criticize Atheists for rejecting if you do the same as they do.
> 
> Shame on you, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.  Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> When you talk like that, you necessarily negate the thrust of your very own premise, imagining that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data establishing a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality.
> 
> Also, you inordinately presume that because science has yet been able to verify or falsify God's existence that such a thing could never happen.  How do you know that?  You don't know that.  Assuming God does exist outside _*the positive proof of His existence*_ in accordance with the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would be, thereafter, scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.
> 
> What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded  and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace and is recommended by all that is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.
> 
> I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.
> 
> Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief.* Conversely, scientific theories are inherently **falsifiable** – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.*
> 
> Scientific knowledge is a form of _justified belief_ grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. *Faith is an *_*unjustified belief*_* based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justified true belief/knowledge is not merely bottomed on scientific theory, but also on the philosophical and mathematical maxims of the organic laws of thought, which serve as the epistemological and ontological foundation for science and scientific methodology.
> 
> So why do you keep making absolute declarations in the name of science about spiritual matters?  That's weird.
> 
> Take the absurdity that faith, for example, in and of itself, has anything whatsoever to do with the construct of_ justified true belief/knowledge_. That's ridiculous, absurd, risible, poppycock, hooey, pseudoscientific and -philosophical claptrap, la-la, discarded underwear, the newspaper your dog relieves himself on, a wet, snot-stained hanky.
Click to expand...


Are you old enough to remember the character Cliff Clavin on Cheers?  He was a mailman who talked a lot, stated a lot of irrelevant facts, knew a lot about nothing basically.  I can imitate him perfectly.  Starts with a high pitch whiny DER A.  Anyways, when I read your replies I hear his voice.  LOL.  

And I agree.  Faith has nothing to do with _justified true belief/knowledge._

_“I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.” – Richard Feynman

Take his advice and ponder these things.  Lots of problems with your theories.  Where to begin....

When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:


Infinite Regression
Argument from Poor Design
The Atheist’s Wager
Non-belief Paradox
Omnipotence Paradox
Free Will Paradox
Argument from locality
Argument from Non-reason
Argument from incompatible properties
Fate of the Unlearned
Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell


_


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
Click to expand...


That's awfully close minded.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
Click to expand...


If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 14 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way and then simply disappeared?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you got me there but I just didn't say it right.  I meant what you're saying.  You can know about God from what you can see in the creation, but that's not the same thing like knowing Him personally.  So I guess I do agree with the other stuff you're saying after all.  It just seemed at first the what you were saying was a contradiction.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
Click to expand...


It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basic facts about infinity are objectively there. Some of the finer points are too, in my opinion, but when one comes to those, one is right on the very edge of the limits of what may be known universally without the help of direct revelation.
> 
> For example, we know God has to be infinity powerful and the like, but can one credibly argue that the various examples of infinity in the material realm of being can be objectively demonstrated by a mere human to another. Theoretically, yes, of course. It can and is thusly demonstrated to some all the time. I've shown atheist friends this. No sweat. But these are people who understand the metaphysics of logic and science in their own right and don't stubbornly ignore objective facts or logic about these things that falsify ingrained notions of ignorance.
> 
> If we can grasp the concept of infinity and do calculi in it, would it not necessarily follow that we are able to do these things because God can and has done them already infinity beyond our ken? But the real problem for many will be the refusal to think the MPTAG through to the fact of the positive proof in organic logic or accept the implications of the principle of identity, which we have seen here, though these things be self-evident.
> 
> Some people will need help, not intellectually, as it’s right there in front of them; rather, they will need the spiritual help that only God can provide to get them past the spirit of this world which steals and destroys.
> 
> Nevertheless, "The Seven Things" and foundational facts of infinity tell us plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that’s the part I meant before when talking to you and Boss about it, but Boss got mad at me when I sort of agreed with him. That's the part he's saying that's right. I don't think he understood that I agreed with him on that level.
> 
> You can't do this with everyone, so don't say "universal" right? Some people can't see everything other people see and that's also true the other way around. People really advanced in mathematics can see a lot more than others, so it's not universal at that level. People have to take the word of someone. If they trust him they might believe what he's saying is okay, but really smart atheists are saying other things. The person is going to believe the guy who represents his bias. That's human nature, and that's the part you have to remember. But if you say it's objective that leaves things open in a universal sort of way without putting people off. That's what I was saying. But also I don’t believe like that physicist believes that we can ever read all of God's language in the universe with some equation. That just seems crazy to me and I can't go with you on that. Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too. He sounds like he's a pantheist in some way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't  dispute all of this, and I understand what you and Boss are saying, commonsensically, that we are not all created equal in our ability to understand things.
> 
> As I said before, I can handle the calculi of mathematics up to a certain point, including the calculi of infinitesimals, which for me were always the most interesting for theological reasons. But after a certain point, it all becomes Chinese to me. I have just a tiny inkling of what smarter people are seeing after a certain point.  Some have explained things to me in such a way that I can get a feel for them, but I can't experience them directly, let alone comprehend them. My genetics simply won't let me go any further; my understanding breaks down.
> 
> My father, an aircraft technician, was brilliant at math, the real deal.  I can't do anything practical beyond the intermediate level, and I'm not even entirely competent at that level.  It used to frustrate him to no end when I couldn't follow anymore.
> 
> "Dad, I can't do it anymore."
> 
> "But, son, it follows!"
> 
> "Yeah, I believe you, but you have to believe me too. You'll have to go on without me."​
> I appreciate yours and Boss' point more now and will be more careful with the use of the term _universal_, where I should just stick with the term _objective_. Notwithstanding, "The Seven Things," sans the more complex details of the construct of infinity regarding *#4*, are universally apprehensible, and everybody of a sound and developmentally mature mind can readily understand the basic operations of addition (by extension, multiplication) and division in terms of infinity . . . and beyond to the infinite potentialities of divine attribution as premised on the universal idea of a God of the highest conceivable standard of perfection, which objectively and necessarily follows in order that we do _not_ beg the question, in spite of what some, who would thoughtlessly impose the fallacies of subjectivism, imagine.
> 
> As for Michio Kaku, he is a scientific pantheist, I think, akin to Einstein, who held that what he had learned, more at, what he thought he had learned, from revealed religion, could not be true. Kaku is open to the idea of a divine sentience that merged with the cosmos and might still be consciously and personally aware, though you won't necessarily get that from this link.  He has expressed this possibility elsewhere. So his idea is a bit more spiritually "advanced"  than Einstein's apparently.
> 
> Michio Kaku s Religion and Political Views Hollowverse
> 
> *"Not that I don’t think it's theoretically possible it's just that all we’d have is God's revelation about the universe not about Him too."*
> 
> I disagree!  And this is not what you've said before. I think what you mean to say here is that gleaning what may be known _about_ God from His general revelation is not the same thing as personally _knowing_ or _experiencing_ God. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got me there but I just didn't say it right.  I meant what you're saying.  You can know about God from what you can see in the creation, but that's not the same thing like knowing Him personally.  So I guess I do agree with the other stuff you're saying after all.  It just seemed at first the what you were saying was a contradiction.
Click to expand...


A little child truly believes their imaginary friend is real.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
Click to expand...


Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. 

The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
Click to expand...


You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone concede your phony seven things is anything but a fraud perpetrated by a fundie zealot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
Click to expand...

YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY. 

As presumed you would.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what 'the seven things are'... but I do know that whatever your beef is with 'em, you conceded that exchange through your failure to either refute or discredit the point.
> 
> 
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
Click to expand...


I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
Click to expand...

They do not all follow.

For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The refutation of the phony seven things has been done repeatedly. Your failure is not taking the time or effort to read through more than a few pages of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
Click to expand...



Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?

They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.

You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."




On the contrary smart people realize this.

You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not all follow.
> 
> For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.
Click to expand...


I understand what he's saying.  I'm not a dummy.  Go lie to the dummies.  How come you mislead?  You're just fooling the dummies.  What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way.  So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said.  I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant.   Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth.  Wow.  Just wow.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not all follow.
> 
> For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what he's saying.  I'm not a dummy.  Go lie to the dummies.  How come you mislead?  You're just fooling the dummies.  What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way.  So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said.  I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant.   Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth.  Wow.  Just wow.
Click to expand...

dip, duck, dodge. coward.
Presupper in 3 d.

Dip, duck dodge.

Paste:

In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*

The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:

1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'




Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.




I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not all follow.
> 
> For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what he's saying.  I'm not a dummy.  Go lie to the dummies.  How come you mislead?  You're just fooling the dummies.  What's really weird about that is that you would rather look like a dummy than simply state it the right way.  So are you dummy because this is not the right way to say what he said.  I read the post where he explained exactly what is meant.   Looks like you'd rather look like a dummy than tell the truth.  Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dip, duck, dodge. coward.
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
Click to expand...


Straw man.


----------



## G.T.

presupper dip duck dodge.

we'll wait for your magic logic rules that allow something unproven to become an axiomatic absolute, such as "we were created."

tic tock, presupper.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
Click to expand...


One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.

LOL!  Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.

And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .  

ROFLMNAO!  Adorable...


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.
> 
> LOL!  Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.
> 
> And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Adorable...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry bud, let me put it to terms you may be able to understand. 

Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.

Existence is not proven to have been creatED, by a *sentient being*. 

Hope that clears that up for you.


----------



## MrDVS1

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.

I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.

Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we see that whenever you demand some physical evidence and are shown some physical evidence, you still find some way to reject it and not believe it. In short, the presence of physical evidence for God doesn't matter to you. Yet you pretend this is what you need to believe in God.
> 
> The studies have been done, the results are clear, Emily is correct on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Faith healing, laying of hands, tarot card reading, etc. as you fundamentalists promote it proves nothing. Let's see your peer reviewed data that supports faith healing is in any way connected to your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> W H O A, Hollie, HUGE Time out
> 
> A *Faith healing which is fraudulent/false
> is NOT the same as natural spiritual healing.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss is on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things.  Inserting the term natural in the face of Hollie’s declaration implies that any given instance of *spiritual *healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity, and Boss rightly understands that the term _supernatural_ is often abusively applied to God to mean something that is not natural, when in fact as it is applied to the idea of God as Creator that is in our minds denotes an actual Being that is, therefore, naturally existent, albeit, of a higher order of being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, MD so proving that Spiritual Healing can be BOTH natural/consistent/demonstratable by science AND use the SAME process that Christians symbolize using "spiritual" terms and concepts that otherwise sound supernatural
> would END THAT WHOLE argument Hollie uses to reject things
> and allow agreement that there is a consistent process going on anyway.
> 
> So that removes the objections that Christians are pushing something make believe and unreal.
> It is real and has real effects in the world measurable and quantifiable by science.
> So there is no contradiction.
> 
> This helps people not reject your proof just because of a bias
> against Christians pushing religious mumbo jumbo.
> 
> There really is real practical application to science and medicine
> that makes this a much needed lifesaving therapy and treatment to cure conditions
> that "medicine alone" cannot always cure but combining the mental, medical and spiritual treatment CAN help to cure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.
> 
> This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically,  that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.
Click to expand...


This is the same thing I've tried to tell her.  She keeps jumping back and forth between science and religion when all she has to do is follow the formal rules of logic and science.


----------



## Justin Davis

MrDVS1 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.
> 
> I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.
> 
> Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.
Click to expand...


Do you exist?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.



It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. IF you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality." 

However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
Click to expand...

we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes,
> 
> 
> for this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> 
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist:  existence may not have been created = / =  the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> 
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> .



I don't know what you're talking about half the time.  God as life sounds like God starts to exist when life starts and then God predates the earth and life, admission to the everlasting. Somebody just shoot me.  I'm so  confused.  What came first?  John Wayne or his horse?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.
> 
> LOL!  Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.
> 
> And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Adorable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry bud, let me put it to terms you may be able to understand.
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been creatED, by a *sentient being*.
> 
> Hope that clears that up for you.
Click to expand...


Well... for starters, you'll need to define eternal.  And since our species has little to no understanding of what that actually means, it's fairly unlikely that you'll be found with that understanding. 

Secondly, the absence of evidence on issues beyond the means of the subject investigator, is not evidence.

Third... these criteria do NOT preclude the means for reason to extrapolate.  The points will NEVER be established in factual terms, within the scope of our existence... thus they are quite irrelevant. 

Fourth, without the Creator component, all human reasoning becomes moot... as all humanity is, is a tiny, irrelevant organism floating within a just as irrelevant bubble which surrounds a less relevant rock, hurtling through a vacuum of incalculable space... which in terms of linear time, will come and go without notice and without meaning to anyone or anything, in the span of an imperceptible instant.

Which means, assuming that you're keeping score, that none of this matters, that all of it bears no meaning and if you'll check your conscience, you'll find that THAT is palpably false. 

So, either you're crazy and your brain is assigning value to that which otherwise has no value, or... you're missing something, that is as critical to your being as it is irrelevant to your present existence.

Frankly... having read your work here.  It could go either way... but I'm currently leaning toward the latter, despite the urge to favor the former.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.
> 
> LOL!  Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.
> 
> And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Adorable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry bud, let me put it to terms you may be able to understand.
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been creatED, by a *sentient being*.
> 
> Hope that clears that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... for starters, you'll need to define eternal.  And since our species has little to no understanding of what that actually means, it's fairly unlikely that you'll be found with that understanding.
> 
> Secondly, the absence of evidence on issues beyond the means of the subject investigator, is not evidence.
> 
> Third... these criteria do NOT preclude the means for reason to extrapolate.  The points will NEVER be established in factual terms, within the scope of our existence... thus they are quite irrelevant.
> 
> Fourth, without the Creator component, all human reasoning becomes moot... as all humanity is, is a tiny, irrelevant organism floating with a just as irrelevant bubble which surrounds a less relevant rock, hurtling through a vacuum of incalculable space... which in terms of linear time, will come and go without notice and without meaning to anyone or anything, in the span of an imperceptible instant.
> 
> Which means, assuming that you're keeping score, that none of this matters, that all of it bears no meaning and if you'll check your conscience, you'll find that THAT is palpably false.
> 
> So, either you're crazy and your brain is assigning value to that which otherwise has no value, or... you're missing something, that is as critical to your being as it is irrelevant to your present existence.
> 
> Frankly... having read your work here.  It could go either way... but I'm currently leaning toward the latter, despite the urge to favor the former.
Click to expand...

blow hard ad hom bullshit

treat me with respect if you want me to have a conversation and answer your points


else, im not paid to sit here and converse with random strangers who are dicks.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> blow hard ad hom bullshit  treat me with respect if you want me to have a conversation and answer your points else, im not paid to sit here and converse with random strangers who are dicks.



Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.  (You did the best ya could Scout)

See how easy this is kids? 

And what a wonderful, albeit typical demonstration of the limitations of cognitive dissonance common to the anti-theist flame out?  Asserting fallacious reasoning, through the lament of fallacious reasoning!

ROFL!  Oh how I DO adore the CLASSICS!


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One doesn't NEED to prove that natural processes fall outside of Creation, because Creation is natural, and axiomatically establishes the existence of natural processes.
> 
> LOL!  Golly... I guess I will just never tire of people who claim that because they have some understanding of the bio-chemical processes inherent in nature, they understand the nature, of Nature.
> 
> And this almost exclusively being sent out by a group of people who can't understand WHY paying people to do less always results in more people, doing less... .
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Adorable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry bud, let me put it to terms you may be able to understand.
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> Existence is not proven to have been creatED, by a *sentient being*.
> 
> Hope that clears that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... for starters, you'll need to define eternal.  And since our species has little to no understanding of what that actually means, it's fairly unlikely that you'll be found with that understanding.
> 
> Secondly, the absence of evidence on issues beyond the means of the subject investigator, is not evidence.
> 
> Third... these criteria do NOT preclude the means for reason to extrapolate.  The points will NEVER be established in factual terms, within the scope of our existence... thus they are quite irrelevant.
> 
> Fourth, without the Creator component, all human reasoning becomes moot... as all humanity is, is a tiny, irrelevant organism floating with a just as irrelevant bubble which surrounds a less relevant rock, hurtling through a vacuum of incalculable space... which in terms of linear time, will come and go without notice and without meaning to anyone or anything, in the span of an imperceptible instant.
> 
> Which means, assuming that you're keeping score, that none of this matters, that all of it bears no meaning and if you'll check your conscience, you'll find that THAT is palpably false.
> 
> So, either you're crazy and your brain is assigning value to that which otherwise has no value, or... you're missing something, that is as critical to your being as it is irrelevant to your present existence.
> 
> Frankly... having read your work here.  It could go either way... but I'm currently leaning toward the latter, despite the urge to favor the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blow hard ad hom bullshit
> 
> treat me with respect if you want me to have a conversation and answer your points
> 
> 
> else, im not paid to sit here and converse with random strangers who are dicks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.  (You did the best ya could Scout)
> 
> See how easy this is kids?  And what a wonderful, albeit typical demonstration of the limitations of cognitive dissonance common to the anti-theist flame out?  Asserting fallacious reasoning, through the lament of fallacious reasoning!
> 
> ROFL!  Oh how I DO adore the CLASSICS!
Click to expand...

your post had several errors.

ill be glad to point them out for you just as soon as you apologize for lashing out like an ass hole out of pocket. if not? ill accept your concession.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
Click to expand...


We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space. 

Where you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> your post had several errors. ... .



Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do.  And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.

Hmm... 

So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!  

And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!

By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR  concede through your looming failure to do so.

Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors.  At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.

So... LET THE GAMES *BEGIN!*


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.
> 
> W*here you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things*.
Click to expand...



This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.

You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.

Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

LOL!

Amazin' AIN

Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.


G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.
> 
> W*here you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.
> 
> You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.
> 
> Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.
Click to expand...


Oh that's BRILLIANT!

You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is otherwise irrelevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solution plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?

ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
_
While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Existence may or may not be eternal, i.e. always WAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.
> 
> W*here you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.
> 
> You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.
> 
> Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
Click to expand...

No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.

I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.

Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.

That is not my point of view.

My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.

You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you define "existence" as I have pointed out before. I*F you mean a physical material existence, it is very much in evidence *that had a beginning point and will have an ending point. It is not eternal. Physical material existence resides in spacetime continuum created by an expanding universe, also known as "reality."
> 
> However, if by "existence" you are including the spiritual nature which obviously and logically created the physical, then existence is likely eternal. We don't have a science of the spiritual, we're not advanced enough as a species, it's beyond our capability. Perhaps one day we'll venture out of the primitive caves spiritually and discover this?
> 
> 
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.
> 
> W*here you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.
> 
> You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.
> 
> Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
Click to expand...


OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.  



G.T. said:


> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.



That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience. 

Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.



G.T. said:


> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.



God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have no evidence outside of whats occurred in this particular universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't need evidence outside this universe for physical nature inside this universe. In this universe, we have Uncertainty Principle, Entropy and Laws of Thermodynamics along with quantum mechanics, which all provide evidence that a physical material universe had a start date and will have an end date. This universe exists in spacetime which is enabled by an expanding universe. Reality is simply our perceptions along the arrow of time and space.
> 
> W*here you are failing in understanding is in thinking some material reality might have existed before the physical universe existed, but that isn't possible. At least, not according to the science we are aware of at this time. I have to be careful not to catch my britches on my own point about how we can't "know" things*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.
> 
> You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.
> 
> Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
Click to expand...

Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof. 

That all said, have a good day, douchebag.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.



Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Proof: evidence in either soundly reasoned argument or physical establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

See how easy that is?


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post here, of yours, is speaking directly to our own universe Boss.
> 
> You, n'or science - knows that a physical existence *ASIDE FROM OUR UNIVERSE* doesn't NOW and/or never existed.
> 
> Therefore - it is not an absolute (something I dont believe you even think exists to begin with (absolutes) so i dont know why you're even hopping into this conversation to begin with, which is simply to advise those whom use the TAG argument are not being logical because their 1st premise is not an axiom, it is an assertion. They need it to be an axiom for TAG to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
Click to expand...

Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.

We disagree.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
Click to expand...


God is the Creator, the creation exists, therefore the Creator, God, exists.  

Such is axiomatic... that there exist those who disagree, is irrelevant to any of it.

You disagree and I've proven that the basis of your disagreement is fatally flawed with virtually no effort on my part whatsoever.   Do you feel that you're a poor advocate within the scope of those who 'feel' as you feel?

I've debated thousands of 'em and I gotta say, you're a shining example of hope... You're the proverbial one eye'd man.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Amazin' AIN
> 
> Yes... it is a burden and yes... it is a gas.
> Oh that's BRILLIANT!
> 
> You're saying that the absence of evidence, which is relevant to beings whose entire existence is predicated upon a biological construct designed to negotiate THIS EXISTENCE, within this TINY Bubble, within a 'space', existing within the singular phase of that which we call 'time' to which our 'solutions plotter' is solely capable of negotiating, IS EVIDENCE?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  _That is HYSTERICAL!
> _
> While humanity is definitely a limited species... YOU are a first class example of WHY.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
Click to expand...


God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".


----------



## Truman123

Justin Davis said:


> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why you and I see things so differently.  Growing up, my grandfather and uncle were atheists. I married an atheist from a family of atheists.  There were also Catholics and Protestants in my family, with plenty of views and perspectives of God.  And, from the beginning, I knew atheists were good people with solid thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
Click to expand...

To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago. 


Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?


Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization. 


It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is the Creator, the creation exists, therefore the Creator, God, exists.
> 
> Such is axiomatic... that there exist those who disagree, is irrelevant to any of it.
> 
> You disagree and I've proven that the basis of your disagreement is fatally flawed with virtually no effort on my part whatsoever.   Do you feel that you're a poor advocate within the scope of those who 'feel' as you feel?
> 
> I've debated thousands of 'em and I gotta say, you're a shining example of hope... You're the proverbial one eye'd man.
Click to expand...

No, you havent shown it was fatally flawed. I don't read posts full of adolescent insults full of ego and false bravado. You'll have to repost it for me to consider it. Perhaps without such a baby-like tone this time.


"god is the creator"

not proven.

"the creation exists"

not proven in the sense that existence was created

Your "fatal flaw" is that your first sentence begs the question and also rests upon unproven premises. Your delusions that you've proven god don't advance any serious argument, no matter how much your torment your keyboard with irrelevant insults and such a pathetic display of ego.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
Click to expand...

Good for your "belief," but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest. 

Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what? 

You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't know how to read and also arrive at incorrect implications.
> 
> I'm saying that the absence of evidence proves: nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there's no evidence that we are a creation created by a sentient mind - - - - - doesn't mean that we AREN'T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not my point of view.
> 
> My point of view is that _we don't know - - - - - - and the reason I'm pointing this out is because someone is trying to call god's existence a logical axiom (a given, accepted by all)_.
> 
> You're welcome for clearing up your inability to read between the lines and critically think about what you're reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
Click to expand...

God 'IS" _because I say so_!

There. Fixed for ya' sweety.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Truman123 said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.
> 
> 
> Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
> 
> 
> Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
> 
> 
> It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
Click to expand...


Morality started the instant the universe came into being, as with that being, came the laws relevant to such... as those laws govern every aspect of that being... no exception is possible for humanity and the laws that govern the behavior of such.

Civilization may or may not recognize the natural laws that govern human behavior... where it does, it will prosper, where it does not it will succumb to the consequences inherent in that failure. 

The Roman civilization came about through the pursuit of the desire to know those laws... at some point it fell away from the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to those laws... and shortly thereafter collapsed... with all that remains today, being the recorded history and some concrete and marble.

"_It has always been thus..._"


----------



## Truman123

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.
> 
> 
> Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
> 
> 
> Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
> 
> 
> It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality started the instant the universe came into being, as with that being, came the laws relevant to such... as those laws govern every aspect of that being... no exception is possible for humanity and the laws that govern the behavior of such.
> 
> Civilization may or may not recognize the natural laws that govern human behavior... where it does, it will prosper, where it does not it will succumb to the consequences inherent in that failure.
> 
> The Roman civilization came about through the pursuit of the desire to know those laws... at some point it fell away from the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to those laws... and shortly thereafter collapsed... with all that remains today, is the recorded history and some concrete and marble.
> 
> "_It has always been thus..._"
Click to expand...

I guess you've got it all figured out.


----------



## Justin Davis

'


amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I know what you mean, but this is misleading,.  The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively.  It simply is what it is.  We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks  down. That's all.   We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on.  Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along.  No sweat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can consstruct improved models of the electron through logic.
Click to expand...


Different means abnormal?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  (It might help others to understand what you're driving at, if ya dropped the triple negatives...)  And "N'or" is a contraction for what?  It might help if ya went with " N'er " which would be more or less correct for 'neither'.
> 
> That's true, except there is no end to the evidence that we are.  Perhaps the confusion rests in the misnomer that 'evidence' must be comprised of the physically tangible...  Reason provides that the laws of nature serve aspects of reason itself, thus reason defined them and provided for the means to express and observe them...  and where reason exists, so exists sentience.
> 
> Simple stuff... I fail to see where such provides for 326 pages of discussion.
> 
> God's existence is axiomatic, where the reasoning noted above holds true... and just as an FYI: the implied doubt, inherent in your "Nuh huh", does not a refutation, make.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for your "belief," ...
Click to expand...


God 'IS'... and this without regard to whether I BELIEVE or not... and without regard to WHAT I believe God IS.  



> but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.



Of course it does... that you're out of the conversation, because of your inability to rise beyond your intrenched subjective need, has no bearing on the discussion.  



> Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what?



How is this affirming my 'self'?  And PLEASE: BE SPECIFIC.



> You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.



Your concession is again noted and as always, summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Truman123 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.
> 
> 
> Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
> 
> 
> Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
> 
> 
> It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality started the instant the universe came into being, as with that being, came the laws relevant to such... as those laws govern every aspect of that being... no exception is possible for humanity and the laws that govern the behavior of such.
> 
> Civilization may or may not recognize the natural laws that govern human behavior... where it does, it will prosper, where it does not it will succumb to the consequences inherent in that failure.
> 
> The Roman civilization came about through the pursuit of the desire to know those laws... at some point it fell away from the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to those laws... and shortly thereafter collapsed... with all that remains today, being the recorded history and some concrete and marble.
> 
> "_It has always been thus..._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you've got it all figured out.
Click to expand...


Oh I won't know that until I pass to the next dimension... but within the scope of this discussion... Oh yeah.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for your "belief," ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS'... and this without regard to whether I BELIEVE or not... and without regard to WHAT I believe God IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does... that you're out of the conversation, because of your inability to rise beyond your intrenched subjective need, has no bearing on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this affirming my 'self'?  And PLEASE: BE SPECIFIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is again noted and as always, summarily accepted.
Click to expand...

This conversation is about proving god.

Not declaring he exists just cuz,' lil guy. 


Good luck with all of that meaningless word salad. At the end of the day, you were inept at meeting the challenge. Do you need to call me names and declare yourself a winner to disguise your inner self-hatred? Because that what it implies. You're kind of pathetic, but it's cute so I let it live sort of like a pain in the ass chipmunk terrorizing the garden.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> This conversation is about proving god.Not declaring he exists just cuz,' lil guy. Good luck with all of that meaningless word salad. At the end of the day, you were inept at meeting the challenge. Do you need to call me names and declare yourself a winner to disguise your inner self-hatred? Because that what it implies. You're kind of pathetic, but it's cute so I let it live sort of like a pain in the ass chipmunk terrorizing the garden.



God IS.

Trying to prove such to those invested in rejecting it, is a waste of time and energy, serving only the force which seeks to hide the truth, as it serves to confuse.

The good news is that God IS, his laws are just, equally relevant to every one and he sent his son to save us all from our inherent limitations to rise to anything akin to being worthy of his love, but leaving the choice to accept that grace, to each of us.

Accept it, don't accept it... you choose and you will, as a result of your choice, experience the lawful consequences relevant to your choice.

Doesn't GET any easier than that... and THAT is relevant to every decision you make throughout your entire life.

Your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


>



A jester is always a good time.  

Thank you for your efforts to entertain!  You're truly quite amusing.


----------



## G.T.

it's my pleasure.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  .
> 
> The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
> 
> Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
> 
> In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
> 
> We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
> 
> The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
> For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
Click to expand...




> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*






> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.






> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?




your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not _relevant_ to this thread -

that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.

I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".


The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil 





> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.



obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ... 

Everlasting = everything is possible.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post had several errors. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do.  And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
> 
> And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
> 
> By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR  concede through your looming failure to do so.
> 
> Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors.  At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
> 
> So... LET THE GAMES *BEGIN!*
Click to expand...


Let the record reflect that the above challenge went unmet, as was predicted it would... for the reasons stated...  

Therefore the contributors default concession, is again duly noted and AGAIN such is summarily accepted.

(Do ya see how easy this is folks?  Evil can be quite scary, but only where one allows it to set the rules... in truth, the rules have been set since the instant of creation.  They're not ours to alter, and even if they were, we're not capable of doing so and Evil rests purely within US.)


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post had several errors. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do.  And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
> 
> And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
> 
> By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR  concede through your looming failure to do so.
> 
> Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors.  At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
> 
> So... LET THE GAMES *BEGIN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record reflect that the above challenge went unmet, as was predicted it would... for the reasons stated...
> 
> Therefore the contributors default concession, is again duly noted and AGAIN such is summarily accepted.
> 
> (Do ya see how easy this is folks?  Evil can be quite scary, but only where one allows it to set the rules... in truth, the rules have been set since the instant of creation.  They're not ours to alter, and even if they were, we're not capable of doing so and Evil rests purely within US.)
Click to expand...

You're flailing for acceptance bro. Stop that, it's not a good look. 

You were offered a response pending an apology for being an ass hole. You couldn't help yourself to avoid retracting your ego. I never went anywhere, I'm right here still willing to eviscerate your post, but you're hiding behind your insults and I'll still be here when you DONT apologize and I'll still be laughing at you like a mother fucking boss, no pun intended.


----------



## Justin Davis

Meriweather said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart.  We also have a conscience.  Not every atheist chooses lawlessness.  Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard.  As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone.  My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.
> 
> Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.
Click to expand...


Agree.  What's making some freak out is that those of us who know that and work to see what these things are are going to believe much of the same things because these things are objectively obvious.  Those who don't believe and won't try to see them say I'm just going along with whatever Rawlings says, but I morph.  That's funny because all the subjectivists talks alike to me even some of the theists subjectivists.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  .
> 
> The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
> 
> Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
> 
> In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
> 
> We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
> 
> The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
> For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not _relevant_ to this thread -
> 
> that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
> 
> I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
> 
> 
> The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
> 
> Everlasting = everything is possible.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, clearly nothing can come from nothing... but nothing can come from the appearance of nothing.

We always reason within the scope of our solution plotter's means... meaning that we reason based upon the parameters that the plotter is programmed to recognize.

"Time and Space" for us is defined as "a time (scaled linear progression)  and space (Scaled cubic extent)  So we plot it as 'we started here and moved to there and it took us (X) long to get there.'

It is becoming clear that on some level... in some way: Time IS Space.   Therefore what we see is relevant to a space within a given time, when what is more likely is that in the greater reality, what IS, is beyond our means to comprehend.  The laws of this 'verse' being consistent and otherwise inalterable for us... but only us.

The coolest part of all THAT is that we claim from our sad little perspective, that what is beyond us, is 'SUPER-NATURAL', but, in the grand scheme of things, God, being nature is SUPREMELY NATURAL... and we are merely, sub-natural. 

What we know for certain is that matter, which is to say those things which we recognize as solid and eternal are merely manifestations of imperceptible particles which bond together through energy which holds them in a temporal state, but which, due to our finite perception of time and space, presents as permanence.   But where that bonding energy is controllable... and where time/space is alterable, any matter can be associated and disassociated at the will of that force which controls it and such can be, or will likely be beyond the bounds of our means to perceive it.

The mechanics of such is again, presently beyond our means to comprehend... but it follows that such is tied to some greater depth of time and its intrinsic bond to space and our limitations of navigating or otherwise negotiating beyond that which our physical being is capable.

Again... we see this on some level as 'life after death'... when it may well be 'life beside life', with death being the rationalization required within the finite bond to this verse. 

We think of all this as 'deep shit'.  But in truth, it's merely the distinction between how it is... and our means to understand what that means.  The reality of it is what it is, and the complexity rests entirely within our own simple natures. 

But how cool is it that those who profess themselves as so thoroughly enlightened, standing upon "SCIENCE!", are the one's who most steadfastly reject, the areas of consideration which provide for the greatest potential for understanding? 

ROFL!  For some reason I NEVER get tired of THAT!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your post had several errors. ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet... when presented with the opportunity to identify them, you opted to avoid that which reason otherwise establishes as something you desperately NEED to do.  And which where such WERE the case, you'd have little means to muster the discipline to provide you the means to avoid doing so.
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> So... I'm going to go with reason here and say: BULLSHIT!
> 
> And after THAT, I am going to let YOU PROVE ME RIGHT!
> 
> By directly and unambiguously challenging you to state the specific errors to which you referred... OR  concede through your looming failure to do so.
> 
> Now... at BEST you'll expose your own errors.  At worst... you'll come up with any number of irrational excuses to avoid doing just that.
> 
> So... LET THE GAMES *BEGIN!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the record reflect that the above challenge went unmet, as was predicted it would... for the reasons stated...
> 
> Therefore the contributors default concession, is again duly noted and AGAIN such is summarily accepted.
> 
> (Do ya see how easy this is folks?  Evil can be quite scary, but only where one allows it to set the rules... in truth, the rules have been set since the instant of creation.  They're not ours to alter, and even if they were, we're not capable of doing so and Evil rests purely within US.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're flailing for acceptance bro. Stop that, it's not a good look.
> 
> You were offered a response pending an apology for being an ass hole. You couldn't help yourself to avoid retracting your ego. I never went anywhere, I'm right here still willing to eviscerate your post, but you're hiding behind your insults and I'll still be here when you DONT apologize and I'll still be laughing at you like a mother fucking boss, no pun intended.
Click to expand...


I have no desire for your acceptance.  I'm here to not ask that accept what I say, I am here to tell you how it is.

You're free to accept it or not.

You're due no apology.  And if it helps, you couldn't sustain your assertion if your life depended upon it.  As your assertion is false and no amount of twists for your rationalization is going to change that.  The evidence that you know this, rest upon the qualification you set upon your attempt to sustain it only through vacuous implication.

I know this, therefore there is no reason to see ya try.  As you've already tried in every conceivable way, all potential defenses were extended and all failed.   

And each one was as sad as the one before it.  At this point your only option is to do it all again, in this verse... so we can witness here, as we witnessed it everywhere else.  But you can't risk being PROVEN WRONG... so ya save this one, on the hopes that it MIGHT provide that rare exception that doubt requires.

And frankly, I don't blame ya.  Set on your unenviable place, who wouldn't?


----------



## G.T.

thanks for the rating BreezeWood


----------



## Justin Davis

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  .
> 
> The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
> 
> Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
> 
> In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
> 
> We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
> 
> The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
> For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not _relevant_ to this thread -
> 
> that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
> 
> I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
> 
> 
> The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
> 
> Everlasting = everything is possible.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly nothing can come from nothing... but nothing can come from the appearance of nothing.
> 
> We always reason within the scope of our solution plotter's means... meaning that we reason based upon the parameters that the plotter is programmed to recognize.
> 
> "Time and Space" for us is defined as "a time (scaled linear progression)  and space (Scaled cubic extent)  So we plot it as 'we started here and moved to there and it took us (X) long to get there.'
> 
> It is becoming clear that on some level... in some way: Time IS Space.   Therefore what we see is relevant to a space within a given time, when what is more likely is that in the greater reality, what IS, is beyond our means to comprehend.  The laws of this 'verse' being consistent and otherwise inalterable for us... but only us.
Click to expand...





BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  .
> 
> The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
> 
> Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
> 
> In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
> 
> We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
> 
> The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
> For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not _relevant_ to this thread -
> 
> that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
> 
> I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
> 
> 
> The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
> 
> Everlasting = everything is possible.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Your argument is that the objectively coherent possibility of Creator God is false because in your fuzzy head that idea of God in your head whenever you think about how you got here is evil.  Yeah.  That makes sense.  Not. I have an idea of a leprechaun in my head and it sort of looks like the same idea of something can come from nothing, but that's just me having common sense. I also the same idea you have of Creator God and that doesn't look like those magical ideas to me, but that's me having common sense again, which is evil, but I morph.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Meriweather said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart.  We also have a conscience.  Not every atheist chooses lawlessness.  Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard.  As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone.  My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.
> 
> Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.
Click to expand...


Oh THAT is a wonderful observation.  Thank you.

Where I would disagree, is only in the distinction of the heart, wherein lies the separation between the a-theist; which is to say the person who has no concern with or for the existence of the deity... and the dark soul of the ANTI-THEIST.  

I agree that Christ in is ALL of us, including lowly anti-theist, but the heart of the anti-theist is cloaked behind the darkest recesses of evil.  Such is a REJECTION of God and God's LAW.  Because such is the usurpation of God, claiming that holy perch FOR THEMSELVES... and demanding that everyone else recognize them as such, and working non-stop to prevent anyone else from recognizing God beyond THEM!


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> God did not create "Evil"



God didn't have to create evil. 

Evil exists in the absence of good. 
Like darkness exists in the absence of light. 
Like cold exists in the absence of heat.


----------



## Justin Davis

Truman123 said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists have solid thoughts?  Since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the time they determined right from wrong, good from evil, and that a lot can be learned/gleaned from the world and surrounding universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be answering those questions on your own.
> 
> 
> They've been answered to death and there's no point in going over them again and again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To any thinking person they were answered satisfactorily long ago.
> 
> 
> Do you think morality started AFTER civilization?
> 
> 
> Even Christians must admit that Jesus Christ died in a civilization.
> 
> 
> It's a lazy argument and you should think more clearly if you hope to have a grown up discussion.
Click to expand...


Why is that lazy?  It's just a statement of fact. Atheism can't give anything but an arbitrary answer. Stating a simple axiom is lazy?  That's not controversial or a slight.  It's just true.  If there's no God there's no absolute or standing basis for morality.  That's self-evident.  Why would I "think morality started AFTER civilization?"


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create "Evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't have to create evil.
> 
> Evil exists in the absence of good.
> Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
> Like cold exists in the absence of heat.
Click to expand...


NAILED IT!


----------



## G.T.

who created absence


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> who created absence



Does absence need creating? 

LOL! 

Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':

Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.

Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. You guys haven't refuted any of them.  No one can.  GT's final objection, the only one he had left, was refuted here as well.  Look, no one escapes "The Seven Things."  There have been some who failed to think them through and imagined faults that  weren't there, but I have refuted them all.  Better yet, the laws of human thought refute all comers.
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
Click to expand...


I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five things of the seven follow.  End of story.


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
Click to expand...

I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it. 

Who created good?

Followed by, who controls its parameters?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> you failed to refute a single one of my objections.
> 
> 
> you skip it and then you and your boy toy go on an ad hom retreat.
> 
> you have not substantively refuted a single damn objection.
> 
> Presupper in 3 d.
> 
> Dip, duck dodge.
> 
> Paste:
> 
> In logic,* you cannot make a proof if your premises are not absolute.*
> 
> The premise 'god created knowledge' is not absolute because:
> 
> 1. Existence hasn't been proven to have been created.
> 2. Knowledge hasn't been proven to have been created, and there's been shown no rational dismissal of 'existence before sentience.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to see who's been dipping, ducking, and dodging? OK. Pony up. Explain to the room how 'god created knowledge' can be universally accepted (axiomatic) when the above two points have *not been ruled out* and when so many atheists and agnostics do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will also have this copy paste ready. Hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow.  End of story.
Click to expand...

If it's not able to be proven, it can't be *USED* to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly. 

Thanks for agreeing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> Who created good? Followed by, who controls its parameters?



Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).

Feel better?


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
Click to expand...

By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?

Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)

If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create "Evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't have to create evil.
> 
> Evil exists in the absence of good.
> Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
> Like cold exists in the absence of heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAILED IT!
Click to expand...



You got that right!  Out of the park!  Home run!  My mother's apple pie!  Good job, Boss!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved them again with your intellectually dishonesty. I don't have to prove anything to a liar because the liar tells on himself.  The only one your fooling are dummies. If you admit that we exist and that the universe exists, all of the other five follow automatically.  You're just being dishonest by changing the premise.  The premise is not what can be proven by science but what is true logically about the idea of God.
> 
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not able to be proven, it can't be *USED* to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing.
Click to expand...



Still pretending not to understand, eh?  Pathetic.  Watch this:


*Seelybobo writes*:
Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
*2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
*3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist. 
4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
*5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
*6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​


Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
*#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

*No one escapes  "The Seven Things"!*
____________________________________

There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time.  Sometimes I type too fast.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> we know that God *might* exist as the Creator .



Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.

And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.

You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists 

bookmarked.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU IGNORED THE SUBSTANCE COMPLETELY.
> 
> As presumed you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not able to be proven, it can't be *USED* to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still pretending not to understand, eh?  Pathetic.  Watch this:
> 
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.
> 
> Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and *#7 *by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
Click to expand...

Stop flip flopping, justinMD


god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just made the distinction that includes what you are saying exactly and why what you're saying has nothing to do with what the seven things are about, so you lie again.  You're not fooling anyone but the dummies.  I'm not as well educated as some, but I'm not a dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not able to be proven, it can't be *USED* to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still pretending not to understand, eh?  Pathetic.  Watch this:
> 
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.
> 
> Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and *#7 *by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop flip flopping, justinMD
> 
> 
> god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."
Click to expand...


"... You will know them by their fruits..."  

Now, where the recognition of God is at issue and the fruit bearer's only purpose is to deflect from the pursuit of the truth through the glomming onto what it perceives as a 'breech' in the opinions of two believers, so as to promote doubt... WHAT fruit would one say that such a person is bearing?

GIVE ME AN "E" ... .


----------



## G.T.

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what my #1 and #2 mean?
> 
> They're in refutation to the major premise of tag, not "the seven things" that you have your tourrettes about.
> 
> You cannot prove that we exist as a CREATION, as opposed to natural processes, and so a creat*OR *cannot be presupposed, or "an axiom."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary smart people realize this.
> 
> You will ignore it directly. Watch. re-read the response you type to this and let me know how "we were creatED" is objectively proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I  could prove that and I don't have to prove that, so there.  Straw man.  Go talk to the dummies. You aren't fooling anyone but the dummies.  We believe we exist, we believe the universe exists, we know that God might exist as the Creator and the other five follow.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it's not able to be proven, it can't be *USED* to prove something genius. Thus, you agree TAG fails. Awesome, MD is going to have your head you had better retract quickly.
> 
> Thanks for agreeing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still pretending not to understand, eh?  Pathetic.  Watch this:
> 
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic is use to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation.
> 
> Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into to God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In others words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is #5 and *#7 *by extension. #5 reads: science cannot verify or falsify God's existence. Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, since #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop flip flopping, justinMD
> 
> 
> god "might" exist =/= "its an axiom that god created knowledge."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... You will know them by their fruits..."
> 
> Now, where the recognition of God is at issue and the fruit bearer's only purpose is to deflect from the pursuit of the truth through the glomming onto what it perceives as a 'breech' in the opinions of two believers, so as to promote doubt... WHAT fruit would one say that such a person is bearing?
> 
> GIVE ME AN "E" ... .
Click to expand...

If what you're trying to say is that I'm evil, grow a set of balls and say it. 

I'm not afraid of the labels you toss out there, 'cuz I already know that you're an ass hole and so your opinion I hold down right around where I hold Oprah's, or Al Sharpton's - - - - people/big mouths who don't usually know what the fuck they're talking about. 

Say it loud and proud!

GT is evil!!!!!

It brings you joy to disparage. It is the mark of an ass hole. Besides smelling really really bad.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Still pretending not to understand, eh?  Pathetic.  Watch this:
> 
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on #1, #2, #3 and #4 of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your #2 is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things.  Science verifies or falsifies things.  Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your #3 contradicts your #2, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he is no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your #5 is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your #6 contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your #1 by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) does exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on #6 of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension. *#5* reads: "science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes  "The Seven Things"!*
> ____________________________________
> 
> There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time.  Sometimes I type too fast.





M.D. Rawlings said:


> ____________________________________
> There are several edits in the current version as the original had errors in it that I missed the first time.  Sometimes I type too fast.



I'm glad you fixed that because it's too important, but G.T. is just going to keep playing the dummy.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
Click to expand...


Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good? 

I'm not there with ya bruv.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *On "The Seven Things":  the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?*
> 
> 
> the question is not asked as a definition for God - The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists - but simply asks if God exists ...
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> 
> yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails.  This objection is silly.  By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_!  Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*  .
> 
> The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is stupid to say otherwise.
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Ultimately,_ all_ of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> *Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.
> 
> Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise.
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.
> 
> In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.
> 
> We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.
> 
> The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it.   --M.D. Rawlings​
> For those of you who might still have any lingering doubts about this, for those under the impression, like the OP, no doubt, that either propositional logic or science proceeds from notions that are conceivable, yet rationally and experientially absurd, rather than from demonstrably established, justified true belief/knowledge, see this post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10048388/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things."
> 
> First, the matter is not subject to your arbitrary restrictions with regard to what the term _God_ entails. This objection is silly. By definition, the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is _God the Creator_! Any notion less than that would beg the question, would not be a sound/valid argument, as anything less than that is subject to immediate falsification and/or a virtually endless list of objections, i.e., until the following finally dawned on the apologist*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order (the universe and all the things contained therein) exists!
> *3.* The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* The idea of God holds, by definition, that the Creator would necessarily be absolutely perfect in knowledge, power and presence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your seven thing are in error - God did not create "Evil" or your definition is designed for semantics and not for an actual being and is then not _relevant_ to this thread -
> 
> that is the reason there is an Almighty within the Everlasting as Good and Evil are not things created but emerged as forces and are apprehendabe and must be to attain Admission to the Everlasting as prescribed by God - the parable of Noah.
> 
> I am theistic, interesting you do not include Fox as a Christian ... I agree with, Logic can be made to verify arbitrarily anything and that is all you have accomplished by ill defining God as a generic "token".
> 
> 
> The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things = / = Evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> obviously incorrect, if you are thinking about it then it must exist ...
> 
> Everlasting = everything is possible.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly nothing can come from nothing... but nothing can come from the appearance of nothing.
> 
> We always reason within the scope of our solution plotter's means... meaning that we reason based upon the parameters that the plotter is programmed to recognize.
> 
> "Time and Space" for us is defined as "a time (scaled linear progression)  and space (Scaled cubic extent)  So we plot it as 'we started here and moved to there and it took us (X) long to get there.'
> 
> It is becoming clear that on some level... in some way: Time IS Space.   Therefore what we see is relevant to a space within a given time, when what is more likely is that in the greater reality, what IS, is beyond our means to comprehend.  The laws of this 'verse' being consistent and otherwise inalterable for us... but only us.
> 
> The coolest part of all THAT is that we claim from our sad little perspective, that what is beyond us, is 'SUPER-NATURAL', but, in the grand scheme of things, God, being nature is SUPREMELY NATURAL... and we are merely, sub-natural.
> 
> What we know for certain is that matter, which is to say those things which we recognize as solid and eternal are merely manifestations of imperceptible particles which bond together through energy which holds them in a temporal state, but which, due to our finite perception of time and space, presents as permanence.   But where that bonding energy is controllable... and where time/space is alterable, any matter can be associated and disassociated at the will of that force which controls it and such can be, or will likely be beyond the bounds of our means to perceive it.
> 
> The mechanics of such is again, presently beyond our means to comprehend... but it follows that such is tied to some greater depth of time and its intrinsic bond to space and our limitations of navigating or otherwise negotiating beyond that which our physical being is capable.
> 
> Again... we see this on some level as 'life after death'... when it may well be 'life beside life', with death being the rationalization required within the finite bond to this verse.
> 
> We think of all this as 'deep shit'.  But in truth, it's merely the distinction between how it is... and our means to understand what that means.  The reality of it is what it is, and the complexity rests entirely within our own simple natures.
> 
> But how cool is it that those who profess themselves as so thoroughly enlightened, standing upon "SCIENCE!", are the one's who most steadfastly reject, the areas of consideration which provide for the greatest potential for understanding?
> 
> ROFL!  For some reason I NEVER get tired of THAT!
Click to expand...


Yep.  You hit on the very same observation, and what I've always held to be true, that Boss made and I underscored.  Boss and I don't agree on one pivotal issue, but the more I read him, the more I understand him.   If only I  could get him to embrace the I AM of absolute certainty (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/), for God is the only reliable ground for true knowledge, and He does in fact provide that foundation for us in our organic logic:  the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.  We just need to acknowledge it and obey.

Of course, that's impossible for the creatures of this world, but they can see the truth insofar as they be objective.  Good luck with that. That's why we get so much subjective junk from the world, for as Paul tells us, "They hold the *truth* in unrighteousness!"   (That's not a slight against you, Boss.  I know you're trying.  I'm talking about the shape-shifters on this thread.  GT is the ring leader.  LOL!)

What I wrote earlier to underscore:

Boss is right on the money, but you appear to lose track of the potential reality of things. Inserting the term _natural_ (as in _material nature_) in the face of Hollie's declaration implies that any given instance of *spiritual *healing is not or cannot be effectuated by divinity.

That's absurd and presumptuous.

Boss makes a profound observation when he rightly points out that the term _supernatural_ is often abusively applied to the idea of God to mean something that is unnatural (as in _unreal_ or merely _imaginary_). The fact of the matter is that the ontologically essential meaning of the term _supernatural_ as applied to the idea of God the Creator, which is in our minds as a concrete potentiality that cannot be logically ruled out, is that God is a natural Being, a naturally and necessarily existent Being, albeit, of a higher order of being than that of material nature.​
As for time:  Yep!  Now consider the fact that God lives in the eternal _now_!  For Him there is no past or future.  All that has ever existed (for we don't actually say "all that has ever been or will be" from His perspective) exists right now for Him.  David is still killing that Giant right _now_ in God's mind, and whatever I'll be doing tomorrow is before God's eye right _now and again now again now_!

Excellent post, Keys


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> '
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treeshepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
> ― Rabindranath Tagore
> 
> Logic logic logic. People who, through logical means, attempt to prove or deny the veracity of some concept of god are on the wrong path. It can't be done. To me, that's sort of what the philosopher in the allegory of the cave is confronted with. Logic begins with a premise, and in the case of the prisoners in the cave, their initial premise is that cave-life is the highest form of existence, and no other possibilities exist. Logic is not going to take them to any further conclusion.
> 
> You need more than logic to be fully human. Spock learned that from Kirk. Imagine going out on a date and having this conversation;
> _"I am experiencing an adaptive chemical response, the result of a series of evolutionary contingencies. It is what illogical people call 'love'"
> "Oh, okay honey. "
> "Honey? Why have you labelled me with what I understand to be a sugary substance made by bees?"
> "Umm, never mind." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to commend you on your posts, I think you are making some valid and relevant comments and it can sometimes seem like no one is hearing you. I just wanted to let you know I hear you.
> 
> Logic is another one of those words humans have created to describe something. In this case, it simply means a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something. Now, we can get into a semantics argument over the "science" definition of logic, but in essence, logic is not part of the scientific method. In fact, many times in science, human logic gets in the way. We assume things because they seem logical, then we discover we were wrong to assume and things can sometimes not be logical and still be true.
> 
> The most prolific example of this are electrons. The atom is comprised of a nucleus and electrons, and these electrons can disappear or appear, be in two places at the same time, or nowhere at all. Now human logic says this isn't "logical" because material things either exist or they don't. They simply can't exist yet not exist, or exist in two places at the same time... but electrons do it all the time. So at the very elementary core of everything we recognize as material in a physical universe, is quite simply, defying logic to convey presence. Wrap your mind around that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like to add one more interesting tidbit to your description of the electron.
> 
> Its behavior is not only considered "illogical", it is also counter-intuitive!!
> 
> If we approach any new information with this rational, we would understand the dilemma of the cave dweller when he first escaped the cave.  All anchors of understanding are gone and he is clearly making a mistake if he tries to describe what he sees and feels based on past events or on things he thought he understood.
> 
> What is truth in such a situation?  What can be understandable when everything you know or felt was true has been turned on its head.
> 
> Understand, it is not just logic that fails here.  Your intuition will fail as well!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I know what you mean, but this is misleading,.  The electron doesn't behave illogically or counter-intuitively.  It simply is what it is.  We know what it does, so it's behavior is not beyond our ken, and the mathematics hold up just fine, coherently, insofar as we understand it for now. The application of the laws of thought in terms of spoken language is what breaks  down. That's all.   We have to take up the language of mathematics to carry on.  Together, the organic laws of thought and math keep right on trucking along.  No sweat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can consstruct improved models of the electron through logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different means abnormal?
Click to expand...

Only in the sense of what One was familiar with.

However, I later point out that this assumption has a logical flaw.  For this case, Equivocation of  certain behavior in all material particles is the flaw.

The reason why this assumption was thought to be true dispite the fallacy is because we guessed (i.e. intuited) this to be true.  The electrons observed behavior is what it is. The idea of its behavior being _abnormal  _requires holding onto the false assumption that all material particles suppose to behave in a manner unlike the electron.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
Click to expand...


I didn't say evil was eternal. Evil exists as a human concept in a physical reality of a material universe. Likewise, good also exists as a human concept... I can demonstrate:

In the jungle, a lion spots a buck, he pursues the buck, kills him and eats him. Was that evil? Definitely wasn't good for the buck. Was it justified? Did the buck deserve to die? Did the lion consider the morality of killing an innocent buck? Did he think about the buck's family or contemplate the ramifications of his death? Of course not, because "good and evil" doesn't apply in the wild... only lunch and dinner.  

Good and evil exist because humans exist to contemplate them.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say evil was eternal. Evil exists as a human concept in a physical reality of a material universe. Likewise, good also exists as a human concept... I can demonstrate:
> 
> In the jungle, a lion spots a buck, he pursues the buck, kills him and eats him. Was that evil? Definitely wasn't good for the buck. Was it justified? Did the buck deserve to die? Did the lion consider the morality of killing an innocent buck? Did he think about the buck's family or contemplate the ramifications of his death? Of course not, because "good and evil" doesn't apply in the wild... only lunch and dinner.
> 
> Good and evil exist because humans exist to contemplate them.
Click to expand...

i dont disagree that evil and good are human concepts. i'd wholeheartedly agree with that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we know that God *might* exist as the Creator .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.
> 
> And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.
> 
> You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists
> 
> bookmarked.
Click to expand...


So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression?  That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms.  All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms.  That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.


----------



## amrchaos

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you think that god's existence is axiomatic, we have nothing else to talk about. We disagree on what an axiom is. We also have differing standards for what we'd call proof.
> 
> That all said, have a good day, douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why disagree when there are objective resources that long ago settled such.
> 
> Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, so god is proven and every human accepts this in your view.
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS" > . <  And that doesn't require so much ONE human to validate it, for such to "BE".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for your "belief," ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God 'IS'... and this without regard to whether I BELIEVE or not... and without regard to WHAT I believe God IS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but that doesn't advance the conversation in the slightest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does... that you're out of the conversation, because of your inability to rise beyond your intrenched subjective need, has no bearing on the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you self affirming these things because of some type of insecurity, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this affirming my 'self'?  And PLEASE: BE SPECIFIC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can save yourself the typing and just tell yourself what you've told yourself in this post, in the mirror. You'll feel worlds better, I'm sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your concession is again noted and as always, summarily accepted.
Click to expand...


Careful there.  I am not out there trying to reject every "god" out there because, well, depending on what you mean by "God" I could very well agree with you that God exist.

However, trying to establish the existence  of the God of Abraham, given all the descriptions and so forth as found in the OT, is highly problematic.  Add in the NT descriptions--or descriptions found in the Quran, and the problems of proving existence may become worst.

Understand, proving that given "one" characteristic/description of this God does exist in something we know is not the problem.  If I can choose the characteristic, I can do that.

Trying to prove that ALL the characteristics/description exist in one entity and that entity is unique and independent of anything else is the problem.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we know that God *might* exist as the Creator .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.
> 
> And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.
> 
> You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists
> 
> bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression?  That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms.  All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms.  That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.
> 
> If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.
Click to expand...

looking like a fool is you and justin's forte dude. sit the fuck down.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> _There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Infinite Regression
> 
> Argument from Poor Design
> 
> The Atheist’s Wager
> 
> Non-belief Paradox
> 
> Omnipotence Paradox
> 
> Free Will Paradox
> 
> Argument from locality
> 
> Argument from Non-reason
> 
> Argument from incompatible properties
> 
> Fate of the Unlearned
> 
> Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell
> _



Hi sealybobo: thanks for this list. I can try to post a quick summary on each, how to address
each one WITHOUT depending on there either being a god or not being one.

The point of spiritual growth and maturity is to reach an Unconditional Understanding
that does not depend on anything we cannot completely control or know.

so the whole point is to find a way to answer issues without ADDING conditions that can't be guaranteed.

I can try to show examples of some of these but it will take time and I have other deadlines at work.

To save space and not junk up this thread, I can either keep adding to my reply here
utnil I answer all points or start a separate thread. If no one posted any issues on the side thread
I already started, we can use that space to answer your points above that are just as important!

Thanks and I will reply until you feel I have answered the key points,
again, without relying on there either being or not being a god but just talking about how to work with
what happens in life regardless, how to be unconditional in order to be at peace no matter what we can or can't control.

Some examples
1. that either God has to have a creator or the world has to have one or nothing else can explain the design and order.
No, this does not depend on either having a God or not having one.
Things could possibly exist in and of themselves and we can still agree how to work
with given circumstances or principles we agree apply regardless. so this is not a condition to
either proving or disproving, requiring a god or requiring rjecting god. 

2. the issue of punishment, hell, and the unlearned or ignorant,
making people imperfect and then condemning them for abuse of free will for deliberate or negligent mistakes

No, this is more an argument about the ethics/moral in life whether or not this is attributed to a god or not.
Whether or not god exists, people would still argue if there needs to be consequences to bad actions in order to have justice.
these arguments would exist anyway with or without god added to the mix.

so I agree why complicate it more, why not just address how do we want to address wrongs.
Do we believe in punitive policies or corrective, how do we deter abuses, how do we ensure restitution and justice.
we can still talk about retributive vs. restorative justice, and this does not require
either rejecting or requiring god!

so let's just come out and admit the issue is do we believe in authority to issue retributive justice
or do we believe in restorative justice, regardless if we throw in symbols of God and Jesus or not.

3. after life, future generations who pays for consequences and the process of justice beyond this lifetime.

clearly when one person murders another, you are not going to fix that in this life because you cannot
reverse that death. what about how to make amends for genocide and war?

so this idea of some vague symbology for how justice is hashed out beyond consequences,
cause and effect we see within the same lifetime
is represented by this heaven and hell business, reincarnation, descending into hell or burning away
or purgatory in the lake of fire, and saving people from hell.

we can talk about the Collective process over all time and human history
of all people "in general" overcoming the pitfalls int he leanring curve, the sins and suffering
from retribution of the past, and breaking this "overall" cycle of karma or sin
and reaching peace and justice where these ills are no more.

We cannot guarantee that justice is served within the same lifetime
so there has been reliance on religions and spiritual symbolism to describe
what is inherited from the past and what is passe don to the future to make amends and peace later in time.

SB this is like taking the "5 stage grief process" where a person goes through
numbness and denial, anger and projection, ups and downs, to reach resolution and peace
and multiplying by several generations or each culture or nation going through their stages.

Of course this take more than one lifetime to go through all the stages collectively for all humanity.

So that is why the Bible uses symbology to transcend time and space and talk very generally
about the human spiritual process and stages of development.

But I agree with you, we can STILL talk about tht spiritual process
and not rely on personifying Jesus or God as symbols of the forces of Justice
and lovef of Truth driving th eprocess. We can still believe in Justice without calling it Jesus
and it's the same spirit for all humanity. just like Nature or Earth works the same way
with or without personifying as Mother Nature or Mother Earth. We can agree we mean the same thing.

So SB the real conversation is about how do we work through the stages
of grief and growth to reach universal justice and peace for all people.

tht is the real question in life, how do we get fromwhere we are to where we agree we need to be.
how do we use mitakes from the past to study learn and teach from so we dont repeat the same vicious cycles.

we don't need to agree on symbols of God and Jesus to talk through the points and principles.
we can reach agreement on the concepts behind this even if we never agree on differnt ways to represent them.

the point is to be unconditional and include each other despite our differences.
for the truth to be universal for all humanity.

To save space, please tell me if I voided any of the above points.
or which ones you think I did not address and need to.
and I will go back and hit those points first.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we know that God *might* exist as the Creator .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mentor is going to have such a good time with this.
> 
> And for being such a little girl all of the time, Justin? So am I.
> 
> You know he "might" exist, yet claim tag "proves" he exists
> 
> bookmarked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you're pretending not to understand that's an academically objective expression?  That "The Seven Things" are expressed in strictly objective terms.  All Justin is doing is expressing it on those terms.  That does not negate the objective fact of #6, which is one cannot, logically, on the very face of it, say/think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist.
> 
> If looking like a fool is your thing, go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> looking like a fool is you and justin's forte dude. sit the fuck down.
Click to expand...


MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.



There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me. 

And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND. 

I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could. 

I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.


----------



## G.T.

TAG  only proves God to someone who already believes in God, which is redundant. 

Its first premise is that God exists, and its conclusion is that God exists. 

If you don't find issue with that and agree that it's a "sound" argument, I'm not going to sit here and call you names or anything but I do and always will find that quite foolish.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind

On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)

*


BreezeWood said:


> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.




Okay, so we established that we have you down for *#1* and *#2* of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/*) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of *#3*.

I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without *GT’s* backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of *#6 *which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between _a priori _knowledge and _a posteriori _knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes *#6 *and *#7*.

*1. *Hence, we have *GT* down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.

*2. Bronco4* necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over *#4 *were made out of "no hills" at all.

*3. Justin's* down for all of "The Seven Things."

*4. *Obviously, *I’m* down for all of “The Seven Things."

*5. Boss* is down for all of  "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.

*6. Seelybobo* is down for all of "The Seven Things."

(S*eelybobo* talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with _his_ counterfeit seven things.)​
*7. *Based on the various assertions made by *Hollie* on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, *#6* and *#7*, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.

*8.*  Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

*9.*  Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

*10.  *Now, let me show you, *BreezeWood*, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!

You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic*:* the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. _You_ just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for *#3*!

*#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for *#1*, *#2* and *#3*.

Now, we come to *#4*, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.

If that's _not_ true, we have you down for *#4* without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that _is_ true . . . we still have you down for *#4*, as *#4 *necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of *#3:* the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.

But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of *#3 *and the subsequent necessity of *#4*.

Paradox.

You might want  to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.

In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for *#1*, *#2*, *#3 *and *#4*, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: *(1) *the law of identity, *(2) *the law of contradiction and *(3) *the law of the excluded middle.

From there, *#5* and *#6* are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and *#7* necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.

We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," *BreezeWood*. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.

See how that works?

*May **The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace*.​

Now take real close look at the *I AM! *of *#6*:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/


----------



## G.T.

I was down before you dishonestly changed them. 

It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it. 

You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.

Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference. 

That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
Click to expand...


Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...





A sound argument doesn't beg the question. That's the very reason it becomes unsound. You and I disagree here. 

I can't make a proof of something with using same said something as the major premise proving it. It's a vicious circle.


----------



## G.T.

to prove that i exist, by begging the question:

i am the source for your internet access
you have internet access
therefore, i exist


god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

begs the question
begs the question


----------



## Foxfyre

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I would say that an argument that can't be refuted is a pretty sound argument. It may or may not be absolute proof of God, but it is a sound argument. If it were possible to absolutely prove God exists or doesn't exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...


LOL, I will have to argue against your argument a wee bit here.     If I tell you I and a dozen other people just saw a flying purple people eater outside--no really, I'm not pulling your leg, and it really was a real live flying purple people eater and that we now know conclusively that purple people eaters exist-- you have absolutely no way to refute what I am telling you and I have no way to prove it.  But it does not logically follow that you consider my argument a good one just because you can't refute it.   Part of the human spirit and intellect is the ability to distrust what is not logical or reasonable to believe despite how popular it might be.

So I don't fault those who don't believe in God in the least.  They have never experienced God that they know of, and therefore, to them, it is logical and reasonable to believe there is no God despite how many folks do believe there is.

Those of us who have experienced God, however, know what we have experienced even though we cannot demonstrate or 'prove' it to a single other soul.   But when hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of others report the same kinds of experience, it is logical to believe that such experience exists.


----------



## amrchaos

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
Click to expand...


I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.

Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?

It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.

But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....

What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.

(an editted addition)

Maybe I should look at this from a different viewpoint.  Empty space does not have any properties.  Then the idea that matter can fill empty space is not a property of empty space, but a property of matter.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
Click to expand...



I have a question.

Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?

How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

amrchaos said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
Click to expand...


It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.

Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.


amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
Click to expand...


Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.  

God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.

So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.


----------



## Hollie

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
Click to expand...

Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I was down before you dishonestly changed them.
> 
> It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.
> 
> You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.
> 
> Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.
> 
> That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.



I explained that to you, GT:  the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature.  But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist.  _Poof_  Magic.  Where did it go?  Dude.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
Click to expand...

What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
Click to expand...


It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was down before you dishonestly changed them.
> 
> It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.
> 
> You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.
> 
> Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.
> 
> That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained that to you, GT:  the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature.  But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist.  _Poof_  Magic.  Where did it go?  Dude.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of backtracking and sidestepping for your failed argument.

Lipstick on a pig?


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
Click to expand...

Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.

Why are your gawds so dishonest?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
Click to expand...


No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgive your misunderstanding - I'll back up and walk you through it.
> 
> Who created good?
> 
> Followed by, who controls its parameters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
Click to expand...


It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create "Evil"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God didn't have to create evil.
> 
> Evil exists in the absence of good.
> Like darkness exists in the absence of light.
> Like cold exists in the absence of heat.
Click to expand...





> *boss:* God didn't have to create evil.




that affirms what I said, Bossy and also you just shot down the seven things in agreement - "have" to ...

mdr is a sinner - you accuse him of nogood, the abundance of which is just "reduced" ?


by the way those other things also exist, you just do not believe it.

.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
Click to expand...

Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.

Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?


----------



## amrchaos

Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature (God).  Those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to: The Laws of Nature (God).
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
Click to expand...



This is in terms of 'God created the laws"

If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?


Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?

I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
Click to expand...


No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
Click to expand...

Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given. 

Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?


----------



## amrchaos

I always get a kick out of that.

If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?

How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> They've never been satisfactorily answered by atheism, because any answer atheism gives is arbitrary.  That's DS's point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not all follow.
> 
> For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.
Click to expand...


We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.  

And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.  

But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.

Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

amrchaos said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
Click to expand...


Is it possible?  I suppose... although it doesn't follow, as that would require that there are things which were not here, coming.  Which could happen I guess... particularly with the apocalypse approaching and all.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

amrchaos said:


> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?



The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.


----------



## amrchaos

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
Click to expand...


The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.

Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?  

Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between  

That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.

According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.

I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.

Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was down before you dishonestly changed them.
> 
> It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.
> 
> You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.
> 
> Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.
> 
> That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained that to you, GT:  the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature.  But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist.  _Poof_  Magic.  Where did it go?  Dude.
Click to expand...

Umm, yes you're agreeing there's a difference thus agreeing you completely changed the meaning of one of the 'seven things' or else you later caught it and had to clarify.

You changed something. Not gt. Get it right.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can construct improved models of the electron through logic.




*armchaos: Following up from this post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10067005/*

With that said: What  the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are *≠* the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.

That just doesn't follow.

What is a normal characteristic?

Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for an given *A: A = A*, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, *NOT (A = NOT-A)*, the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.

Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that *(1) *assumes  the current lack of a unifying theory *=* actual incoherence and  that *(2) *the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational  characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.

The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!

The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. *A: A = A*.

We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today:  the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.

Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown *=* the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.

Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.

As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.

As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they  defy a creation model?

I don't see that at all. On the contrary, I think these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was down before you dishonestly changed them.
> 
> It was a hack move, and sealy warned of it before you even did it.
> 
> You went from the idea of god exists in our brains, to the idea of god is "biologically hardwired" in our brains.
> 
> Then, when I called you on it, you said there's no difference.
> 
> That's not me back pedaling, that's you reaching and - subsequently - lying about it and lying about me. And I still await your apology, but I'm sorry as long as you carry on your charlatan snake oil ways, I will continue shitting on your existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained that to you, GT:  the difference between the kind of knowledge that latently adheres to our minds via organic logic and the knowledge we acquire about existents outside our minds in nature.  But you just pretend that explanation and the distinction doesn't exist.  _Poof_  Magic.  Where did it go?  Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, yes you're agreeing there's a difference thus agreeing you completely changed the meaning of one of the 'seven things' or else you later caught it and had to clarify.
> 
> You changed something. Not gt. Get it right.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
Click to expand...


It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.

And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's awfully close minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my fault that atheists pick and choose what part of human logic is right inconsistently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more.  It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists.
> 
> Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade.  The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time.
> 
> The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe you because the seven things are objectively true by logic and have nothing to do with what theists or theism say about anything specific.  These things are logically true.  If you accept that we and the universe exist, the other five automatically follow logically for everyone because of the laws of logic that we all have in our minds.  An objective skeptic doesn't start by lying to himself and claim to be objective. Skepticism is not intellectual dishonesty and being close minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do not all follow.
> 
> For instance, when MD changed "the idea of god is in our minds" (when I agreed) to "the idea of god is biologically hardwired in our minds," that is a COMPLETELY different commentary, and god being "biologically hardwired" is objective how? It's not. That is SUBjective. Be sure to google the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.
Click to expand...



Well, that is a wonderful fable.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
Click to expand...


I see that your vocabulary and your method of argumentation hasn't improved. By the way, got ya down for all seven.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
Click to expand...



Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.
> 
> And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...
Click to expand...

It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with you religious extremists and the nonsensical ".... because I say so" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the perfect match with you, the intellectually less fortunate and your 'Nuh Huh!' thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Evil is of your gawds. The genesis tale is a disaster of contradiction and false claims. Your gawds lie to Adam and Eve.
> 
> Why are your gawds so dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that your vocabulary and your method of argumentation hasn't improved. By the way, got ya down for all seven.
Click to expand...

I see that your ability to compose a coherent argument hasn't improved. Take your fraudulent argument and see if you can revise it again to correct the flaws.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
Click to expand...


Who is telling me "I AM"

God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.

Do you see the difference here?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... Evil is YOUR GAWD.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.
> 
> And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.
Click to expand...


What specific lies are ya speaking of?  (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
Click to expand...


Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was  refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/

*Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*

And:

*Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
Click to expand...


Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no, you mindless twit. Your gawds created evil.
> 
> Let me guess. You never actually read the genesis fable. You just mindlessly accepted what you were told, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.
> 
> And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What specific lies are ya speaking of?  (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)
Click to expand...

Your gawds lying to Adam and Eve. I've written that out multiple times for ya'.

Are ya' slow?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Hollie said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.... God only created us, YOU turned from God and as such, you became evil, through the rejection of God's law.  And you will, as a result suffer the consequences... as does everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.
> 
> And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What specific lies are ya speaking of?  (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gawds lying to Adam and Eve. I've written that out multiple times for ya'.
> 
> Are ya' slow?
Click to expand...


One of these days, this board will realize how important minimal standards are to viable enterprises. 

THEN... maybe, we will not have to educate the intellectually less fortunate in order to have a discussion.

Now Gomeresta.... the word is "SPECIFIC" it means: clearly defined or identified; precise and clear in making statements.  Now apply THAT concept to the subject of your assertion "God lied to Adam and Eve."

Last chance... make it count.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was  refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
> 
> 
> Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
> *
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/
Click to expand...

You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> By parameters, my question meant who controls where good is and is not?
> 
> Absence is created all of the time, you just need your hand held to walk you through it. Which is fine, but stop being smug charlie about it and humble up. For example, when you take something away, you are left with its: _______. (7 letters, g'luck)
> 
> If evil is simply the absence of good, and god created everything, ipso facto god created evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
Click to expand...


Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was  refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
> 
> 
> Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
> *
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
Click to expand...



YOU ARE REFUTED!


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can construct improved models of the electron through logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *armchaos: Following up from this post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10067005/*
> 
> With that said: What  the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are *≠* the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.
> 
> That just doesn't follow.
> 
> What is a normal characteristic?
> 
> Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for an given *A: A = A*, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, *NOT (A = NOT-A)*, the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.
> 
> Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that *(1) *assumes  the current lack of a unifying theory *=* actual incoherence and  that *(2) *the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational  characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!
> 
> The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. *A: A = A*.
> 
> We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today:  the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.
> 
> Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown *=* the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.
> 
> Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.
> 
> As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.
> 
> As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they  defy a creation model?
> 
> I don't see that at all. On the contrary, I think these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!
Click to expand...



Actually, you are basically right in the sense that I am taking the _Classical_ Newtonian approach and proclaiming _AWE_ at the behavior of subatomic particles. If I took your approach, I would lose half the board(and I know I don't have the other half, so who would I be talking to?)

But the charge that I am equating natural science to(or even superior to--?) logic is not wholly correct.  I think I posted somethings about the inherent flaw in forming an assumptions that arises in the natural science and the need of logic to help flush them out.  

In other words, Logic, and Logic based models(In reference to the Maths such as Set theory,Algebra and so on)  is superior to the natural sciences.  However, we can only accomplish so much in natural science with logic alone.  We have to risk a mistake from time to time to get anywhere.  

Even the act of proposing an idea from a Classical viewpoint has the potential of stating a point about intuition versus logic.  Which is the purpose of doing so.

Now, the question about the cosmological model?  Did I really state that I think the Universe did not have a begining?  Or is this in reference to my asking "what is meant by the Cosmological Order" ?

I have some ideas about different cosmological models, but the term "Cosmological Order" tend to suggest something else and I wanted to make sure I am not mixing apples with oranges when I see this term.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was  refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
> 
> 
> Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
> *
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE REFUTED!
Click to expand...

Neat non answer yo.

I'll chalk that up to what I wanna chalk it up to.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...



Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.

Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
Click to expand...


No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
≠ B, only this one's about God.  


Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias


----------



## amrchaos

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 270 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I got it.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "assumption" I am working on is the observation that God does not present the God-self in a *clear and precise manner* so that I can know God.  The belief that God is in each and all does not address the fact that God knows that I don't know God.
> 
> Maybe God does not care that I don't know God?  Or maybe God is like a busy parent and lacks the quality time to spend with me in a clear and precise manner?
> 
> Well, since I am playing the "whining brat didn't get play ball with daddy" card. Let see if I can show how relationship between father and son is different from the relationship between
> 
> That does happens with some fathers--their little tots never get the chance to know them because they are always out busting their ass so their brats can be well provided for. However, even in those cases, the loving father does not punish the child for not knowing him, but eventually punishes himself through shame and regret and even tries to find some way to make it up.
> 
> According to many western theists, the opposite is the case with "The Father" and his human creations.  I am to be punished because I did not believe the claims of what some people say about God. This is true despite that some people claims goes against what other people say.
> 
> I wonder how that would work if the child had people on the father side explaining what a good guy his dad was  versus people on his mother side calling his father a no good bas---d that needs to spend time with his kids.
> 
> Hey, this is kind of like the "theist versus atheist" argument about God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
Click to expand...



*The Seven PhonyThings 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology 
1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
*

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
*

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!  

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
*

*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
*

*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD has actually made a very good argument which I've yet to see anyone refute. Now, the argument has been _rejected_, but it hasn't been refuted. In light of this fact, calling him a "fool" only makes you appear petty and vindictive because you couldn't refute the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a history of the insults, and they did not start with me.
> 
> And his argument is not refutable, but it is also not SOUND.
> 
> I'd have to be able to prove or disprove that god exists to refute him, and never claimed that I could.
> 
> I claimed the tag argument is not sound because it begs the question, which it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was  refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/
> 
> 
> Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10022996/
> 
> *Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.*
> 
> And:
> 
> *Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
> *
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9883604/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE REFUTED!
Click to expand...


"..... BECAUSE I SAY SO"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?
> 
> No, it is not.  We are not talking model-creation here.  We are talking deviance in characteristic in comparison to other objects we are familiar with.
> 
> Concerning Model Creation:  The assumption that material objects should not do this is an intuitive concept called the educated guess.  We can only begin to form correct models that describe the behavior of the electron  through experience(experiments through observations under different conditions.)  Once we are able to form better "guesses" we can construct improved models of the electron through logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *armchaos: Following up from this post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10067005/*
> 
> With that said: What  the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are *≠* the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.
> 
> That just doesn't follow.
> 
> What is a normal characteristic?
> 
> Answer: whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for an given *A: A = A*, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, *NOT (A = NOT-A)*, the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.
> 
> Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that *(1) *assumes  the current lack of a unifying theory *=* actual incoherence and  that *(2) *the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational  characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!
> 
> The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. *A: A = A*.
> 
> We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today:  the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.
> 
> Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown *=* the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.
> 
> Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.
> 
> As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.
> 
> As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they  defy a creation model?
> 
> I don't see that at all. On the contrary, I think these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are basically right in the sense that I am taking the _Classical_ Newtonian approach and proclaiming _AWE_ at the behavior of subatomic particles. If I took your approach, I would lose half the board(and I know I don't have the other half, so who would I be talking to?)
> 
> But the charge that I am equating natural science to(or even superior to--?) logic is not wholly correct.  I think I posted somethings about the inherent flaw in forming an assumptions that arises in the natural science and the need of logic to help flush them out.
> 
> In other words, Logic, and Logic based models(In reference to the Maths such as Set theory,Algebra and so on)  is superior to the natural sciences.  However, we can only accomplish so much in natural science with logic alone.  We have to risk a mistake from time to time to get anywhere.
> 
> Even the act of proposing an idea from a Classical viewpoint has the potential of stating a point about intuition versus logic.  Which is the purpose of doing so.
> 
> Now, the question about the cosmological model?  Did I really state that I think the Universe did not have a begining?  Or is this in reference to my asking "what is meant by the Cosmological Order" ?
> 
> I have some ideas about different cosmological models, but the term "Cosmological Order" tend to suggest something else and I wanted to make sure I am not mixing apples with oranges when I see this term.
Click to expand...


My answer to the matter of scientific hypothesis:  logic drives that car too, not science as such.  Logic remains the agent, always; science, the method.  Note my post that will soon follow this in  answer to the ongoing drama of GT's obtuseness over nothing. 

Well, in this case I'm just talking about a creation model.  The characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are not problematical for that at all.  As for the term _cosmological order:  _that's  just my attempt to define material existence without leaving anything out, for example, the possibility of a multiverse.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed



There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

Dude!

LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. It's just a shame that you religious extremists so often haven't taken the time or effort to critically assess the religions you were given.
> 
> Why did your gawds create evil?  Why did your gawds lie to Adam and Eve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not only true, it's not even a debatable point.
> 
> And FYI: "Nuh huh" does not an actual debate make...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly true. Your gawds lied. It's not debatable. Read your genesis tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What specific lies are ya speaking of?  (Again... The Key word here is: SPECIFIC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your gawds lying to Adam and Eve. I've written that out multiple times for ya'.
> 
> Are ya' slow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of these days, this board will realize how important minimal standards are to viable enterprises.
> 
> THEN... maybe, we will not have to educate the intellectually less fortunate in order to have a discussion.
> 
> Now Gomeresta.... the word is "SPECIFIC" it means: clearly defined or identified; precise and clear in making statements.  Now apply THAT concept to the subject of your assertion "God lied to Adam and Eve."
> 
> Last chance... make it count.
Click to expand...


One of these days, you fundie zealots will actually read your tales and fables with more than just slack-jawed acceptance of those tales and fables.

Among the gawds, snakes and other characters communicating with A & E, what was their instruction regarding the result of fruit theft?

Think, fundie zealot. I understand that's difficult for you.

When you get stuck, raise your hand and ask for help. I'll check back later so see how you're failing this assignment.


----------



## dblack

End of thought!!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*GT Continues His Shape-Shifting Ways*


The following is the first post in which I refuted GT's last conceivable objection, in which I left the door slightly open for him to squeeze through so that the follow-up post would close it. 

Now, I'm not playing games with anyone. It's just that the apprehension of these things is difficult for us all, for we live in a world of dreams hammering us with mindless slogans repeated over and over again until they become axiomatic truths in our minds, though they be utter tripe. So we don't think, we react. The objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin stand, whether, objectively speaking, they be illusions or not, i.e., not real at all beyond the confines of our minds due to the necessities of organic logic. I cannot prove God's existence to anyone, but I can prove, rather, the facts of human consciousness prove, that "The Seven Things" are absolute, inescapable cognitions that, at the very least, exist in our minds and are true in our minds every time we think about them. 

This is the refutation, posted earlier, that GT is still evading*:
*
The _idea_ of God _is_ hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

* GT writes*: "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That _is_ true, isn't it?

* GT writes*: "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it? No. I took you by the hand and led to the next step that you still need to take with me.

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of 2 + 2 = 4!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad. 

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an _innately latent axiom_, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an _innately latent axiom_ of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.​


----------



## amrchaos

OK--I am going over this list and there is somethings that keeps nagging at me.

1)Are you suggesting that God is sentient?

 2)I have several potential ideas(some I reject, some I do not) of what created the Universe--which one should I call God?

3)I must be brain dead, because I am still missing the point of the statement "God says I AM".  Is this in reference to defining God as the creator of the universe?  

In 6, you say it is logically impossible to say or think that God(the creator) does not exist.  However, would it not be more plausible to say that it is not logical to say or think that the universe does not exist.  Then to argue that the existence of the universe implies that something created it.

Now I am back to asking 1) again


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.

All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.

2+2=4 is axiomatic.

God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.

One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.


Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.

PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.


----------



## dblack

TAG, you're IT!

END OF THOUGHT!!!!!!


----------



## G.T.

Only the most basic childish presupping minds in the universe find tag to be a good argument.

Its literally childish.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

Your pointless TAG weasel is chasing it's own tail.

Fundie Dude!


----------



## G.T.

I cant wait for a peer reviewed paper on TAG.

CANT HARDLY WAIT for this peer review process that I'll be looking into.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
*
*
If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.

By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> I cant wait for a peer reviewed paper on TAG.
> 
> CANT HARDLY WAIT for this peer review process that I'll be looking into.


Annnnnnnnnnnny day now.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Locking the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways and Throwing Away the Key

*
There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!



Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be _known_ by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can _exist_ independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can _exist_ without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can _exist_ independent of and/or without God.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## amrchaos

I think I should clarify myself a little.

If you wish to define whatever created the universe as God, you have no argument from me.


I consider myself an atheist in the terms of the Abrahamic definition, which includes a lot more to its definition than "God created the Universe"

However, if you are suggesting that this god is conscious- that is it can make choices, can act on a whim and so forth--I have to ask, how do you know?

In other words," GOD says I AM",  is not something I should take literally, now should I?  I should interpret it as GOD created the Universe as the meaning and whether it can actually speak in English or not is still up for debate.


----------



## G.T.

I feel kinda bad for MD tbh.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News


There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.

There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."

Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.

Dude!


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
Click to expand...



Well hold on, G.T.

If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.

Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
Click to expand...

You're missing something

The universe isn't proven to have been creatED. 

IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.


----------



## Hollie

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
Click to expand...


In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of that.
> 
> If a man has a son and the son did not know of his father despite what people told him, isn't that the father's fault?
> 
> How come, then, if a God created us humans and there were humans that did not know god despite what people told them, why is it those unknowing humans fault?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The assumption you're working upon is that God is absent.  God's right there in you as he is in all of us.
Click to expand...


So is "the devil".  So good is now god and bad is now evil?  Is that all that god is?  Anytime I smile that's god and anytime I get mad that's the devil?  Ok.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
Click to expand...


What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?  

Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.


----------



## amrchaos

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
Click to expand...

Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.

So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?

Again, I don't have a problem with this.

But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?


Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".
Click to expand...


Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.

I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.

I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I think I should clarify myself a little.
> 
> If you wish to define whatever created the universe as God, you have no argument from me.
> 
> 
> I consider myself an atheist in the terms of the Abrahamic definition, which includes a lot more to its definition than "God created the Universe"
> 
> However, if you are suggesting that this god is conscious- that is it can make choices, can act on a whim and so forth--I have to ask, how do you know?
> 
> In other words," GOD says I AM",  is not something I should take literally, now should I?  I should interpret it as GOD created the Universe as the meaning and whether it can actually speak in English or not is still up for debate.



Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal.  But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one.  "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of *#6 *due to the  absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought.  Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that *I AM!* or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I should clarify myself a little.
> 
> If you wish to define whatever created the universe as God, you have no argument from me.
> 
> 
> I consider myself an atheist in the terms of the Abrahamic definition, which includes a lot more to its definition than "God created the Universe"
> 
> However, if you are suggesting that this god is conscious- that is it can make choices, can act on a whim and so forth--I have to ask, how do you know?
> 
> In other words," GOD says I AM",  is not something I should take literally, now should I?  I should interpret it as GOD created the Universe as the meaning and whether it can actually speak in English or not is still up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal.  But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one.  "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of *#6 *due to the  absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought.  Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that *I AM!* or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?
Click to expand...

Your Seven Pointless Things are not incontrovertible, positive proof of anything but your callous disregard for reason and rationality.


----------



## dblack

All hail The Seven Things!!!!


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we were created. You must a misread my post. 

=\= means does NOT equal.


----------



## Tuatara

One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.


----------



## amrchaos

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
Click to expand...



I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.

Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"

Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.

(Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> who created absence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy. Evil doesn't require creating. It exists in the absence of good. If you take away good, you created the absence of good, you didn't create evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
Click to expand...


If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.  

Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.  

So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
Click to expand...

Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.


----------



## sealybobo

dblack said:


> All hail The Seven Things!!!!



Isn't that from Planet of the Apes or something?


----------



## sealybobo

Or Animal Farm


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
Click to expand...


Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.

_Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._


[


----------



## Hollie

Tuatara said:


> One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.


Sure. Just be prepared for Christians to whip out the _uncaused caused*™ *disclaimer. 
_
The christian gods get special dispensations from any standard of grown up conversation.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I should clarify myself a little.
> 
> If you wish to define whatever created the universe as God, you have no argument from me.
> 
> 
> I consider myself an atheist in the terms of the Abrahamic definition, which includes a lot more to its definition than "God created the Universe"
> 
> However, if you are suggesting that this god is conscious- that is it can make choices, can act on a whim and so forth--I have to ask, how do you know?
> 
> In other words," GOD says I AM",  is not something I should take literally, now should I?  I should interpret it as GOD created the Universe as the meaning and whether it can actually speak in English or not is still up for debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know why an infinitely powerful God could not speak any language He pleased, beginning with the universal language of mathematics, and the God of The Seven Things is manifestly sentient and personal.  But you'll have to make up your own mind on that one.  "The Seven Things" objectively and logically hold, including the incontrovertible, positive proof of *#6 *due to the  absolute and universal laws of organic, human thought.  Is that voice in our heads that we hear as our own each time we regard the objective facts of existence and origin His voice telling us that *I AM!* or a paradox of human cognition, a freakish accident of nature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your Seven Pointless Things are not incontrovertible, positive proof of anything but your callous disregard for reason and rationality.
Click to expand...


That's because it makes perfect sense to him.  But then again people living 350 years, or 3 days in the belly of a whale, or virgin births, or god sacrificing himself on the cross, which really isn't a sacrifice at all if you think about it.  Talking snakes, virgin births, parting seas, noah story, burning bushes, heaven, hell, 

The primary psychological role of religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not showing that god is a necessity for knowledge or facts, which would have been the PROPER way to refute my post. You failed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no objection to that.  I only point out that the objectively highest standard of divinity would be sentient and non-contingent.
> 
> In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.
> 
> I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.
> 
> I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.
Click to expand...


The fundie crank is losing it.

I've noticed that when _M. Pompous Rawling_ begins thumping his bibles extra hard, It's because he sees his arguments self destructing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Closing All the Doors:  Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind*
* 
On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*



> BreezeWood said:
> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.



* Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.

I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.

1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.

2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.

3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."

4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."

5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.

6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."

(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)​ *

* 7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.

8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.

10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!

You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!

#3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.

So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.

Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.

If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.

But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.

Paradox.

You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.

In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.

We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.

See how that works?
*

* May​**The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.*​*
*


*Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/*


----------



## sealybobo

The Universe, in it’s silent dwarfing beauty, may not care about human life – but we do. So our brief and improbable time here may best be spent experiencing its wonders together, not in indentured servitude to an imaginary celestial dictator.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no objection to that.  I only point out that the objectively highest standard of divinity would be sentient and non-contingent.
> 
> In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.
> 
> I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.
> 
> I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundie crank is losing it.
> 
> I've noticed that when _M. Pompous Rawling_ begins thumping his bibles extra hard, It's because he sees his arguments self destructing.
Click to expand...


Is this what they are doing?


* Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

_All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green._

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.


----------



## The Irish Ram

What's uncaused cause Hollie?


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
Click to expand...


Are you losing it?

_“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”_ – Steven Weinberg


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no objection to that.  I only point out that the objectively highest standard of divinity would be sentient and non-contingent.
> 
> In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.
> 
> I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.
> 
> I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundie crank is losing it.
> 
> I've noticed that when _M. Pompous Rawling_ begins thumping his bibles extra hard, It's because he sees his arguments self destructing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this what they are doing?
> 
> 
> * Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
> Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.
> 
> _All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green._
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.
> 
> See also: False Premise.
Click to expand...

Precisely right.


----------



## G.T.

I'm still waiting on the peer reviewed paper from academia on the tag argument.

MD wouldn't have lied would he?

Peer reviewed. 

Lolol


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Closing All the Doors:  Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind
> 
> On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.
> 
> I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.
> 
> 1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.
> 
> 2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.
> 
> 3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."
> 
> 4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."
> 
> 5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.
> 
> 6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."
> *
> *(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)*​
> * 7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.
> 
> 8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!
> 
> You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!
> 
> #3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.
> 
> Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.
> 
> If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.
> 
> But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.
> 
> Paradox.
> 
> You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.
> 
> In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.
> 
> We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.
> 
> See how that works?
> *
> 
> 
> *May *
> *The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.*​*
> *
> 
> 
> *Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
> *
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/*
Click to expand...






*The Seven PhonyThings 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> What's uncaused cause Hollie?


What is your issue with stringing words together into coherent sentences?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no objection to that.  I only point out that the objectively highest standard of divinity would be sentient and non-contingent.
> 
> In your comment above, substitute "The Easter Bunny" for "god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey--If you wish to call "That which created the universe" the Easter Bunny, hey that can work for me too.
> 
> I am still at non-theism here. We have an Easter Bunny with a clear definition but the hop to a recognizable conscious (or any unrecognizable consciousness, for that matter--if that is even possible?) got me stuck on the Bunny trail.
> 
> I am really waiting for someone to equate this God to the God of Abraham.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fundie crank is losing it.
> 
> I've noticed that when _M. Pompous Rawling_ begins thumping his bibles extra hard, It's because he sees his arguments self destructing.
Click to expand...


Or is this what he's trying to do?  Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Closing All the Doors:  Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind
> 
> On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.
> 
> I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.
> 
> 1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.
> 
> 2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.
> 
> 3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."
> 
> 4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."
> 
> 5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.
> 
> 6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."
> *
> *(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)*​
> * 7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.
> 
> 8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!
> 
> You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!
> 
> #3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.
> 
> Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.
> 
> If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.
> 
> But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.
> 
> Paradox.
> 
> You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.
> 
> In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.
> 
> We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.
> 
> See how that works?
> *
> 
> 
> *May *
> *The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.*​*
> *
> 
> 
> *Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
> *
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/*
Click to expand...


1.  I believe in god(s)
2.  My preacher and parents and friends believe in god(s)
3.  Even though they're wrong, even Muslims believe in god(s)
4.  We've always believed in god(s)
5.  It makes me uncomfortable not know and I'd like for there to be a god and a heaven for me and granny who died 20 years ago
6.  People 2000 years ago said god visited.  Who am I to doubt a corrupt society?  
7.  Better to be safe than sorry.  What do I have to lose by believing?
8. I'm gullible.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.



Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed. 

Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter! 

*...we can't believe this is all by accident.*

Oh, but _YOU_ can believe that because you're so fucking smart! 

*I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...*

Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's uncaused cause Hollie?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your issue with stringing words together into coherent sentences?
Click to expand...


_“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’  As the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” _- Douglas Adams


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Tuatara said:


> One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.




Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.  It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.  I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.  Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.  The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_.   That's where we're at right now, so  we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.

In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.

By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.  The question "Who created God?" is absurd. 

On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology.  It may or may not be eternal. 

Are you arguing that something has always existed or not?  Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?

Do you know what your point is?

Do you exist?

Stop letting others do your thinking for you.


----------



## Tuatara

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​


Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.   





> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!


No it doesn't​*



			3.
		
Click to expand...

*


> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!


 Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't. 





> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!


Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
*



			4.
		
Click to expand...

*


> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!


 How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
*



			5.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!


But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
*



			6.
		
Click to expand...

*


> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!


What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
*



			7
		
Click to expand...

*


> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


 *FAIL!*


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.
> 
> Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!
> 
> *...we can't believe this is all by accident.*
> 
> Oh, but _YOU_ can believe that because you're so fucking smart!
> 
> *I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...*
> 
> Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"
Click to expand...

Actually, bossy, we have a history of human development wherein gods were assigned administrative duties managing floods, thunder, lightning, rain, etc.

Shouldn't you run along and sacrifice some farm animals to curry favor with your gawds? Appeasement or else.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Meriweather said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart.  We also have a conscience.  Not every atheist chooses lawlessness.  Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard.  As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone.  My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.
> 
> Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.
Click to expand...


Romans 1:18-25!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.
> 
> Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!
> 
> *...we can't believe this is all by accident.*
> 
> Oh, but _YOU_ can believe that because you're so fucking smart!
> 
> *I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...*
> 
> Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"
Click to expand...


Come on Boss.  We were "spiritual" when we were dumb cavemen.  That's who came up with god.  Don't you remember how uneducated our grandparents were?  Mine came from Europe and they didn't go to school.  Now x that by 20 and that's now dumb, superstitious, gullible and fearful our ancestors were.  They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.  We still don't like not lkno200,000 years ago.  Then 7000 to 2000 years ago god visited us?

Why am I even bothering.  You think god talks to you and watches over you.  I'm not going to convince you of anything.


Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.
> 
> Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!
> 
> *...we can't believe this is all by accident.*
> 
> Oh, but _YOU_ can believe that because you're so fucking smart!
> 
> *I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...*
> 
> Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"
Click to expand...


You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.  Of course we invented god 200,000 years ago.  Then 7000 years ago someone lied and said god visited them and told them to write a book.  And today we have guys like you who say god talks to you too.  

Remember, when I say we were smart enough to come up with the concept of gods, I mean smarter than a monkey, dog or dolphin.  But back then our 3 steps out of the cave ancestors didn't know science.  They thought god was everything.

There is my proof!  Only 300 years ago our ancestors thought glass and hot air balloons were magic or god.  That's who invented god(s)  you dumb ass.  Now go back 100,000 years ago and imagine how superstitious those apes were.  Now why are you still an ape?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We humans were frightened, superstitious creatures who hated not knowing things.  We didn't know what created our universe and we don't know what happens when we die.  So we came up with god.  So humans have always wondered this question.  And we may never know the answers to these questions.  But again, humans hate not knowing. So it is sort of hard wired into us that we want to believe that something made us.  Or we can't believe this is all by accident.
> 
> And seeing as how it has been passed on to us from generation to generation, maybe it has been "hardwired" into us.
> 
> But today you don't have to be a christian in America and we see more and more people are waking up.  More and more young people are turning away from religion.  Why?  They are too smart.  They have been Enlightened with science.  Its why religion hates science so much.
> 
> Next time they get really sick, instead of going to the hospital, they should go to church and see where that gets them.  I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me and they can pray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you veer away from your happy-go-lucky cut and paste from your atheist blogs, you reveal what an absolute moron you are. There is ZERO evidence to support your "theory" that superstitious and fearful man created or invented God. In the FIRST place, superstition itself is a spiritual concept. So right off the bat, your "theory" has failed.
> 
> Everything else you've presented is supposition based on the debunked theory that man invented God because he is superstitious and afraid. Then, there is your whole "too smart" argument FAIL... Whenever we show you examples of really smart people who believe in God, what do you say? Oh... well, it suddenly doesn't matter that smart people believe in God! The man responsible for sparking the Age of Enlightenment, who essentially gave us modern science and the scientific method, was a devoutly spiritual man. Oh well hey... that's okay, that doesn't matter!
> 
> *...we can't believe this is all by accident.*
> 
> Oh, but _YOU_ can believe that because you're so fucking smart!
> 
> *I'll go see a doctor (scientist) and use the medicine that they give me...*
> 
> Medicine that was discovered by humans who were inspired by something greater than self. People who did not accept that we just have to get sick and die because that's how things are and there is nothing we can do about it. People who said, "We can reach beyond our current understanding and do what is not possible at this time!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, bossy, we have a history of human development wherein gods were assigned administrative duties managing floods, thunder, lightning, rain, etc.
> 
> Shouldn't you run along and sacrifice some farm animals to curry favor with your gawds? Appeasement or else.
Click to expand...


Oh no Hollie.  God visited us 2000 years ago and said stop doing sacrifices for him.  He said he would be the last human or animal sacrifice and he pretended to suffer on the cross when we crucified him.  They nailed the first foot and he said OUCH like it hurt.  Yea right.  Hurt god.  Anyways, no more sacrifices for Christ's sake.


----------



## MaryL

OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
Click to expand...


Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..

First, the assumption of what all humans knows.  Some humans do not know some of these things.  We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!

Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion.  Which religion's morality are we to use here?  Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral.   Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men?  Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?

Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality?  I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily.  However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped. 


G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.
Click to expand...


I kind of figured that.


----------



## MaryL

With Kosher pickles.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Tuatara said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't​*
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FAIL!*
Click to expand...


It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.

These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.

If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.


----------



## sealybobo

MaryL said:


> OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?



Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years.  There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him.  The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.  

I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god.  No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell.  That's just a lie.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..
> 
> First, the assumption of what all humans knows.  Some humans do not know some of these things.  We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!
> 
> Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion.  Which religion's morality are we to use here?  Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral.   Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men?  Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?
> 
> Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality?  I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily.  However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of figured that.
Click to expand...



They do know these things upon reflection.  What they choose to believe is irrelevant.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.



Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual. 

You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.



Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.


----------



## Radium

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


It seems humans can figure everything out, besides themselves. As for sound evidence that God exists, their is no evidence. Just faith, as said so many times before. Thought thousands and thousands of years, men have always believed their was some sort of god, why would that be? If billions of people thought their is a god from the very begging of written text, that indicates their most likely is. Humans are not dumb, and thought the begging of text we believed their was a god, so how would so many people be wrong? I am not stating my personal belief, but simply arguing that if so many people believe in a god for so long, and the best explanation can only be solved with the existence of a god, I would say their is one.


----------



## amrchaos

I am still trying to figure out--why is there a need for sentience in the definition of God?

I admit, I tend to catch hell with some non-theistic arguments for their God.  It is mainly because of their definition for God. You know it exists, so why try to argue against "That" particular  definition.

However, once there are added some qualities to the definition, the question becomes "How do you know this"?


By the way, I just thought of something concerning that list.  The claim that if God existed , it had to be really great.  What if it turns out to be something relatively simple? The creation and whatever that created it could be an example of "Big things coming from small packages".

The more I look at that list, the more questions just pop out at me.


----------



## Tuatara

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

Yet *most* americans and *most* christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.


> It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.


Not according to most christians
Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post


> I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.


You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory. 





> Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.


Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
[Quote}The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_.   That's where we're at right now, so  we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.[/QUOTE]What you described is not the Big Bang theory.



> In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.


 Like the existence of a god



> By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.


Since when were you the one chosen to define god?  





> The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology.  It may or may not be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.
> 
> [QUOTE}Are you arguing that something has always existed or not?  Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?
> 
> Do you know what your point is?
> 
> Do you exist?
> 
> Stop letting others do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years.  There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him.  The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.
> 
> I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god.  No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell.  That's just a lie.



And ALL your examples are clear and concise evidence of human spirituality. The only thing you are saying is, because humans have changed and altered their spiritual beliefs over the years, renders all their beliefs irrelevant and meaningless. Well okay... so when science changes it's beliefs on something, does that negate all of science? Can we throw out the scientific method because Einstein disproves Newtonian physics? Of course not, and you can see how silly and foolish that supposition would be.


----------



## Tuatara

MaryL said:


> OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?


Nothing dies if it never existed and no I don't know a nice deli in the Bronx. I live over 5000 miles away.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..
> 
> First, the assumption of what all humans knows.  Some humans do not know some of these things.  We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!
> 
> Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion.  Which religion's morality are we to use here?  Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral.   Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men?  Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?
> 
> Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality?  I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily.  However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of figured that.
Click to expand...


As for morality, we go back to *#6*. 

Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not? 

That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence.  Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature?  A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?  

I don't know what else to tell ya.  I strongly recommend taking it seriously.  Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought.   The connection is yours to make.  I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ.  He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you.  You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Tuatara said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet *most* americans and *most* christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to most christians
> Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
> A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
> Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
> [Quote}The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_.   That's where we're at right now, so  we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.
Click to expand...

What you described is not the Big Bang theory.



> In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.


 Like the existence of a god



> By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.


Since when were you the one chosen to define god?  





> The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology.  It may or may not be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.
> 
> [QUOTE}Are you arguing that something has always existed or not?  Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?
> 
> Do you know what your point is?
> 
> Do you exist?
> 
> Stop letting others do your thinking for you.
Click to expand...

Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.[/QUOTE]

I know there are some, mostly laymen, not scientifically sophisticated.  So?  Ignorance, in and of itself, has no bearing on any of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.  Some people will simply miss out on things that they may know about God

It's utterly irrelevant!  Such things are only relevant to snobs.  My mother doesn't understand these things. God didn't give her the intellectual firepower to deal with them at a serious, theological, philosophical or scientific level.  There's plenty of ignorance among atheists on this forum too, indeed, as Boss and I know, for example, it's all over this thread from atheists. But it has nothing to do with what matters.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..
> 
> First, the assumption of what all humans knows.  Some humans do not know some of these things.  We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!
> 
> Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion.  Which religion's morality are we to use here?  Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral.   Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men?  Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?
> 
> Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality?  I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily.  However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of figured that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for morality, we go back to *#6*.
> 
> Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not?
> 
> That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence.  Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature?  A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?
> 
> I don't know what else to tell ya.  I strongly recommend taking it seriously.  Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought.   The connection is yours to make.  I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ.  He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you.  You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.
Click to expand...



Hey, it is possible that it is neither the act of a sentient being or "freak" event but a natural Cosmological event.  An Event that may have happened numerous times elsewhere.

But that undermines our uniqueness, does it not?

By the way, the need to describe God as the most highest form/attribute of divinity seems redundant.  What is more God-like than God, anyway?

Also:
Do I believe the universe exist. Yes
Do I believe that this universe had a start. Yes
Can we call that which created the universe God. Yes, we can.
Do I believe that this "God" is sentient?  No. At least not in the sense how  I take sentient to mean. 

However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient".  Do you mean in that way?  Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, terms "Divinity" and "God-like" are somewhat interchangable.
> 
> So saying that God has the highess attribute of Divinity is true--what is more god-like than god?
> 
> Again, I don't have a problem with this.
> 
> But how does this relate to morality?  I guess you have to add another description to God to get this.  If we were talking natural laws, there wouldn't be a problem here.  But we are not, so how do we get moral laws from "that which created the universe"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some need it to be emphatically spelled out.  We know morality via the laws of organic thought too:  the laws of identity, contradiction, excluded middle.  We know that we must fight or flee should we violate the life, liberty or property of another, or we know this as we would be compelled to fight or flee in the face of such aggression perpetrated against us. Identity.  Contradiction. No third option.  So this is natural law for man, but it's grounded in God, the ultimate essence thereof.
> 
> _Love God without all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself; do unto your neighbor as you would have your neighbor to unto you._
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you made a couple of statements that leaves me filled with questions..
> 
> First, the assumption of what all humans knows.  Some humans do not know some of these things.  We mostly have to build our intuition for it. Some of us never do. And then there are a few that just does not care what their intuition say to them--funny how this group tends to become leaders!!
> 
> Second, Morality--A Morality is a system of ethics tied to a religion.  Which religion's morality are we to use here?  Also note, there have existed past religions in which human sacrifice was considered Moral.   Was killing humans to please God a moral law created by God or a moral law created by men?  Or is it possible that the concept of what is Moral is not Universal, but dependent on the religion itself?
> 
> Third--Is the God you defined earlier truly the essence of all forms of morality?  I don't think you can go from "That which created the universe" to "forms systems of moral conduct" that easily.  However, "presenting the natural environment for man to form societies in" can follow-but how this God has a hand in "deciding" which law is moral and which is not got me a bit stumped.
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is what Rawlings is trying to argue.  Go back t his definition and you would realize that the God he purposes is not the same as the Gods of the Bible, Torah or Quran.
> 
> Those gods require alot more than "that which created the Universe"
> 
> Some people says the Big Bang created the Universe.  Is the Big Bang God?  The Big Bang is not the God of those Holy Books so where does that leaves us.
> 
> (Using what you say, Is whatever that caused the Big Bang God?  Probably not since it is whatever that created the universe is God, and God is the Big Bang.  Whatever created the Big Bang has yet to be labeled!!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually....MD asserts god is sentient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I kind of figured that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for morality, we go back to *#6*.
> 
> Do you believe the I AM! actually exists outside the logic or our minds or not?
> 
> That axiom purports to to have an actual divinity behind it, purports to be the ultimate essence and ground of the rational and moral laws of existence.  Again, is God backing that or is it a freak accident of nature?  A latently innate, biologically hardwired axiom of substantive fact or just a coincidence?
> 
> I don't know what else to tell ya.  I strongly recommend taking it seriously.  Natural law holds universally due to the laws of human thought.   The connection is yours to make.  I never presume to know what others should do with these things, though I'm happy to tell you that I have had a personal encounter with Christ.  He is real and true, but for obvious reasons, I can't transfer that experience to you.  You have to take the leap of faith for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, it is possible that it is neither the act of a sentient being or "freak" event but a natural Cosmological event.  An Event that may have happened numerous times elsewhere.
> 
> But that undermines our uniqueness, does it not?
> 
> By the way, the need to describe God as the most highest form/attribute of divinity seems redundant.  What is more God-like than God, anyway?
> 
> Also:
> Do I believe the universe exist. Yes
> Do I believe that this universe had a start. Yes
> Can we call that which created the universe God. Yes, we can.
> Do I believe that this "God" is sentient?  No. At least not in the sense how  I take sentient to mean.
> 
> However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient".  Do you mean in that way?  Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.
Click to expand...


The emphasis on divinity is not for your  sake or mine, but for that of others.  Some were not getting it, so I made it abundantly clear.  That's all.  At a glance we understand, of course, that God is God, but not everybody does, as most are not practiced in thinking about these kinds of things.  For example, someone just asked who created God, for crying out loud!  Tautology anyone?

As for the cognitive axiom: well, I can't argue with that possibility, just don't forget that the fact of it remains what it is. In my opinion, we have no rational or empirical reason to assume it's not what it purports to be as it comes at us in our minds, certainly no reason that would constitute justified true belief/knowledge.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Emily, on the matter of the proper terms and conventions of formal logic and science. . . .*

You just said, once again, that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.

*Science does not prove or disprove things; it verifies or falsifies things!  To talk about science proving or disproving things, especially about transcendental potentialities, is essentially meaningless.  *

Obtuse? Mulish? Obstinate? Ineducable?

When you talk like this, abuse terms and conventions, you necessarily undermine or negate the thrust of your very own premise. You imagine that the limits of scientific inquiry precede or have primacy over the first principles of logic, the very things that cause you to understand that science can be used to collect and evaluate empirical data to establish a credible evidentiary basis for the inference that spiritual healing is a reality?

Are you trying to make your case or defeat it?

*EMILY! *I'm on your side with regard to spiritual healing, and as one who is an authority on the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, I'm telling you how to properly defend your position. Why do you keep fighting with me over this to spite yourself?

Also, you presume that just because science has yet to *verify* God's existence, such a thing could never happen. How do you know that? You don't know that. Assuming God does exist outside *the positive proof for His existence* via the imperatives of organic logic, nothing could stop Him from revealing Himself in such a way that His existence would thereafter be scientifically demonstrated to and verified by humanity.

What Seelybobo is saying and what you're partially agreeing with is junk science, illogical, presumptuous, closed-minded and, therefore, lacking in the very faith you claim to embrace. You reject the very logic that supports your premise regarding that which is objectively known to be either true or possible by reason.

Are you trying to convince others or confuse them?

I am not the closed-minded one or the one lacking in faith here.

The formal/proper terms and conventions of logic and science divulge the true essence and the practical exigencies of faith. We may thusly know the inestimable value of faith.

This is your strongest premise:  the terms and conventions of formal logic and science.

As I wrote elsewhere:

I gave you the only logically and scientifically bullet proof foundation for the defense of your position, insofar as spiritual healing goes, but if you'd rather ill-advisedly cut off the nose of Christianity to spite your face as you contradictorily opt for the weaker position, which firmly plants spiritual healing in the soil of indemonstrable religious dogma, it's no sweat off my face brow.

This leaves you with a scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous premise, pseudoscience, that not only cuts off the nose of Christianity, but, logically, that of every other religion, including yours, based on made up terms and arbitrary logic.​
I love you, Emily, and I want you to succeed.  For the sake of the neutrality you're aiming for, leave religion out of it and use the proper terms and conventions for logic and science, and faith will come to the fore on its own terms, unadulterated, shining brightly.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does absence need creating?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Again, lets' consider the objective understanding, which rests within 'The Big book of Words':
> 
> Absence: the nonexistence or lack of.
> 
> Did any light get in there or do you still suffer the absence of such?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, in your opinion evil is eternal but god created good?
> 
> I'm not there with ya bruv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
Click to expand...


So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...

That's a rather large leap isn't it?

I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.

Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> However, there is a non-theistic approach that describes anything that can create or is itself ordered "sentient".  Do you mean in that way?  Because if you do, then every snowflake can be called sentient.



Sorry, I missed this.

I simply mean what *#3* and * #4* state.  Nothing else.  Very simply, the highest conceivable standard for divinity would be a sentient Being, the Creator of all other persons and things that exist.  The point:  for finite minds to presupposed that God would be anything less than that would beg the question.  Look, assign anything less than that standard and I'll objectively and logically define something higher and so on.  So just cut to the chase.  Whatever is logically coherent is logically possible.  But the real issue goes to this: 

The term _God_ first and foremostly means _Creator_! It is presumptuous to say otherwise.

Even Fox, a theist—for crying out loud!—is claiming that the logical proofs for God's existence do not necessarily assert God as Creator. What _is_ she talking about?

Ultimately, all of the classical proofs, especially the Cosmological, are premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent sentience and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.

* Sentience + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*

Cut to the chase. Stop wasting time by allowing irrelevant objections to be raised.

Also, that's why the talk of _fairies_ or_ Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all know, immediately intuit, because of the self-evident compound of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not thinking or talking about mythical or imaginary things. That's why God as Creator cannot be logically ruled out. One does not start with arbitrary notions about what God might be like in terms less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution so that the only defensible premise is unjustifiably precluded from the jump, so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensible premise. 

In science the notion that something can arise from nothing is a mere hypothesis that no one at this point takes seriously, as it seemingly cannot be verified or falsified. In fact, it defies the cause-and-effect dynamic of science as bottomed on one apriority of naturalism or another.

In logic it remains an absurdity until such time direct evidence, though direct evidence that would necessarily consist of . . . nothingness is yet another absurdity, falsifies the standing axiom of substantive cause and effect.

We do not proceed from rational or experiential absurdities in either logic or science.

The only reason that logic, not science, allows for this hypothesis in science is because the logical principle of identity allows for the suspension of the axioms of the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination as a means of keeping the door open to the potentiality of empirical paradoxes. Science, in and of itself, because it's dynamic is cause and effect, could not allow for that hypothesis to go forward if organic logic didn't permit it. —M.D. Rawlings​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
Click to expand...


"Nuh huh" is all they got.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Tuatara said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I find interesting is christians will say God created the universe, the big bang didn't happen because something can't be created out of nothing. A typical response is "who created god then?" The christian goes on to say god has always been there. Assuming that logic, couldn't it be said that the chemical compounds to create the big bang have always been there.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I don't know of any serious Christian apologist, scientist, philosopher or theologian who disputes the Big Bang Theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet *most* americans and *most* christians do not believe in the big bang theory. Read through the threads here in this forum. You will find many.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it arguably supports theism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to most christians
> Only 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe in Big Bang - CNET
> A Majority of Americans Still Aren t Sure About the Big Bang - The Atlantic
> Study Americans are as likely to believe in Bigfoot as in the big bang theory - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any college educated pastor that denies that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get out much. Or maybe you live in Belgium or Holland. You certainly can't be living in the US abd be ignorant to the fact most don't believe in the Big Bang Theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you're talking to the wrong people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing to do with people I talk too. It has to do with the opinions of people in the media, on forum boards like this, christian columnists, journalists, authors, clergy leaders... etc.
> [Quote}The Big Bang would not refute the standing proof in logic and the current, working presupposition for science of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_.   That's where we're at right now, so  we formally assume in logic that to be an absurdity and an improbable hypothesis in science.
Click to expand...

What you described is not the Big Bang theory.



> In any event, we do not proceed from indemonstrable or undemonstrated absurdities in either.


 Like the existence of a god



> By definition, God is not a creature. He is the Creator, eternally self-subsistent.


Since when were you the one chosen to define god?  





> The question "Who created God?" is absurd.{/QUOTE]I think it's pretty good. You don't like it because you or no one else can answer it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, material existence doesn't inherently carry that axiomatic tautology.  It may or may not be eternal.
> 
> 
> 
> What may or may not be eternal? Have no ida what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing that something has always existed or not?  Are you arguing that something can come from nothing or not?
> 
> Do you know what your point is?
> 
> Do you exist?
> 
> Stop letting others do your thinking for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is thinking for me. In fact I brought up a point that hasn't been brought up before. I'm arguing by using the same logic that has been applied by christian apolgists on this forum many times before.
Click to expand...


No.  It's not the same logic.  In fact, your arguments are not logical at all.  They amount to "Nuh huh" in the face of unassailable imperatives.  You might as well try to swim across the Atlantic. When the sharks come, tell _them_, "Nuh huh."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Closing All the Doors:  Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind
> 
> On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.
> 
> I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.
> 
> 1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.
> 
> 2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.
> 
> 3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."
> 
> 4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."
> 
> 5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.
> 
> 6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."
> *
> *(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)*​
> * 7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.
> 
> 8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!
> 
> You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!
> 
> #3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.
> 
> Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.
> 
> If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.
> 
> But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.
> 
> Paradox.
> 
> You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.
> 
> In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.
> 
> We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.
> 
> See how that works?
> *
> 
> 
> *May *
> *The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.*​*
> *
> 
> 
> *Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
> *
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I believe in god(s)
> 2.  My preacher and parents and friends believe in god(s)
> 3.  Even though they're wrong, even Muslims believe in god(s)
> 4.  We've always believed in god(s)
> 5.  It makes me uncomfortable not know and I'd like for there to be a god and a heaven for me and granny who died 20 years ago
> 6.  People 2000 years ago said god visited.  Who am I to doubt a corrupt society?
> 7.  Better to be safe than sorry.  What do I have to lose by believing?
> 8. I'm gullible.
Click to expand...


"Nuh huh"


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for *#1*, *#2* and *#3*.








> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.




it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.

the highest order = Everlasting


the Everlasting created = _The possibility that God exists_ - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.


the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.


the God of this thread.

the proof for God is life without sin.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

dblack said:


> End of thought!!!



I forgot about you.  Got ya down for sev


BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for *#1*, *#2* and *#3*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.
> 
> the highest order = Everlasting
> 
> 
> the Everlasting created = _The possibility that God exists_ - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.
> 
> 
> the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.
> 
> 
> the God of this thread.
> 
> the proof for God is life without sin.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



The only thing I can make any sense out of here is the idea that God did not create evil, so you're objecting to the statement that God is the Creator of *all *other things that exist.  This implies that you believe evil exists.  Right?  Fair enough.  I expected this to be raised at some time.  But consider this: the highest conceivable standard of divinity entails the idea  of absolute perfection.  That's why I have written "unparalleled greatness and perfection."  Some think they can limit God to a one-dimensional reality as they disregard the obvious implications of the construct of infinity or be careless about the standard of divinity, not define it, more at, not assert the only objectively defensible standard that does not beg the question or collapse under the weight of the problem of evil . . . always lurking in the background.  

God cannot be what He is not. God is not evil.  God cannot do evil.  God didn't create evil. 

Evil has no meaning apart from sentience.  Hence, evil is something that was created by sentient creatures.  The matter is complex, and no one on this thread is ready for that one because most of them cannot get beyond their one-dimensional reality, even though everything we know from the laws of thought and the cosmos beyond our minds screams a multidimensional reality, which is key to understanding the problem. So just understand that the highest order of divinity necessarily entails absolute perfection in attribution and action. 

There also seems to be the idea that good has no meaning except in terms of a dichotomy where there is the presence of evil, and that the norm is sinless existence.

_Sigh_

Write coherent sentences.  If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated.  Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.


----------



## dblack

M.D. Rawlings said:


> ...
> 
> _Sigh_
> 
> *Write coherent sentences.  If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated.  Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.*


 
Uh...


----------



## dblack

MaryL said:


> OK. God is dead. The secret is out. Know a nice deli in the Bronx?


----------



## Boss

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...


Silly boob be like: "The elemental understanding of whut???"


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't​*
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FAIL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
Click to expand...

Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it. 

With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't​*
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FAIL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
Click to expand...

and so eloquently labeled "things!"

cuz theyre just................"things!"

lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.


----------



## Meriweather

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without God from whence sprouts a moral code?  In an atheistic world of chaos and happenstance who determines what is right or wrong?  In a universe where the "law" is "survival of the fittest" who's to say what is permissible or not when survival is at stake?  If you have food and I don't am I not within my atheistic right to simply take what you have -- at any cost?  Since there can be no such thing as "sin" in a world without God then nothing can be considered a sin and all becomes fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Jeremiah and Paul point out that God's law is written on every human heart.  We also have a conscience.  Not every atheist chooses lawlessness.  Many follow their heart and conscience in this regard.  As a student in a Catholic school, we were often told to look deep and find Christ in everyone.  My grandfather may have been an atheist, and he himself may not have recognized Christ...but I could recognize Christ within him.
> 
> Similar to what someone else just said, being an atheist does not make one loving and intelligent--but it does not preclude it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Romans 1:18-25!
Click to expand...


There is a difference between the wicked and those who are neither wicked and cannot believe.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
Click to expand...

Your equivocation is meaningless. Billions of years from magical gardens with talking snakes to Noah's pleasure cruise is not the timeframe suggested in any of the bibles. If you want to rewrite the bibles as you go that's fine. That's a typical pattern of behavior for you fundamentalists. However, don't expect such nonsense to be taken seriously by those who don't share your preconditions and allegiance to christian dogma.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nuh huh" is all they got.
Click to expand...

Actually, "they" have your concession to the utter failure of either your silly "five things" or the later disaster of the nonsensical "seven things" as a meaningful argument.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.
> 
> You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.
Click to expand...


Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell?  Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals.  Maybe it was when we were apes.  Pre man.  I guess it started before we could even talk.  We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.  

The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god?  When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to  you and you KNOW he cares.  Not only exists but also cares.  Silly rabbit.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
Click to expand...


I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real. 

God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.


----------



## sealybobo

Radium said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems humans can figure everything out, besides themselves. As for sound evidence that God exists, their is no evidence. Just faith, as said so many times before. Thought thousands and thousands of years, men have always believed their was some sort of god, why would that be? If billions of people thought their is a god from the very begging of written text, that indicates their most likely is. Humans are not dumb, and thought the begging of text we believed their was a god, so how would so many people be wrong? I am not stating my personal belief, but simply arguing that if so many people believe in a god for so long, and the best explanation can only be solved with the existence of a god, I would say their is one.
Click to expand...


They weren't dumb back then?  They thought Zeus was lightening.  At one time they thought the sun was god and they prayed every night for i to return.  Scared primitive man didn't like not knowing how we got here and what happens when we die.  

The primary psychological role of religion is rationalizing the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality.

We should not just accept what our parents tell us.  If everyone did we'd still think the earth is flat.  Science has made religion basically admit under their breath that all the stories in the bible are allegories. 

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham

So when did your side start making up all the stories?  200,000 years ago we debated if god existed and never came up with anything.  7000-200 years ago you guys started lying and writing books about how god visited you.  Why'd you guys start lying?  Or, why did our dumb ancestors swallow it.  Better yet, why are you still swallowing it?


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think about how all the other gods before the Jesus god have come and gone in 200,000 years.  There were probably at least 999 other gods before the Jesus god and even a few since him.  The Mormon story is 214 years old and the Muslim story is 500.
> 
> I just hope that when the Abrahamic God is gone we go back to a generic god.  No more lies about how god visited you and said you go to heaven and everyone against you goes to hell.  That's just a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ALL your examples are clear and concise evidence of human spirituality. The only thing you are saying is, because humans have changed and altered their spiritual beliefs over the years, renders all their beliefs irrelevant and meaningless. Well okay... so when science changes it's beliefs on something, does that negate all of science? Can we throw out the scientific method because Einstein disproves Newtonian physics? Of course not, and you can see how silly and foolish that supposition would be.
Click to expand...


Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.


----------



## sealybobo

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
Click to expand...


Scientists and atheist philosophers would disagree with you.  They look at all the evidence and don't think a god created all this.  At least not the god most of you are talking about if you know what I mean.  The one that visited you and is cleaning heaven waiting to hang out with you wishful thinkers.  

God bless my dad but he's not that bright.  I try to point out to him all the things that science says about the problems with the theistic story and he just doesn't want to hear it.  He says if science thinks that then science is stupid.  There must be something.  How could all of this happened by itself.  He won't listen.  He can't believe.  Almost makes him mad.  He always goes to the argument of intelligent design.  How could we have one heart, two eyes to see, the organs, all perfect, then we have the cows to eat and chickens to eat.  

He can't hear that this planet took billions of years to get this way.  It wasn't created just for him.  Just because he/you are at the top of the food chain and curious does not make you god or gods favorite.  No heaven for you unless frogs go too.


----------



## sealybobo

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Evil is of the gods. If you take a critical look at the genesis fable, there is no other option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a fair question. I agree with Boss' side of it, but there's more.  I can provide an answer which includes Boss's observation, but it's revealed knowledge, scriptural  knowledge.  For how can it be answered without the intimate details that only God can provide?   Though the how of it is revealed in the things that are made by God, the historical details of the pertinent players and events  cannot be gleaned from these things.  But I'm hesitant to get into it because my position on this thread has been to stick with the objective facts of cognition and science that are pertinent to the OP regarding the proofs for God's existence.  The ultimate infrastructure behind it all (free will and evil) is apparent, but the answer is hard for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that is such a bad question.  In fact, I find it a little interesting.
> 
> Where does all this available space to fill matter with come from? Or was it always here?  Empty space and absolute nothingness--are they really the same thing?
> 
> It may have sounded like a joke question, but empty space do have a property--it can be occupied with matter.
> 
> But, for some reason, saying that absolute nothingness should have this property is akin to saying that absolute nothingness possess something.  But, by definition, it doesn't seem like it should.....
> 
> What a cute little paradox found in a posters joke. Maybe one of you cosmologists can play with it for awhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun to think about, but empty space is empty right up until the it's not empty.
> 
> Theory holds that empty space is not actually empty.
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question.
> 
> Why is it necessary that God did not create evil?  Is this a characteristic of God?
> 
> How about "God created evil indirectly"? Is this also wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well... its the whole 'indirectly' thing, where it gets twisted.
> 
> God created the universe with laws that govern such.  Evil is the rejection of those laws, which come with the inevitable consequences.
> 
> So what the thesis is, is... 'Law makes law-breakers!'  Just like 'Wealth creates Poverty'.  Which goes perfectly with the whole: 'Silverware make people fat' and 'guns kill people', thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
Click to expand...


The honest answer is we don't know.  We didn't know 200,000 years ago and we don't know now.  Better to admit you don't really know but instead have faith, and stop telling people who don't believe they are going to hell.  Or worse, your retarded cousins the Muslims kill people who don't believe.  Allah Akbar!


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Closing All the Doors:  Pantheism, High Jinks and a Bonus of a Paradoxical Kind
> 
> On "The Seven Things": the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin (See post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10044307/**)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> . . . For this thread it is not necessary to define God as - 3. The possibility that God exists and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order, cannot be logically ruled out!
> in fact ... God as life on Earth may also have a date for existence, predating Earth and indeed may also be the instrument for life on Earth and is the means by which Admission to the Everlasting can be Accomplished.
> proves that (a) God is not dependent on your seven things for that God to exist: existence may not have been created = / = the existence of a supreme being from a non created cosmological order is not possible.
> only the Everlasting is certain - not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Okay, so we established that we have you down for #1 and #2 of "The Seven Things" in the previous post (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**) in which I gave you some food for thought regarding the objective necessities of #3.
> 
> I've been waiting for someone to raise this very objection without GT’s backpedaling high jinks after he conceded the first five, that is, before he thought about it again in the light of #6 which threw him, but only because of his confusion over the distinction between a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. I disabused him of that, improved him. Hence, given that his last remaining objection was not valid after all, he necessarily concedes #6 and #7.
> 
> 1. Hence, we have GT down for all of "The Seven Things," though, no doubt, he will continue to deny the obvious.
> 
> 2. Bronco4 necessarily put himself down for all of “The Seven Things” once he conceded that his mountains over #4 were made out of "no hills" at all.
> 
> 3. Justin's down for all of "The Seven Things."
> 
> 4. Obviously, I’m down for all of “The Seven Things."
> 
> 5. Boss is down for all of "The Seven Things"; however, he holds that while his belief in these things is logically valid, he cannot know them to be actually true. Fair enough.
> 
> 6. Seelybobo is down for all of "The Seven Things."
> *
> *(Seelybobo talked his way into all of "The Seven Things" as he unwittingly acknowledged the necessity of the real "Seven Things" in his attempt to do what cannot be done with his counterfeit seven things.)*​
> * 7. Based on the various assertions made by Hollie on this thread about the constituents of material existence and about the idea of God, she put herself down for the first five of them, emphatically; and, by the necessity of logical extension, the other two, #6 and #7, implicitly. Only, because she ain't packin' a full deck, we also have her down for you-know-what and giggles.
> 
> 8. Foxfyre's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 9. Emily's down for all of "The Seven Things" from her statements, whether she realizes or not.
> 
> 10. Now, let me show you, BreezeWood, why you have finally put yourself down for all of "The Seven Things" too, though, in your case, with a real humdinger of a paradox to go along with them. Bonus!
> 
> You insist on imposing a potentiality for divinity that would arbitrarily preclude what is universally known to be objectively possible due to the universally hardwired laws of organic logic: the potentially highest standard for divinity (God the eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Creator of all other things that exist). This standard must necessarily be asserted; otherwise, we beg the question. And this notion does in fact exist in your mind as such. You just acknowledge that you are aware of this only objectively defensible standard for divinity by the very act of making the distinction you made in the above, which puts you down for #3!
> 
> #3 does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, #3 allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, would preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for #1, #2 and #3.
> 
> Now, we come to #4, and this is where we run into what appears to be a paradox . . . for you. I could be wrong, but I have the impression from everything you've shared with us on this thread that you embrace some form of pantheism.
> 
> If that's not true, we have you down for #4 without any legitimate objection in sight. But if that is true . . . we still have you down for #4, as #4 necessarily follows from the objectively undeniable cognitive fact of #3: the objectively highest conceivable standard for divinity, God the Creator, would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, as no mere creature, logically, could be greater than the Creator of all other things.
> 
> But it seems that your particular flavor of pantheism does not hold up against the objectively undeniable fact of #3 and the subsequent necessity of #4.
> 
> Paradox.
> 
> You might want to consider the possibility that your notion of God is wrong in the light of the objectively manifest imperatives of organic logic regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin.
> 
> In any event, you're necessarily down, logically, for #1, #2, #3 and #4, as are we all due to the universally absolute imperatives of organic/classical thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle.
> 
> From there, #5 and #6 are axiomatically true for all of us in their own right, logically, and #7 necessarily follows with the acknowledgement of the first six.
> 
> We have you down for all of "The Seven Things," BreezeWood. Stop trying to evade these universally objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and ultimate origin. For once one acknowledges one's existence and that of the cosmos . . . no one escapes the other five, not even, in truth, antirealist hacks.
> 
> See how that works?
> *
> 
> 
> *May *
> *The LORD bless you, and keep you**. May the LORD make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you. May the LORD lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.*​*
> *
> 
> 
> *Now take real close look at the I AM! of #6:
> *
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039207/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10043449/*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  I believe in god(s)
> 2.  My preacher and parents and friends believe in god(s)
> 3.  Even though they're wrong, even Muslims believe in god(s)
> 4.  We've always believed in god(s)
> 5.  It makes me uncomfortable not know and I'd like for there to be a god and a heaven for me and granny who died 20 years ago
> 6.  People 2000 years ago said god visited.  Who am I to doubt a corrupt society?
> 7.  Better to be safe than sorry.  What do I have to lose by believing?
> 8. I'm gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nuh huh"
Click to expand...


Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths.  I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad.  Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real?  Sucker.   


*1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer.  Wrong!  This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

* 
2. The universe had a start - what caused it?  *

*We don’t know.  We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess.  *

*3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why?  *

*Maybe we don’t know.  *

*4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior.  *

*Huh?  Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.  *

*5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.*

*No fool, we are constantly seeking him.*

*6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.*

*What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine?* He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.


We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale?  WE GET NO PROOF?  Notice how sure the author is of point 6?  As if he saw it for himself?  This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion.  Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova.  Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists.  Show me a miracle god!


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is in terms of 'God created the laws"
> 
> If God created the laws, did he list _all _of them and hand it to us?  Or is it possible that there are some Laws that God has yet to give us?
> 
> 
> Is it even possible that God sometimes review these Laws, and find some of them counter-productive and revokes them after a period of time?
> 
> I am asking these questions because it seems like the first is no, second is yes, and third is yes.  Which tends to suggest what is "Good" or "Evil" is not stable but can change as time proceeds forwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too much string action for me to follow, but whoever is arguing this:  God didn't create the laws of thought or morality.  God is the ultimate ground and the essence of both.  This is objectively proven by #6 and #4 upon deeper reflection in organic/classical logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If something made us, it would be like you taking a shit and a maggot coming out of your feces.  You don't care about that maggot.  You don't have a heaven waiting for that maggot.
> 
> Why aren't Tardigrades gods chosen species?  They can live in outer space and 1 million of them can live in 1 drop of water.  If it goes dry they stay dormant until it rains again, then they come back to life.
> 
> So god created the big bang, billions of years went by and all there were were gases everywhere.  Billions of years later those gases formed into stars and planets and for billions of years no life was on any of those planets.  Then for millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  If not for the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs, we'd never have happened.  We were lucky that meteor hit.  It wasn't a god.  But then only in the last 200,000 years give or take have humans existed.  What was god waiting for all that time?  What was up with the dinosaurs?  Was that his first design and he got bored with them and decided to come up with us, IN HIS IMAGE?  Dummies!  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you have some elemental understanding of the physical, bio-chemical laws of nature and from these facts, you conclude that such all happened for no reason...
> 
> That's a rather large leap isn't it?
> 
> I mean for starters, billions of years would be meaningless where the creator of the universe is concerned, given the nature of space/time... and given the laws of nature, it follows that the reasonable laws were the result of reason, thus intelligent, which indicates sentience.
> 
> Now... go ahead and offer up the traditional "Nuh huh" and we'll move this forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nuh huh" is all they got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, "they" have your concession to the utter failure of either your silly "five things" or the later disaster of the nonsensical "seven things" as a meaningful argument.
Click to expand...


I found a 6 reasons why god is real and I wanted to point out number 6 to you.  
*What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine?* He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
Click to expand...



So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
Click to expand...


I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths.  I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad.  Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real?  Sucker.



What _are_ you talking about?  The Seven Things hold true for all of us, and you keep putting yourself down for all of them in most everything you say.  You're not even in touch with your own reality.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.
Click to expand...


Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all.   When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  You are a liar.  No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.

*Seelybobo writes*:
Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
*2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
*3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist. *
*4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
*5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
*6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3* and* #4* of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your *#2* is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your *#3* contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your *#5* is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your *#6* contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.

*#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

*No one escapes "The Seven Things"!*


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all.   When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  You are a liar.  No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3* and* #4* of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2* is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3* contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5* is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6* contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> 
> *#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes "The Seven Things"!*
Click to expand...


You are retarded.  LOL


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.
> 
> You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell?  Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals.  Maybe it was when we were apes.  Pre man.  I guess it started before we could even talk.  We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.
> 
> The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god?  When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to  you and you KNOW he cares.  Not only exists but also cares.  Silly rabbit.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah... I forgot how you believe in MAGIC!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.
> 
> You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell?  Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals.  Maybe it was when we were apes.  Pre man.  I guess it started before we could even talk.  We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.
> 
> The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god?  When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to  you and you KNOW he cares.  Not only exists but also cares.  Silly rabbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah... I forgot how you believe in MAGIC!
Click to expand...


Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.



Yep. 

My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry soon Rawlings will move on to these 6 truths.  I’m just getting it out there now so you know we already know what all your bad arguments are and why they are bad.  Do you agree with these 6 reasons why god is real?  Sucker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _are_ you talking about?  The Seven Things hold true for all of us, and you keep putting yourself down for all of them in most everything you say.  You're not even in touch with your own reality.
Click to expand...

Your nonsensical "five things" later revised to the "seven things" is a laughable fraud.

We have you down for an admitted fraud.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
Click to expand...

His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven. 

You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth. 

So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
Click to expand...


Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't like not knowing what happens when we die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all.   When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  You are a liar.  No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3* and* #4* of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2* is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3* contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5* is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6* contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> 
> *#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes "The Seven Things"!*
Click to expand...


Everyone escapes the fraud of the seven phony things.

*The Seven PhonyThings 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. *The cosmological order exists!

_*Cosmology*_ 
*1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*

*Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*


*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. *If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!*
*You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.*

*One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.*

*6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!*

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. *All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
Click to expand...

So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
Click to expand...


I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
Click to expand...

Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?

I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
Click to expand...


Finally we agree on something, minus the god thing.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
Click to expand...


So the same way there are no atheists there are no theists?  Because no atheist can KNOW there is no god(s) which is why we even admit that the best position to have is agnostic atheists.  

So in reality you are an agnostic theist.  Good to know.

Only one question.  I thought god talks to you?  If he does talk to you, why aren't you sure?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you present another logical fallacy. Why would they think ANYTHING happens when we die? The very notion that humans contemplated what happens after we die is SPIRITUAL! So again, you are pointing to spirituality to explain why we "invented" spirituality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all.   When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  You are a liar.  No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3* and* #4* of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2* is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3* contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5* is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6* contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> 
> *#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes "The Seven Things"!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are retarded.  LOL
Click to expand...


His reasoning is sound... that you 'feel' that sound reasoning is a sign of sub-standard cognition, doesn't bode well for you own cognitive means.  

What you've just managed to do there is profess the classic progressive response to superior reasoning, the oft touted but never successful: "Nuh Huh" retort... 

While popular in some otherwise unenviable circles, it amounts to little more than the consistent product of the Intellectual Minimum Wage.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pointing to wishful thinking.  It's all in your heads Boss.  Doesn't make it real.
> 
> God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do  you keep putting yourself down for all of The Seven Things in everything you say?  That's Weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the 6 things you would say and a quick reply to what I would say back.  Go back and re read.  And then hammer those 6 things as if they are all undeniable facts, just like you're doing with your 7 dwarfs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether God actually exists or not, The Seven Things are logically true for us all.   When you imply that's not true, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  When you imply that I have argued anything else but that, you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.  You are a liar.  No one escapes The Seven Things, liar.
> 
> *Seelybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3* and* #4* of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2* is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3* contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5* is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6* contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> 
> *#5* reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as *#7* merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes "The Seven Things"!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are retarded.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His reasoning is sound... that you 'feel' that sound reasoning is a sign of sub-standard cognition, doesn't bode well for you own cognitive means.
> 
> What you've just managed to do there is profess the classic progressive response to superior reasoning, the oft touted but never successful: "Nuh Huh" retort...
> 
> While popular in some otherwise unenviable circles, it amounts to little more than the consistent product of the Intellectual Minimum Wage.
Click to expand...

Since when is a viciously circular argument, predefined to reach an assumed conclusion and furthered by a fundie zealot described as sound reasoning?

That's an argument only you cultists would propose.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the same way there are no atheists there are no theists?  Because no atheist can KNOW there is no god(s) which is why we even admit that the best position to have is agnostic atheists.
> 
> So in reality you are an agnostic theist.  Good to know.
> 
> Only one question.  I thought god talks to you?  If he does talk to you, why aren't you sure?
Click to expand...


No, I am not an agnostic theist... whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. I am a Spiritualist. And I've never claimed that God "talks" to me. I said that I communicate with God daily. God doesn't "talk" or God would be human with human characteristics. I am inspired or moved by God to do certain things, to take certain actions, to behave in a certain way, to handle a situation in a certain way. 

I believe this is a real experience because of the evidence.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> 
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
Click to expand...


You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.


----------



## Hollie

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stating the obvious. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Thus you express your assent.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Cosmology*_
> *1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Again you express assent.  A design which serves to create intelligent life, would reasonably apply the law of large numbers to promote the likelihood of success.
> 
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.*
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Baseless conjecture.
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Stating the obvious... A non responsive response.*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> False... and obscurant... addled deflection.
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Irrational straw reasoning.
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they're not.*
Click to expand...

*
Baseless conjecture.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.*[/QUOTE]
How predictable.

It's always apparent when the fundie zealots have been thoroughly refuted. They stutter and mumble, write in bold colored text and only respond with pointless one-liners.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
Click to expand...


You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition. 

This is TAG:

1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
2. knowledge exists.
3. therefore god exists. 

Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_. 


*Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.

It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated.

Knowledge has no requirement for gods. The nonsensical TAG argument offered its first premise as a failed statement.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
Click to expand...


But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented. 

And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge caot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Click to expand...

Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.

MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.

TAG was the subject at hand.

Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT 

you're johnny come lately

I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question. 


You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> End of thought!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot about you.  Got ya down for sev
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism, i.e., a divinity of a lower order. If that‘s your concept, that‘s fine. At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> So we have you down for *#1*, *#2* and *#3*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#3 *does not preclude the potentiality of pantheism ... At this point, *#3 *allows for that, while the imposition of your personal bias, not mine, _would_ preclude the necessarily emphatic acknowledgment of the undeniable potentiality of the highest order of divinity that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it really does not sink in for you other positions than your own ... and that the highest order of divinity, is not the highest order.
> 
> the highest order = Everlasting
> 
> 
> the Everlasting created = _The possibility that God exists_ - (and is the uncreated Creator of all other things that exist, including the cosmological order), can be logically ruled out. ... God is not the creator of "all" things.
> 
> 
> the Almighty did not create Good and Evil, they were conquered one over the other Good over Evil - the story of Noah.
> 
> 
> the God of this thread.
> 
> the proof for God is life without sin.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I can make any sense out of here is the idea that God did not create evil, so you're objecting to the statement that God is the Creator of *all *other things that exist.  This implies that you believe evil exists.  Right?  Fair enough.  I expected this to be raised at some time.  But consider this: the highest conceivable standard of divinity entails the idea  of absolute perfection.  That's why I have written "unparalleled greatness and perfection."  Some think they can limit God to a one-dimensional reality as they disregard the obvious implications of the construct of infinity or be careless about the standard of divinity, not define it, more at, not assert the only objectively defensible standard that does not beg the question or collapse under the weight of the problem of evil . . . always lurking in the background.
> 
> God cannot be what He is not. God is not evil.  God cannot do evil.  God didn't create evil.
> 
> Evil has no meaning apart from sentience.  Hence, evil is something that was created by sentient creatures.  The matter is complex, and no one on this thread is ready for that one because most of them cannot get beyond their one-dimensional reality, even though everything we know from the laws of thought and the cosmos beyond our minds screams a multidimensional reality, which is key to understanding the problem. So just understand that the highest order of divinity necessarily entails absolute perfection in attribution and action.
> 
> There also seems to be the idea that good has no meaning except in terms of a dichotomy where there is the presence of evil, and that the norm is sinless existence.
> 
> _Sigh_
> 
> Write coherent sentences.  If what you're trying to get at is so friggin' obvious it should be something that can be coherently stated.  Enough of the broken, disjointed, stuttering, sputtering gibberish.
Click to expand...

.

you simply lack reason in your judgement - and refuse to address the Everlasting as the basis for all that exists.

Everlasting = all Creation, God included.

.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge cannot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Click to expand...

Did someone slip you a dose of the date rape drug?


----------



## G.T.

The "seven things" for all intents and purposes -- are a fucking side show in order to try to save the failure that is TAG.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the same way there are no atheists there are no theists?  Because no atheist can KNOW there is no god(s) which is why we even admit that the best position to have is agnostic atheists.
> 
> So in reality you are an agnostic theist.  Good to know.
> 
> Only one question.  I thought god talks to you?  If he does talk to you, why aren't you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not an agnostic theist... whatever the fuck that is supposed to be. I am a Spiritualist. And I've never claimed that God "talks" to me. I said that I communicate with God daily. God doesn't "talk" or God would be human with human characteristics. I am inspired or moved by God to do certain things, to take certain actions, to behave in a certain way, to handle a situation in a certain way.
> 
> I believe this is a real experience because of the evidence.
Click to expand...


I have no need for religion.  I have a conscience.  

Atheists generally derive their sense of right and wrong from an innate and reasoned understanding of which actions contribute towards a society most hospitable to continual well-being and personal fulfillment. They are accountable to their own conscience and to society at large. They do not require an absolute standard in order to make distinctions between the possible effects of their actions.

Atheists are attuned to the here and now. Their ethics are not derived from some reward or punishment after death, but from a rational consideration of the consequences in this life.  Impulsive desires are compassionately, empathetically and intelligently weighed against long term personal and social goals.

As social animals that have evolved to want and give love, to have freedom and security, we have learned that we are safer, stronger and more prosperous in a successful group. Crimes are inherently anti-social behaviors that introduce needless risk and are antithetical to the long-term needs and goals of a happy, stable society.

Essentially all theists unknowingly exercise their innate ‘morality’ or conscience by picking and choosing which parts of their religion to follow.


----------



## G.T.

If anyone can disprove the primacy of existence, they can then say that 'knowledge requires god' is an axiom.

But like god itself, the primacy of existence cannot be disproven.

This means that you cannot call whatever theory you may have for the origin of absolute truth an "axiom."

It is not rational to do so.

Developmentally mature minds know this.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
Click to expand...




> Boss: My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.








your dead wrong bossy, as mortals learning the truth is the achievable goal that is the key to Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge caot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.
> 
> MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.
> 
> TAG was the subject at hand.
> 
> Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT
> 
> you're johnny come lately
> 
> I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.
> 
> 
> You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.
Click to expand...


Again... just because there is a circular reasoning doesn't mean it's incorrect. 

1. Crime is committed by criminals. 
2. There are lots of criminals. 
3. Crime is high because there are lots of criminals.

Circular reasoning, but absolutely valid. 

Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.

Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's.

So basically, pointing to one small part of an argument and screaming "circular reasoning!" is foolish and doesn't comport with rationality.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> I have no need for religion. I have a conscience.



Then you are spiritually guided.


----------



## G.T.

So now you went from its not begging the question - to "other arguments beg the question."

You agree right, it begs the question.

I'll continue once you answer.

BTW your argument with the criminals is not the same thing. Crime is high is your conclusion. Crime is high is not in your premise.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> So now you went from its not begging the question - to "other arguments beg the question."
> 
> You agree right, it begs the question.
> 
> I'll continue once you answer.
> 
> BTW your argument with the criminals is not the same thing. Crime is high is your conclusion. Crime is high is not in your premise.



As I said, circular reasoning is perfectly acceptable as part of an overall argument. I just gave you examples of Newton and Einstein, two of the greatest scientific minds the world has known, and how they used circular reasoning in their theories. So whether the TAG argument IS or ISN'T circular reasoning, makes no difference to the overall argument Rawlings presents. 

And yes, my crime argument is still circular reasoning, I may not have put it in the proper format for you to comprehend it as such, but it's still a circular argument.


----------



## G.T.

I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?

Please - lettuce snow what you think.

And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'

Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.

Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?

Is TAG circular boss?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe in *#6* of "The Seven Things" He's telling you that I AM! Now, the balls in your court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...


That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Slamming the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways*
> *
> *
> If you're going to complain about things like that, at least refer to them in a coherent manner, you know, so that we can clearly see that once again you don't know what you're talking about: _latently innate ideas_ are those that are necessarily true axiomatically/tautologically due to the dictates of the laws of thought. These are the biochemically hardwired axioms that immediately, intuitively, adhere to the hardwired infrastructure of human cognition. Together, these are regarded to be _a_ _priori knowledge_, as opposed to _a posteriori_ knowledge. We don't think newborn infants compute 2 + 2 = 4 as such right out of the womb, though within three to sixth months they are able to make out the foundational mathematical, geometric and dimensional distinctions. Is that your point? _Yawn_ The latent innate ideas of morality and divinity take more time to develop as they are of a higher intellectual order, but they are no less axiomatically _a priori. _That's why I had to add these new terms and the distinction between the nature of the two kinds of knowledge in order to "unconfuse" you in the above.
> 
> By the way: Babies Are Born With Some Math Skills Science AAAS News
> 
> 
> 
> There are no innate ideas of morality or divinity.
> 
> There is no such thing as "justice" or innate ideas of morality or divinity beyond what human communities implement of their own accord. The innate ideas of morality or divinity to which you carelessly refer has no existence beyond the mechanisms we create out of our own self interest. This is the ultimate source of all morality, all ethics, all law, and all "justice."
> 
> Dude! I am quite certain you believe the confused, absolutist positions you take to be true. But words *are* ideas. But no amount of appeals to gawds, "_Five Pointless Things_"*™*, revised "_Seven Even More Pointless Things_"*™* will get you out from under the indefensible philosophical position you have taken.
> 
> Dude!
Click to expand...


So why are saying that your absolutes are true?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.
> 
> Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.
> 
> They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.
> 
> Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!
> 
> Dude!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> You just appealed to authority, and you also lied.
> 
> All in one post. Tag and 2+2=4 are not the same type of argument.
> 
> 2+2=4 is axiomatic.
> 
> God is necessary for knowledge is not axiomatic.
> 
> One begs the question and is viciously circular, the other is not.
> 
> 
> Let's see any peer reviewed paper from 'academia' regarding TAG.
> 
> PUT UP, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't forget the peer review part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well hold on, G.T.
> 
> If Whatever that created the Universe is God, then God is necessary for the universe to exist(or else there would not be a universe).  In order to  gain knowledge from the universe, the existence of the Universe must be and therefore God is necessary for this case.
> 
> Note--I am using a very restrictive definition of God here.  I don't think this is what people were actually trying to argue for or against.  But I have no qualms with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're missing something
> 
> The universe isn't proven to have been creatED.
> 
> IT EXISTS =\= it was created. Created infers a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What created the creator?  You can't have this both ways.  If something MUST HAVE created us, something then MUST HAVE created the creator.  Who are god's parents?
> 
> Why does the thing or event that created us have to be a god?  I think you have to believe the bible or koran to believe in an invisible man who created us, loves us but sends most of us to burn in hell forever.  Without the lies and myths of organized religion, all we have is wild speculation and wishful thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say we were created. You must a misread my post.
> 
> =\= means does NOT equal.
Click to expand...


GT =


----------



## G.T.

Justin, go be daft in corner somewhere. Or if md needs his pipe cleaned.......


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> My only point of contention is man's inability to absolutely *know* truth. The best mortals can do is _BELIEVE_ they know truth. Only God can *know* truth.
> 
> 
> 
> His commentary is that they're absolute facts, the seven.
> 
> You follow agreeing with that, by saying that you don't think man can know absolute truth.
> 
> So you either agree with md or you do not, that "the seven" are "absolute facts of human cognition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, they are as "absolute" as human cognition is capable of. I think he makes a sound argument, which is what the thread OP asked for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't mind an argument begging the question, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the argument begs the question, nor do I think you've demonstrated that. You do keep saying it... you're just not making the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
Click to expand...


And then we go to the fact that people with common sense don't say/believe that tautologies, axioms, postulates or theorems beg the question in classical logic, constructive logic, model logic or mathematical theory.  Why? Because they're necessarily true intuitively, and most of them are demonstrably true empirically, which means you want all the axioms but one.  Looks like sweet music for me, but a paradox for you.

Let's review:


*Locking the Door on GT's Shape-Shifting Ways and Throwing Away the Key*

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

*[Edit:  it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic.  Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents.  Hence, these can be empirically supported.  Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms.  Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates.  So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here.  Sorry for the confusion.]*

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!



Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumIs There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be _known_ by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can _exist_ independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can _exist_ without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can _exist_ independent of and/or without God.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are damn right superstition is a spiritual concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if superstition is a spiritual concept, it couldn't be the basis for our inventing spirituality. This defies logic. You are essentially trying to argue that the thing which invented spirituality was something spiritual.
> 
> You have shown NO evidence of when on the timeline of human history, man supposedly "invented" spirituality. NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH! In fact, you argue a logical fallacy... that something spiritual caused man to invent spirituality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe it was back when we were a single cell organism or when we somehow became multi cell?  Maybe it was back when we were little harry rodent like mammals.  Maybe it was when we were apes.  Pre man.  I guess it started before we could even talk.  We were scared curious yet intelligent enough to wonder and have imaginations.
> 
> The question is, when did you guys go from saying you believe to you know there is a god?  When did you guys first start lying to us and yourselves telling everyone god talks to  you and you KNOW he cares.  Not only exists but also cares.  Silly rabbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah... I forgot how you believe in MAGIC!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are his 7 points valid to you?  Just wondering.
Click to expand...


Your problem, sealybobo, is that you're trying to make these things that on the very face them are self-evidently true, logically, and torture them into something they're not. Now, you've talked your way into a corner where the only thing left standing between you and these objective facts of human cognition is foolish pride.

By the way, that's your fault, not mine, and also I just noticed that I've been writing _seelybobo_, when it's _sealybobo_.  That wasn't intentional.  I simply put _seelybobo_ in my head and have been writing that ever since.  Sorry.


----------



## emilynghiem

MrDVS1 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.
> 
> I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.
> 
> Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.
Click to expand...


Hi MrDVS1
What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?

Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.

Anything wrong with that idea?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?
> 
> Please - lettuce snow what you think.
> 
> And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'
> 
> Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.
> 
> Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?
> 
> Is TAG circular boss?



It's axiomatic from my perspective. 

Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?
> 
> Please - lettuce snow what you think.
> 
> And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'
> 
> Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.
> 
> Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?
> 
> Is TAG circular boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's axiomatic from my perspective.
> 
> Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.
Click to expand...

The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?
> 
> Please - lettuce snow what you think.
> 
> And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'
> 
> Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.
> 
> Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?
> 
> Is TAG circular boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's axiomatic from my perspective.
> 
> Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit
Click to expand...


You forgot again, within minutes.  Oh, well, let's review, *Post #3504: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10082017/*


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean - is tag circular or is it not boss?
> 
> Please - lettuce snow what you think.
> 
> And yes, circles alone don't make something fallacious; however they typically ARE fallacious hence 'begging the question' is specifically defined as an informal fallacy. Not an informal 'sound argument.'
> 
> Axioms are how circular reasoning escapes fallacy.
> 
> Do you know how something does or does not qualify as an axiom boss?
> 
> Is TAG circular boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's axiomatic from my perspective.
> 
> Again... the only problem with a "circular reasoning" argument is, it doesn't stand alone to prove something. You've adopted this phobia of circular reasoning which is highly illogical. You do know who Newton and Einstein are, don't you? Are you ready to claim they were idiots who used circular reasoning? I hope not because that would make you a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron would be the dude who read my post and then followed it with questions that the post itself answers. Dipshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot again, within minutes.  Oh, well, let's review, *Post #3504: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10082017/*
Click to expand...

I don't read your obsessive copy pastes that duck the issue any more dude.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots* 
*
1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That's weird.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.


The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.

In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others. 

Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.


----------



## BreezeWood

> *mdr:* *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.



mdr et all, you belittle humanity by your exclusivity there exists thought that is particularly human ... good luck pushing Daisies, those who aspire will be doing so - beyond the grave.
.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't​*
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FAIL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so eloquently labeled "things!"
> 
> cuz theyre just................"things!"
> 
> lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.
Click to expand...


Catch them and keep them.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *   2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't​*
> 
> 
> 
> 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 6.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> . All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FAIL!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so eloquently labeled "things!"
> 
> cuz theyre just................"things!"
> 
> lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catch them and keep them.
Click to expand...

Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them. 

I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.


Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.



When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'

A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.

The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.


You don't get it, huh?

Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.

No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.



Is there theological reason for the number 7 in these things, God's number, or is it just a coincidence?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do and so do gnats and warthogs and Brugmansia.   No it doesn't​Not in everyone's mind. Some people have never even heard of the god you speak of. Everyone in history certainly hasn't. Yes it can. The idea that Zeus used to throw down lightning bolts can be logically ruled out even though milions of people once believed in him. See how easy that is.
> How so? Maybe there are two gods. Also claiming "if" doesn't help your argument in any way.
> But it can verify much of the events in the bible did not exist rendering it unreliable for any credibility.
> What you are saying is god can only exist to people who are illogical or whose minds that don't use logic.
> *FAIL!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so eloquently labeled "things!"
> 
> cuz theyre just................"things!"
> 
> lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catch them and keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.
> 
> I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.
> 
> 
> Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.
> 
> 
> 
> When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'
> 
> A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.
> 
> The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.
> 
> 
> You don't get it, huh?
> 
> Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.
> 
> No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!
Click to expand...


I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well.  I don't see the problem.  No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom.  That's  rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical.  That's what I get from him.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a proof for God's existence, though it does contain an axiomatic proof of a necessary enabling condition that *cannot be refuted*.  These things are objectively true logically, absolutely and universally, and apprehended as such  upon reflection.  That some may have never really thought about them, like you (LOL!), is irrelevant.
> 
> These things are and cannot be refuted.  There's no fail. The failure is your mindlessness. Your foolishness has been utterly demolished on this thread and by the real world of human thought everyday of the year.  Every mentally competent human being knows or may know once these things are  put to him that the highest conceivable standard of divinity is an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled greatness, contingent on no one or anything else.  *#3 - #7* necessarily follow from *#1* and* #2*.
> 
> If you came here to embarrass yourself, atheism or atheists have it, but don't you think for one moment, boy, that your intellect is worth two seconds of anybody's time if this is gong to be your attitude.  Out of pity I gave your arrogant stupidity fifteen minutes.  Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and so eloquently labeled "things!"
> 
> cuz theyre just................"things!"
> 
> lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catch them and keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.
> 
> I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.
> 
> 
> Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.
> 
> 
> 
> When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'
> 
> A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.
> 
> The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.
> 
> 
> You don't get it, huh?
> 
> Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.
> 
> No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well.  I don't see the problem.  No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom.  That's  rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical.  That's what I get from him.
Click to expand...

2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality. We defined what two means, and two of them equals four, which we also defined. This does not beh the question as tag does because 4(conclusion) is not also within the premises (2&2).


"Knowledge requires god" cannot be an axiom because A: god is not universally accepted to exist(axioms are universally accepted by definition.....and psst.  Md doesn't know that)....and b, its not an axiom because there's no 'necessity' proven for it to BE. 


these things are over a presuppers head 


The law of identity and non contradiction don't magically cease if a sentient transcendent mind isn't out there. The primacy of existence explains their basis just fine (as an alternate theory).

The hubris of not acknowledging that what TAG says is not an axiom because other possibilities re not disproven and also no.necessity is shown for tag to be true is fucking astounding. Its the most grandiose lack of humility in the most boneheaded way.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The angry, self-hating fundie crank has lost it.
> 
> With his pointless "seven phony things" exposed as nothing more than an exercise in self-refuting, viciously circular reasoning, the crank is left to stutter and mumble.
> 
> 
> 
> and so eloquently labeled "things!"
> 
> cuz theyre just................"things!"
> 
> lol, im starting to catch the "things!" tourettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catch them and keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I.don't agree with them all so.I.can't quite keep them.
> 
> I agreed that god is.an idea in our brains.
> 
> 
> Cuz pretty much everyone has heard of god. That's why I agreed. In our head by way of word of.mouth, or reading.
> 
> 
> 
> When the okie doke was pulled, it changed to 'biologically hardwired.'
> 
> A rational mind cannot agree with that as fact without biological proof behind it, since it references biology.
> 
> The canaard is then calling it an 'incontrovertible fact of human cognition,' which it is not even a biological fact yet, so it doesn't even necessitate negation because it is not even established in the first place.
> 
> 
> You don't get it, huh?
> 
> Your hero is a dunce who misses simplistic nuances which call into question his entire basis of thought.
> 
> No problem! He believes the same as you believe and so his word salads must be nutrient dense! They must!!! Just cuz!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just poking at you. I though he explained that pretty well.  I don't see the problem.  No one doubts that 2 + 2 = 4 is an axiom.  That's  rationally automatic because of the rules of thought, not empirical.  That's what I get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality. We defined what two means, and two of them equals four, which we also defined. This does not beh the question as tag does because 4(conclusion) is not also within the premises (2&2).
> 
> 
> "Knowledge requires god" cannot be an axiom because A: god is not universally accepted to exist(axioms are universally accepted by definition.....and psst.  Md doesn't know that)....and b, its not an axiom because there's no 'necessity' proven for it to BE.
> 
> 
> these things are over a presuppers head
> 
> 
> The law of identity and non contradiction don't magically cease if a sentient transcendent mind isn't out there. The primacy of existence explains their basis just fine (as an alternate theory).
> 
> The hubris of not acknowledging that what TAG says is not an axiom because other possibilities re not disproven and also no.necessity is shown for tag to be true is fucking astounding. Its the most grandiose lack of humility in the most boneheaded way.
Click to expand...


Yes. That's why mathematical propositions are assigned a truth value in constructive logic even though their essence is purely _a priori_.  You're dispute with the God axiom is that it cannot be directly verified empirically as we can by math by simply taking two apples, example, adding two and see that we have four, but it is no less axiomatically true and of the very same a priori nature  than any of the other axioms of human cognition. 

Besides, all of your nonsensical objections are not valid in formal logic at all.  In fact, if you were right, there's of lot of things that according to your "logic"  you couldn't legitimately do in logic and science that we do all the time.  Sorry.  But you're making baby talk and we don't hamstring in real-world logic and science so you can say you're right and I'm wrong while you throw a fit over facts you don't like.

Oh, well. 

The atheist fanatics are wrong. 

No soup for you.


----------



## G.T.

Non answer. Presupper in 3d. Dip duck dodge.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> 2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality.



No, it's a mathematical equation that is correct most of the time. It has been proven not to be correct all the time in quantum mechanics. IF I have two atoms, each with two electrons orbiting, then I have 4 electrons total... but if one of the electrons has vanished, it is not there, it no longer exists and I don't have 4, I only have 3. IF one of the electrons is in two places at the same time, I have 5. So, 2+2=3 sometimes, and 2+2=5 sometimes, and sometimes 2+2=4, all depending on the present state of the electron. 2+2 might also equal 6 or 8 or 0. 

Yep... this is a total mind fuck and screws up physics completely... that's why they invented quantum physics.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there theological reason for the number 7 in these things, God's number, or is it just a coincidence?
Click to expand...


Of course the reason _7_ is God's number starts with the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.  The theological understanding of that goes to the idea that all of the divine attributes of God, His power and knowledge and universal presence and authority, are displayed in the creation of the universe, and the fact that He is the all-encompassing, universal Principle of Identity for all that exists, including the creation of six days, is symbolized in the seventh day of rest, the final "God saw that it was good and rested on that fact."

Now the Seven Things do in fact correspond to the six basic facts of human cognition that God gave man to recognize His existence in terms of the number 7, including #5, as God requires faith and trust in Him in order to know Him.  Hence, God, the universal Principle of Identity always asserts six things again and again throughout scripture and declares them to be good, the seventh, summarizing declaration!  In biblical terms while God provides the _six_ philosophical facts of existence and provides for our ability to apprehend them, He doesn't allow that human reasoning alone constitutes righteousness. The faith of obedience constitutes righteousness.  Remember all "the God counted it as righteousness unto  so and so's" in the Bible because so and so believed?  That's your #5 in the contemporary terms of science.

There are always 6 related declarations regarding comprehensive wholes with God, number 7, backing them.  Word.

As for the Whether or Knots:  Coincidence. One could do those anyway one wanted I suppose. They just so happen to come in that order and in that number, logically and economically.  So maybe they do line up something in the Bible to the negative, ending with the foolishness of denying Him.  But I make no such claim as fact.

But, yes, The Seven Things of human cognition do in fact correspond with the six declarations of existence and origin declared in the Bible with God, number 7, backing it all up in summary, declaring what He has revealed about His creation and about Himself in His creation is good.

In short:

1. You exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. I'm the Creator.
4. I'm great.
5. You must embrace Me via faith.
6. You cannot rationally deny My Existence. I AM!
7. These things are true and good.

There are only six and the one summary regarding the issues of existence and origin throughout the Bible and in our minds!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2+2=4 is not a concept. Its a physical reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's a mathematical equation that is correct most of the time. It has been proven not to be correct all the time in quantum mechanics. IF I have two atoms, each with two electrons orbiting, then I have 4 electrons total... but if one of the electrons has vanished, it is not there, it no longer exists and I don't have 4, I only have 3. IF one of the electrons is in two places at the same time, I have 5. So, 2+2=3 sometimes, and 2+2=5 sometimes, and sometimes 2+2=4, all depending on the present state of the electron. 2+2 might also equal 6 or 8 or 0.
> 
> Yep... this is a total mind fuck and screws up physics completely... that's why they invented quantum physics.
Click to expand...


Yes.  But remember at the subatomic level of quantum physics, the rules change because the premise changes, but the math has no problem following.  We still have the same basic principles of subtraction and addition, for example.  We just know that things jump and pop and move, appear and disappear, albeit, in a rational and semi-predictable way in terms of providing stability and solidity for the Newtonian level of our everyday perception of things.  In other words, the same basic principles of math hold up; they just have be applied in such way that they "jump and pop and move, appear and disappear" with the phenomena.  In fact, we have learned enough now that we can sometimes predict where the electron will pop up next or the places it will simultaneously occupy, from one moment to the next, depending on the conditions.  But we still have a lot more to learn before we can do it every time, and we do believe it can be done every time eventually with more knowledge.

We now know the so-called uncertainty principle is actually an inherent characteristic of wave-like systems, a basic property of quantum phenomena, not an issue of observation as previously thought, though technological can cause problems.  So we're working on better technologies that are less and less intrusive that  let us see what's happening without causing things to happen as a result of the effects of the technology  used to observe.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*

*Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*



sealybobo said:


> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.



You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.

What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

*sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*

*sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

_Crickets chirping_

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

_Yawn_

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*


*Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what.  This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

*That's weird.*

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

*That's not only weird, but magical.  *

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?

*sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.
> 
> .



I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this _physiology_ term means exactly.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this _physiology_ term means exactly.
Click to expand...

.
what physically keeps us alive, the physical form, organism of each individual living being ... the dictionary was not my friend on what I believed it meant - simply our bodies, including by our, everything living.

to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting requires a Sabbath - before the physiology that keeps us alive expires.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.
> 
> Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.
> 
> What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?
> 
> Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*
> 
> We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*
> 
> We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*
> 
> Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> *sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."
> 
> Really?
> 
> Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*
> 
> *sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.
> 
> One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.
> 
> Ah! I've got it!
> 
> No such grand theory exists.
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.
> 
> _Yawn_
> 
> So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*
> 
> And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*
> 
> 
> *Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.
> 
> So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?
> 
> Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what.  This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.
> 
> *That's weird.*
> 
> The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.
> 
> *That's not only weird, but magical.  *
> 
> Hocus Pocus.
> 
> Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*
> 
> Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?
> 
> *sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"
> 
> Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.
> 
> Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.
Click to expand...


Wow!  Good post but you wrote "there" for "their" in one sentence.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.
> 
> In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.
Click to expand...


Theists are stupid.  Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.
> 
> In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?
Click to expand...



Yeah,.  I saw that latter while scrolling down.  Too late, past 90 minutes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge caot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.
> 
> MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.
> 
> TAG was the subject at hand.
> 
> Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT
> 
> you're johnny come lately
> 
> I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.
> 
> 
> You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... just because there is a circular reasoning doesn't mean it's incorrect.
> 
> 1. Crime is committed by criminals.
> 2. There are lots of criminals.
> 3. Crime is high because there are lots of criminals.
> 
> Circular reasoning, but absolutely valid.
> 
> Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.
> 
> Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's.
> 
> So basically, pointing to one small part of an argument and screaming "circular reasoning!" is foolish and doesn't comport with rationality.
Click to expand...


Actually, these are tautologies, seemingly true, though, in Newton's case, subject to empirical verification, by definition or necessity in formal logic. 

Circular reasoning or begging the question are _informal_ logical fallacies that sometimes lead to false conclusions, but not for well-founded rational objects, but typically for empirical objects.  So GT's objection  isn't even in the same ballpark.  We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not we wipe out virtually every a priori axiom we necessarily need to do any practical.  GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.

The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist.  Or you can look at this way:  he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator.  How could that be?  No Creator, nothing exists.  Either way of looking at it, the assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it.  We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are logically and inescapably true axioms, anyway you shake a stick at them.  But most importantly, we cannot do without such axiomatic intuitions in science either. 

GT's labeling of the God axiom as such is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 7 - was not a day of rest but a declaration for sucess of an absolute completion, a Sabbath the same as the type necessary for for the Spirit to persist post its physiology.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with that, though I don't know what this _physiology_ term means exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> what physically keeps us alive, the physical form, organism of each individual living being ... the dictionary was not my friend on what I believed it meant - simply our bodies, including by our, everything living.
> 
> to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting requires a Sabbath - before the physiology that keeps us alive expires.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Let me ask this again, because you have never answered me... What kind of fucked up religion ARE you? 

I keep hearing you basically quoting 2 Peter with talk of the Everlasting and Almighty, but you bash Christianity... so what gives?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Actually, I'm a little sleepy. 


Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.
> 
> Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.
> 
> What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?
> 
> Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*
> 
> We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*
> 
> We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*
> 
> Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_, infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> *sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."
> 
> Really?
> 
> Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in there own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*
> 
> *sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.
> 
> One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.
> 
> Ah! I've got it!
> 
> No such grand theory exists.
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.
> 
> _Yawn_
> 
> So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*
> 
> And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*
> 
> 
> *Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.
> 
> So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?
> 
> Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what.  This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.
> 
> *That's weird.*
> 
> The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.
> 
> *That's not only weird, but magical.  *
> 
> Hocus Pocus.
> 
> Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*
> 
> Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?
> 
> *sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"
> 
> Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.
> 
> Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!  Good post but you wrote "there" for "their" in one sentence.
Click to expand...



Actually, I'm a little sleepy.  I see that I wrote a jumbled post to Boss about the God axiom, missing words.  In another post I wrote _latter_ for _later_.  LOL!  Bed time. 

*Hey, Boss! * As for BreezeWood's religion, I've been able to piece it together a bit at a time.  He's definitely into some form of pantheism with some Christian ideas sprinkled over it.  He also has a very interesting idea about the problem of evil that's not too far off the mark, really, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on there for obvious reasons.  If only he'd write coherent posts!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there theological reason for the number 7 in these things, God's number, or is it just a coincidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the reason _7_ is God's number starts with the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest.  The theological understanding of that goes to the idea that all of the divine attributes of God, His power and knowledge and universal presence and authority, are displayed in the creation of the universe, and the fact that He is the all-encompassing, universal Principle of Identity for all that exists, including the creation of six days, is symbolized in the seventh day of rest, the final "God saw that it was good and rested on that fact."
> 
> Now the Seven Things do in fact correspond to the six basic facts of human cognition that God gave man to recognize His existence in terms of the number 7, including #5, as God requires faith and trust in Him in order to know Him.  Hence, God, the universal Principle of Identity always asserts six things again and again throughout scripture and declares them to be good, the seventh, summarizing declaration!  In biblical terms while God provides the _six_ philosophical facts of existence and provides for our ability to apprehend them, He doesn't allow that human reasoning alone constitutes righteousness. The faith of obedience constitutes righteousness.  Remember all "the God counted it as righteousness unto  so and so's" in the Bible because so and so believed?  That's your #5 in the contemporary terms of science.
> 
> There are always 6 related declarations regarding comprehensive wholes with God, number 7, backing them.  Word.
> 
> As for the Whether or Knots:  Coincidence. One could do those anyway one wanted I suppose. They just so happen to come in that order and in that number, logically and economically.  So maybe they do line up something in the Bible to the negative, ending with the foolishness of denying Him.  But I make no such claim as fact.
> 
> But, yes, The Seven Things of human cognition do in fact correspond with the six declarations of existence and origin declared in the Bible with God, number 7, backing it all up in summary, declaring what He has revealed about His creation and about Himself in His creation is good.
> 
> In short:
> 
> 1. You exist.
> 2. The universe exists.
> 3. I'm the Creator.
> 4. I'm great.
> 5. You must embrace Me via faith.
> 6. You cannot rationally deny My Existence. I AM!
> 7. These things are true and good.
> 
> There are only six and the one summary regarding the issues of existence and origin throughout the Bible and in our minds!
Click to expand...


*"The Seven Bindingly Stupid Incoherent Whether or Knots"* 

I'm afraid this is nothing more than cheap proselytizing. Your newly revised "seven pointless things" is simply another version of your earlier failed "five pointless things"

What's remarkable is that you just stole the claims of earlier religions which made similar grandiose claims.

To the back of the line you go with your used, second hand gawds.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.
> 
> In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,.  I saw that latter while scrolling down.  Too late, past 90 minutes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address. 

In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots*
> *
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the  axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for  adhering to the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian inventions of gawds (the gawds stolen from Judaism) are not bioneurologically hardwired. That claim is pointless, unsubstantiated and therefore false.
> 
> In typical fashion for religious zealots, you're trying to force your gawds onto others.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and stop being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theists are stupid.  Great argument, have you got any paradoxes to go with that?
Click to expand...

That was not my argument. Could it be you're too stupid read what is written and offer a coherent response?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Hey, Boss! * As for BreezeWood's religion, I've been able to piece it together a bit at a time.  He's definitely into some form of pantheism with some Christian ideas sprinkled over it.  He also has a very interesting idea about the problem of evil that's not too far off the mark, really, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on there for obvious reasons.  If only he'd write coherent posts!



Oh, he makes some good points sometimes, when you can decipher his posts. He believes that all living things have a spiritual connection to "The Almighty" and it's not exclusive to humans. I don't see the evidence but by golly he does post some pretty flower pictures. And hey... maybe he's right, maybe other living things have spirituality and we don't know it? I happen to think our unique connection to something spiritual is what distinguishes us from all other living things. 

I get a sort of Buddhist vibe there or maybe Hindu? He definitely has a distaste for the God of Abraham, even though he quotes 2Peter very astutely.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge caot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.
> 
> MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.
> 
> TAG was the subject at hand.
> 
> Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT
> 
> you're johnny come lately
> 
> I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.
> 
> 
> You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... just because there is a circular reasoning doesn't mean it's incorrect.
> 
> 1. Crime is committed by criminals.
> 2. There are lots of criminals.
> 3. Crime is high because there are lots of criminals.
> 
> Circular reasoning, but absolutely valid.
> 
> Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.
> 
> Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's.
> 
> So basically, pointing to one small part of an argument and screaming "circular reasoning!" is foolish and doesn't comport with rationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, these are tautologies, seemingly true, though, in Newton's case, subject to empirical verification, by definition or necessity in formal logic.
> 
> Circular reasoning or begging the question are _informal_ logical fallacies that sometimes lead to false conclusions, but not for well-founded rational objects, but typically for empirical objects.  So GT's objection  isn't even in the same ballpark.  We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not we wipe out virtually every a priori axiom we necessarily need to do any practical.  GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.
> 
> The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist.  Or you can look at this way:  he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator.  How could that be?  No Creator, nothing exists.  Either way of looking at it, the assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it.  We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are logically and inescapably true axioms, anyway you shake a stick at them.  But most importantly, we cannot do without such axiomatic intuitions in science either.
> 
> GT's labeling of the God axiom as such is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism.
Click to expand...


Your arguments for some imagined creator are boilerplate, unoriginal and just parrot the droning scripts of any of the extremist christian ministries.

Making scripted excuses for your viciously circular arguments doesn't relieve them of the failure to be be convincing or even readable. Your extremist religious views grant you no exceptions from your phony arguments being exposed as fraud.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.



In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case. 

If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals. 

Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
Click to expand...

As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists. 

Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.

You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.

To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
Click to expand...


Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists. 

Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence. 

There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic. 

Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
Click to expand...

You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.

As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.

And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.

What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall we start with the definition of begging the question?
> 
> I have demonstrated it, you may have missed it, but I certainly have. You came about 150 pages late to this thread dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not demonstrated jack shit. It's your opinion he is begging the question, I don't share your opinion. No need for you to post a definition, I know what the term means and I don't think his argument qualifies, nor do I think you've proven it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong, and/or don't know the definition.
> 
> This is TAG:
> 
> 1. knowledge caot exist without god.
> 2. knowledge exists.
> 3. therefore god exists.
> 
> Line three is what the argument is attempting to prove. It uses what it is attempting to prove - _*in line one*_.
> 
> 
> *Begging the question* means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
> 
> It fits the definition exactly, so saying that I've "demonstrated jack shit" is putting your fingers in your ears and going lalala, it's not an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that is not the "7 Things" argument Rawlings presented.
> 
> And... as for "circular reasoning" there is nothing which says circular reasoning is wrong. It may very well be correct. Circular reasoning is simply inadequate as definitive "proof" for something, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not the seven things, its the TAG as I aptly labeled it. Maybe if you didn't know what I was talking about you shouldn't have responded to begin with.
> 
> MD asserts that tag doesn't beg the question. If you don't know what brings that up? Look back in the thread. I'm not going to hand hold someone butting in years of pages later just because he thought he could a should a would a had a gotcha moment.
> 
> TAG was the subject at hand.
> 
> Md went onto the "7" in order to justify premise #1 OF THE TAG ARGUMENT
> 
> you're johnny come lately
> 
> I just demonstrated that TAG fits the exact definition of begging the question.
> 
> 
> You can disagree and flail your pom POM's all you want to, cute shit in a discussion doesn't really move me. It begs the question by virtue of the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... just because there is a circular reasoning doesn't mean it's incorrect.
> 
> 1. Crime is committed by criminals.
> 2. There are lots of criminals.
> 3. Crime is high because there are lots of criminals.
> 
> Circular reasoning, but absolutely valid.
> 
> Newton provided a mathematical basis for the simple idea that it takes a larger amount of force to move more massive objects from rest or to alter their trajectories, and for the first time quantified the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. He invented calculus to more precisely define the interrelationships between position, velocity, and acceleration of masses, but references to length (and optionally time) in his theory always involves circular reasoning.
> 
> Einstein was able to build on the work of Newton, Lorentz and the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment to demonstrate that length and time were not invariants, that the only universal "invariant" is the speed of light, and that nothing really makes sense in physics at higher velocities until this fundamental and relative relationship is taken into account. All of this was accomplished without reference to what a length (or time interval, or electromagnetic radiation) actually is, so it actually involved a greater amount circular reasoning than Newton's.
> 
> So basically, pointing to one small part of an argument and screaming "circular reasoning!" is foolish and doesn't comport with rationality.
Click to expand...


* Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. *
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

_All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green._

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is telling me "I AM"
> 
> God directly to me, Or supposedly Gd through some medium such as a book or person.
> 
> Do you see the difference here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
Click to expand...


The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> _All cups are green.
> Socrates is a cup.
> Therefore, Socrates is green._
> 
> Although the above argument is logically valid...



Are you sniffing glue this morning, silly boob? 

All cups are green.  (not logical, not valid)
Socrates is a cup. (not logical, not valid)
Therefore, Socrates is green. (still not logical or valid.)

Silly boob is not logical.
Silly boob is not valid.
Therefore, silly boob is not logically valid.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.
> 
> As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.
> 
> And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.
> 
> What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.
Click to expand...


*Yawn* More of the same... lack of an argument, denigrate Christians, be a smart ass, log off.

Scientists who study the human species are *ANTHROPOLOGISTS!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transcendental Argument, #6 of "The Seven Things":   Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 87 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
Click to expand...



They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.

There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
*
It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!

*You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
*
That is also *logically* true!

Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you're doing your best impression of a used religion salesman. And, just to keep you in the loop, humans actually are a species being studied by biologists.
> 
> Your hard sell for imagined spirit realms that are managed by magical gawds fails in the same your arguments always fail: "....because I say so", is not an argument anyone needs to spend time with.
> 
> You fundie Christians seem to have this expectation that you have some special exemption from actually supporting your outrageous claims. You make outrageous claims to spirit realms, magical gawds but you're never willing to actually take the next step and support your arguments.
> 
> To the back of the line for you, your spirit realms and your magical gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists who study humans are Anthropologists.
> 
> Spirituality can't be the product of imagination. 95% of a species doesn't imagine something into a fundamental behavioral attribute for all it's existence.
> 
> There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic.
> 
> Sweety, YOU are the one who continues to make "because I say so" arguments. You've yet to support anything you've stated in any of these threads. You can't even form any sort of coherent argument. You priss in here daily to interject your slams on Christians and repeat the same tired old nonsense that has already been soundly refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really fumbled the ball on that one. To not understand that humans actually are a species being studied by biologists calls into question your ability to operate in the rational world.
> 
> As is typical for religious zealots, your shrill screeching about "There is nothing "magical" about God. Life, humanity and the universe without God would be magic" is more parroting of Christian fundamentalist dogma. I understand that you are aware that such claims are unsupportable which makes your insistence that they are true more comically tragic.
> 
> And yes, your imagined spirit realms managed by magical gawds are no more true than the claims of Marshall Applewhite and his claims to nonsense. It's only a matter of luck that separates you from the Marshall Applewhite cult.
> 
> What's comical is your "95% of humanity" dogma wherein you hope to drag most of humanity into imagined world of spirit realms and magical gawds. Give it a rest, Bunky. Go down to Kingdom Hall, gather the rest of your JW cabal and annoy people in their homes on their weekends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yawn* More of the same... lack of an argument, denigrate Christians, be a smart ass, log off.
> 
> Scientists who study the human species are *ANTHROPOLOGISTS!*
Click to expand...

It's interesting how quickly the spirit realm'ists abandon their arguments when they're called out to support those magical realms.

Did you really not understand that the study of human biology is sometimes called medical science?


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. *Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it*. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
Click to expand...


I disagree with this statement.  First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--*RELIGION IS USEFUL*

It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong".  This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest  why something like religion is needed)

The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god.  A God that has had so many things added to it over the years.  that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked. 

Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility.  No, the concept of "GOD" _*can not*_ go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it

Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this.  I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!!  However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. *Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it*. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this statement.  First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--*RELIGION IS USEFUL*
> 
> It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong".  This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest  why something like religion is needed)
> 
> The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god.  A God that has had so many things added to it over the years.  that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.
> 
> Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility.  No, the concept of "GOD" _*can not*_ go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it
> 
> Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this.  I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!!  However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.
Click to expand...


Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you. 

Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
Click to expand...


Maybe inside your mind.  P.S.  How does god feel about  you calling me a dummy?  Not nice.  LOL.  You'll burn in hell!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. *Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it*. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this statement.  First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--*RELIGION IS USEFUL*
> 
> It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong".  This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest  why something like religion is needed)
> 
> The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god.  A God that has had so many things added to it over the years.  that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.
> 
> Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility.  No, the concept of "GOD" _*can not*_ go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it
> 
> Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this.  I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!!  However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you.
> 
> Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?    

And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Whatever you were going to say, I agree.  LOL.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey--I can't find your list on that page.  I like to go back and reference it again.
> 
> Or, if it is not too much, could you re-post it again?(I think you may have several times around.  I hope another re-posting is not a bother)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds. 

I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things. 

Go drink the Kool Aid.


*The Seven PhonyThings 

1.* We exist!

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.


2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
*

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
*

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
*

*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
*

*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you saw it but you're too much of a coward to address.
> 
> In typical fashion, you make pointless claims: that humanity is "bioneurologically hardwired" yet you always come up short when pressed to support those baseless statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone... I'm your Huckleberry... I'll make that case.
> 
> If humans were a species being studied by biologists, they would determine our spirituality is instinctual. It is present in 95% of the species, which would likely be 98% if we weren't intellectually contemplative like other animals.
> 
> Now, if this attribute could be explained away with simple anecdotes, it wouldn't be so prevalent. *Over the years, it would have simply fallen out of favor because there would be no real basis for it*. All the typical atheist 'reasons' for it are self-defeating because they all surmise that something spiritual caused spirituality in man. Whether it's fear of mortality, fear of the unknown, fear of death, superstition... it all requires a spiritual awareness to exist first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this statement.  First, let me make a statement that most of my fellow atheists will give me hell for--*RELIGION IS USEFUL*
> 
> It does teaches a foundations for ethics and help develop our intuition for "right" and "wrong".  This is fundamental for developing societies!!(there are other things I could talk about but this point, by itself. suggest  why something like religion is needed)
> 
> The problem is that some of these religions take their "authority" from a god.  A God that has had so many things added to it over the years.  that it becomes impossible for some of us to recognize it as real!! So when some challenges this notion of God, the assumption that the religion, and the benefits it does provide, is being attacked.
> 
> Also, there does not seem to be anything atheism provides that can replace what religion does. To "do away with my GOD" is seen as to "Do away with the religion" From this viewpoint, it is understandable why some will try to prove the existence of God and treat disbelievers with hostility.  No, the concept of "GOD" _*can not*_ go away until there is a "new" religion that does provides many of the things the old religion provides and have a firm and acceptable basis to support it
> 
> Agnosticism/Atheism does not provide this.  I have heard some of the things suggested in how humans should think and behave and it makes my skin crawl!!  However, there are non-theist and "unconventional" theists that recognize this problem and are trying to resolve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, well at least you recognize spirituality is useful and man gains benefit from it. This, in of itself, should make it clear that we didn't just invent it out of wild imagination. What an amazing fluke stroke of luck that would be, that we just happened to dream up something so fundamentally important to man. And if it's simply a product of imagination, that means it wouldn't have substantial value to man because it's not real. Imagine you're a millionaire, then go check your bank account and see how well that worked for you.
> 
> Now... Religion? what type of God exists? Those are questions others can ponder, I don't advocate for any particular incarnation of God. I think man is fallible and incapable of fully comprehending God. We create all kinds of incarnations to believe in, we always have. What's the "real deal" is our human spiritual connection. We didn't dream that up, it has always existed in man and always will. This is where Rawlings is making an excellent argument.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, you agree that your inventions of spirit realms and various gawds you believe inhabit those spirit realms are unsupportable outside of your invention of them. And yes, I can agree that man has created all kinds of incarnations of gawds to placate his fears and superstitions, just as you have.

There is nothing that separates your gawds and spirit realms from any of the other gawds and spirit realms that preceded yours.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Boss:*  I edited the following to make it clear, as it was fuzzy, like my head last night.  I was a little sleepy last night when I posted "Sealybobo's weird things" and the posts after that.  Sorry for any confusion.  This makes all points clear.


Repost:


Actually, these are rhetorical tautologies or intuitions, axiomatically true by definition or seemingly true by necessity in formal logic.  The latter, scientific intuitions, such as Newton's, are, of course, subject to empirical verification, as sometimes the latter are _not_ true due to the faulty correlations of insufficient data; and as we know, Newtonian physics has been partially falsified, as it does not hold up universally. Still, Newton's brilliance and the fact that he advanced our understanding of things cannot be denied. But you know these things about the history of theoretical physics.

_Circular reasoning_ or _begging the question_ are _informal logical fallacies_ that can lead to false conclusions, but not from _well-founded_ premises for rational objects, but from the premises of faulty correlation for empirical objects. So GT's objection isn't even in the same ballpark. We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not, we'd wipe out virtually every _a priori_ axiom necessary to do anything practical. GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.

The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist. Or you can look at it this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator existing. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists.

This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. Either way you look at it, the negative assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. The problem regarding God's existence in terms of ultimacy is an entirely different issue, which is what these idiots can't get into their heads, apparently, i.e., this distinction!

IDIOTS!

We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are inescapably true, _logically_, anyway you shake a stick at them, and we cannot do anything in logic or science without foundational, axiomatic intuitions.

GT's labeling of "the God axiom" as an informal logical fallacy is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism. But as you observe, essentially, a rose is a rose. This axiom stands regardless of what fallacious label one puts on it. The reality of it, the incontrovertible fact of its logical necessity, stands and does in fact have profound implications.​


----------



## MrDVS1

Hi MrDVS1
What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?

Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.

Anything wrong with that idea?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss:*  I edited the following to make it clear, as it was fuzzy, like my head last night.  I was a little sleepy last night when I posted "Sealybobo's weird things" and the posts after that.  Sorry for any confusion.  This makes all points clear.
> 
> 
> Repost:
> 
> 
> Actually, these are rhetorical tautologies or intuitions, axiomatically true by definition or seemingly true by necessity in formal logic.  The latter, scientific intuitions, such as Newton's, are, of course, subject to empirical verification, as sometimes the latter are _not_ true due to the faulty correlations of insufficient data; and as we know, Newtonian physics has been partially falsified, as it does not hold up universally. Still, Newton's brilliance and the fact that he advanced our understanding of things cannot be denied. But you know these things about the history of theoretical physics.
> 
> _Circular reasoning_ or _begging the question_ are _informal logical fallacies_ that can lead to false conclusions, but not from _well-founded_ premises for rational objects, but from the premises of faulty correlation for empirical objects. So GT's objection isn't even in the same ballpark. We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not, we'd wipe out virtually every _a priori_ axiom necessary to do anything practical. GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.
> 
> The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist. Or you can look at it this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator existing. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists.
> 
> This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. Either way you look at it, the negative assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. The question of ultimacy is an entirely different issue, which is what these idiots can't get into their heads, apparently, i.e., this distinction!
> 
> IDIOTS!
> 
> We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are inescapably true, anyway you shake a stick at them, and we cannot do anything in logic or science without foundational, axiomatic intuitions.
> 
> GT's labeling of the God axiom as an informal logical fallacy is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism. But as you observe, essentially, a rose is a rose. This axiom stands regardless of what fallacious label one puts on it. The reality of it, the incontrovertible fact of its logical necessity, stands and does in fact have profound implications.​


Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.


----------



## MrDVS1

emilynghiem said:


> MrDVS1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.
> 
> I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.
> 
> Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MrDVS1
> What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?
> 
> Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
> and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.
> 
> Anything wrong with that idea?
Click to expand...


All Jesus represents to me is a major BS story, you can keep the interpretations aka spin. Just maybe people should pay more attention to what goes on, on the physical plane, the here and now instead of some mythological higher level.

Religions are just a means to control people and a barometer as to their intellectual level.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.  The TAG is simply an axiom of human cognition, a presupositonal of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4,  A = A or A
> ≠ B, only this one's about God.
> 
> 
> Folks are turning the ABCs of a very simple matter into rocket science. Everybody with a sound, developmentally mature mind knows or apprehends these things about the problems of existence and origin:
> 
> *The Seven Things
> 1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...


Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?  

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.

The rest is just horse shit.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:*  I edited the following to make it clear, as it was fuzzy, like my head last night.  I was a little sleepy last night when I posted "Sealybobo's weird things" and the posts after that.  Sorry for any confusion.  This makes all points clear.
> 
> 
> Repost:
> 
> 
> Actually, these are rhetorical tautologies or intuitions, axiomatically true by definition or seemingly true by necessity in formal logic.  The latter, scientific intuitions, such as Newton's, are, of course, subject to empirical verification, as sometimes the latter are _not_ true due to the faulty correlations of insufficient data; and as we know, Newtonian physics has been partially falsified, as it does not hold up universally. Still, Newton's brilliance and the fact that he advanced our understanding of things cannot be denied. But you know these things about the history of theoretical physics.
> 
> _Circular reasoning_ or _begging the question_ are _informal logical fallacies_ that can lead to false conclusions, but not from _well-founded_ premises for rational objects, but from the premises of faulty correlation for empirical objects. So GT's objection isn't even in the same ballpark. We distinguish between informal and formal fallacies because if we did not, we'd wipe out virtually every _a priori_ axiom necessary to do anything practical. GT's objective is just silly and meaningless, really.
> 
> The antagonist, a finite mind, necessarily assumes the mantle of a creature and contradicts himself when he says/thinks that God the Creator, by definition, doesn't exist. Or you can look at it this way: he necessarily contradicts himself when he asserts that anything can exist without God the Creator existing. How could that be? No Creator, nothing exists.
> 
> This axiom is intuitively true by definition and necessity on the very face of it. Either way you look at it, the negative assertion is inherently self-negating and positively proves the opposite. The question of ultimacy is an entirely different issue, which is what these idiots can't get into their heads, apparently, i.e., this distinction!
> 
> IDIOTS!
> 
> We simply do not apply the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question to such intuitions in formal logic because they are inescapably true, anyway you shake a stick at them, and we cannot do anything in logic or science without foundational, axiomatic intuitions.
> 
> GT's labeling of the God axiom as an informal logical fallacy is nothing but an arbitrary bias against theism, sheer fanaticism. But as you observe, essentially, a rose is a rose. This axiom stands regardless of what fallacious label one puts on it. The reality of it, the incontrovertible fact of its logical necessity, stands and does in fact have profound implications.​
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.
Click to expand...


But he's a human knower/thinker.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hey, Boss! * As for BreezeWood's religion, I've been able to piece it together a bit at a time.  He's definitely into some form of pantheism with some Christian ideas sprinkled over it.  He also has a very interesting idea about the problem of evil that's not too far off the mark, really, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on there for obvious reasons.  If only he'd write coherent posts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he makes some good points sometimes, when you can decipher his posts. He believes that all living things have a spiritual connection to "The Almighty" and it's not exclusive to humans. I don't see the evidence but by golly he does post some pretty flower pictures. And hey... maybe he's right, maybe other living things have spirituality and we don't know it? I happen to think our unique connection to something spiritual is what distinguishes us from all other living things.
> 
> I get a sort of Buddhist vibe there or maybe Hindu? He definitely has a distaste for the God of Abraham, even though he quotes 2Peter very astutely.
Click to expand...


Yes.  All of these things, including the apparent influences of Buddhism and Hinduism have been noted by me.  As for his  aversion for the God of Abraham:  yeah, I duly noted that too, but I don't have the first clue why he's so down on it.  LOL!

As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of _the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts_. Of course, some are still debating that, but the influences of _absolute_ behaviorism or materialism have faded.  Certainly this is true regarding the attempt to put this on humans in an absolute sense. Most folks just don't buy that anymore, that which no damn egg head in college was ever going to convince me to believe, and I told some of the arrogant so and sos just so. You know what condescending types I'm talking about, especially those in the heyday of the behaviorist movement in psychology. Well, it is they who are on the outs now and for good reason. They were full it from the beginning.

Does this mean that animals have spirits or souls? Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.

According to the Bible, animals do have souls; i.e., they are living souls. But this goes to the life in their bodies, the life giving force of divine animation for the complex biological systems comprised of and derived from the material substances of the universe: living cells/bodies. This applies to all living things, including humans. But the Bible is silent on whether or not the lower-order animals have immortal souls like humans. The Bible simply doesn't tell us whether they do or they don't, which would seem to suggest that they don't. Certainly, God does not put His name on them in terms of the laws of rational and moral thought, the principle of identity, according to the Bible or call them to the same order of spiritual communion. But we do know they can communicate, share information with other members of the same species, and of course the more intelligent among them, cetaceans and primates, can be taught to communicate with us at a fairly sophisticated level.

Other mammals, like dogs, communicate with us at a lower level.

Certainly mammals think and communicate and have emotions at a level akin to ours, though obviously not at our height of it.

And then I think some animals that are not mammals, like snakes and alligators and sharks, are just dumb eating machines, instinctively hardwired for survival and propagation. Essentially, sociopaths sans any intellectual capacity beyond these programmed drives, with the signals they give to other members of their species being the blips of on-or-off switches. ON: survive.  OFF: threat.  LOL! I don’t know.

On the other hand, what would stop God from fulfilling one's desire to have a beloved pet with one in heaven, reconstituted with a spiritual body and the memory of the previous relationship?

Christians have asked that question, wondered about it, as have I. I've even asked God if my dog Stanley could  be with the family in heaven. He didn't rebuke me, so I think it's okay to ask. There's nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that holds such an event to be an impossibility, i.e., to be a violation of any spiritual or moral law.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
Click to expand...


Of course* #1* and *#2* are necessary.  They established the foundation for *#3* and *#4* and *#5* and *#6* and *#7*.  Moreover, *#1* and *#2* carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy.  Anymore stupid questions?  Are making any headway on my annihilation of your *#1* of your six weird things?  Oh, and why do you misstate *#5* of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things?  To evade the truth again?  Yeah.  That's why.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.



Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit? 

Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an awful lot of stuff trying to refute what can't be refuted.  Here's what you told us.  You still don't know what the seven things are really about though that's self-evident. You don't understand that  you just affirmed them to all be true.  You think or dishonestly implied that "cosmology" means the same thing as "cosmological order" even though the second one was defined. You think religion sucks and theists are stupid.  You couldn't talk or think your way out of a wet paper bag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course* #1* and *#2* are necessary.  They established the foundation for *#3* and *#4* and *#5* and *#6* and *#7*.  Moreover, *#1* and *#2* carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy.  Anymore stupid questions?  Are making any headway on my annihilation of your *#1* of your six weird things?  Oh, and why do you misstate *#5* of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things?  To evade the truth again?  Yeah.  That's why.
Click to expand...

In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute.  YOU believe in god because he exists in your mind.  So god is real because you believe it to be real.  So why can't anything and everything I believe be true too?  Since I thunk it, it must be true.  People have always doubted god existed too just like some people have always believed.  So your theory is way off.  Sorry.  Your only argument here is that more people believe than don't.  So what?  

Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity.

Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs.

_Implicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
Click to expand...


And funny I have to give you proof but you don't have to give any proof your god exists.  Doesn't seem fair boss.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
Click to expand...


For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.
Click to expand...



Too funny.  Thank you Justin.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.



Well, silly boob... if there were anything to a rabbit's foot, we'd see 95% of the species carrying one around. We'd look back in human history and see that 95% of the species had always carried a rabbit's foot around.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
Click to expand...

For me, the weirdest thing is that your pretense at thinking is such an abysmal failure. 

Knucklehead wrote: "These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic...."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
Click to expand...


Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector.  So all you get is, "Nuh huh."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 7 "things" are not all true.  They are debatable.  And even if they are true, in the end, they don't prove a god exists.  If they did, if this logic was sound, they would be teaching it to children, but they don't.  Instead they lie and say god visited us and has a heaven awaiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course* #1* and *#2* are necessary.  They established the foundation for *#3* and *#4* and *#5* and *#6* and *#7*.  Moreover, *#1* and *#2* carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy.  Anymore stupid questions?  Are making any headway on my annihilation of your *#1* of your six weird things?  Oh, and why do you misstate *#5* of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things?  To evade the truth again?  Yeah.  That's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.
Click to expand...


Nuh huh.


----------



## Justin Davis

The Irish Ram said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.  Thank you Justin.
Click to expand...




Beware the evil.  Flee from it.  Just saying.


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you angry, self-hating crank, your foul smelling arguments truly are the definition of self-refuting, viciously circular and pointless confusion regarding philosophical musings as opposed to objective reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny.  Thank you Justin.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course* #1* and *#2* are necessary.  They established the foundation for *#3* and *#4* and *#5* and *#6* and *#7*.  Moreover, *#1* and *#2* carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy.  Anymore stupid questions?  Are making any headway on my annihilation of your *#1* of your six weird things?  Oh, and why do you misstate *#5* of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things?  To evade the truth again?  Yeah.  That's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuh huh.
Click to expand...

Thoroughly refuting your nonsensical seven pointless things has left you to stutter and mumble.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
Click to expand...


What atheist believes the world has always existed in the same way?  Did you mean theists?  Because most atheists believe our universe was empty black dark nothingness and then the big bang happened.  For billions of years all that existed was gas pockets everywhere.  Billions or trillions of them.  Those gases eventually became suns/stars and also planets and moons and meteors and comets.  Another few billion years and life took hold on this planet.  For millions of years dinosaurs ruled.  Only 200,000 years ago did humans happen.  

Science has shown that something can come from nothing.  And even SOMETHING created all this, why does it have to be a god?  And are we talking about a generic unknown creator or the god who talks to us and made heaven for us?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector.  So all you get is, "Nuh huh."
Click to expand...

I understand your feelings are hurt. Your frantic efforts at proselytizing
have been a failure. Your attempt to foist the bogus seven pointless things as a viable argument had also been a disaster. Having a predefined conclusion that the extremist x-tian belief system is true and then employing utterly pointless and viciously arguments along with the specious opinions of others with a similar bias as proof of your opinions is hardly a sustainable argument. In fact, it is viciously contradictory and self refuting. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is revealed as an unadulterated waste of time. You wannabe Jehovah's Witness groupies using the Bibles to prove X-tian'ism (the Various bibles not being subject to external verification), to prove that Witness ideology is true remains a total fraud.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And funny I have to give you proof but you don't have to give any proof your god exists.  Doesn't seem fair boss.
Click to expand...


No proof he says.  Nuh huh.  That's the new catch phrase and pictures of evil. 

sillybooboo exists.
The universe exists.
The idea of God exists.
God would be the highest thing that exists, the Creator.
God would be perfect.
God would know everything about His creation.
God would be perfectly right in everything about His creaton.
Pseudoscience and crazy logic is sillybooboo's god.
sillybooboo's god makes no sense.
sillybooboos's god doesn't know everything about existence.
sillybooboo's god is always wrong about everything except that sillybooboo and existence exists.
sillybooboo's god is not perfect.
What doesn't make sense cannot be God.
What is wrong about almost everything cannot be God.
sillybooboo's god isn't God.
sillybooboo's god is himself.
sillybooboo can't logically say God the Creator doesn't exist.
God logically exists.
God must exist.
God exists.
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh"
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness and says "I AM."
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh" again.
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness again.
God is never wrong.
Therefore, sillybooboo is silly.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector.  So all you get is, "Nuh huh."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your feelings are hurt. Your frantic efforts at proselytizing
> have been a failure. Your attempt to foist the bogus seven pointless things as a viable argument had also been a disaster. Having a predefined conclusion that the extremist x-tian belief system is true and then employing utterly pointless and viciously arguments along with the specious opinions of others with a similar bias as proof of your opinions is hardly a sustainable argument. In fact, it is viciously contradictory and self refuting. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is revealed as an unadulterated waste of time. You wannabe Jehovah's Witness groupies using the Bibles to prove X-tian'ism (the Various bibles not being subject to external verification), to prove that Witness ideology is true remains a total fraud.
Click to expand...


In the place of "sillybooboo" insert "SillyHolliebooboo":

sillybooboo exists.
The universe exists.
The idea of God exists.
God would be the highest thing that exists, the Creator.
God would be perfect.
God would know everything about His creation.
God would be perfectly right in everything about His creaton.
Pseudoscience and crazy logic is sillybooboo's god.
sillybooboo's god makes no sense.
sillybooboos's god doesn't know everything about existence.
sillybooboo's god is always wrong about everything except that sillybooboo and existence exists.
sillybooboo's god is not perfect.
What doesn't make sense cannot be God.
What is wrong about almost everything cannot be God.
sillybooboo's god isn't God.
sillybooboo's god is himself.
sillybooboo can't logically say God the Creator doesn't exist.
God logically exists.
God must exist.
God exists.
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh"
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness and says "I AM."
sillybooboo says "Nuh huh" again.
God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness again.
God is never wrong.
Therefore, sillybooboo is silly.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And funny I have to give you proof but you don't have to give any proof your god exists.  Doesn't seem fair boss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No proof he says.  Nuh huh.  That's the new catch phrase and pictures of evil.
> 
> sillybooboo exists.
> The universe exists.
> The idea of God exists.
> God would be the highest thing that exists, the Creator.
> God would be perfect.
> God would know everything about His creation.
> God would be perfectly right in everything about His creaton.
> Pseudoscience and crazy logic is sillybooboo's god.
> sillybooboo's god makes no sense.
> sillybooboos's god doesn't know everything about existence.
> sillybooboo's god is always wrong about everything except that sillybooboo and existence exists.
> sillybooboo's god is not perfect.
> What doesn't make sense cannot be God.
> What is wrong about almost everything cannot be God.
> sillybooboo's god isn't God.
> sillybooboo's god is himself.
> sillybooboo can't logically say God the Creator doesn't exist.
> God logically exists.
> God must exist.
> God exists.
> sillybooboo says "Nuh huh"
> God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness and says "I AM."
> sillybooboo says "Nuh huh" again.
> God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness again.
> God is never wrong.
> Therefore, sillybooboo is silly.
Click to expand...


_“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus


----------



## amrchaos

I keep thinking that these 7 things need some cleaning up.

For instance, 1 "We exist", invites a Solipsists into the discussion.  Personally, I do _not_ wish to deal with solipsistic arguments.

However,
1*) You exist.
Is acceptable (in terms by what is meant by "you") to a Solipsists.


Question--are there more than one versions of the 7 things.  I think the one responded to by Hollie has a different 2) than the one I remember..


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, silly boob... if there were anything to a rabbit's foot, we'd see 95% of the species carrying one around. We'd look back in human history and see that 95% of the species had always carried a rabbit's foot around.
Click to expand...


A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.


----------



## sealybobo

_“Being an atheist is like being the only sober person in the car – and no one will let you drive.”_


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are *LOGICALLY* true, dummy!  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God, *#6.
> *
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true, *LOGICALLY*.  There's no_ if_ about that!  That's a *FACT*.
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities *outside the logic* of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true *inside our minds *is *not* debatable!
> 
> *You dummies keep thinking that there is something in The Seven Things that states these things are not debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is not such assertion among them!   Notwithstanding, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> *
> That is also *logically* true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices.  Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you pretentious fraud. Your phony seven things is not saved by your goofy posts replete with gargantuan text. In addition, you're still confused by the use of "logic" as a means to promote your laughably inept philosophical pwoofs of your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> I have thoroughly discredited your pointless and amateurish arguments for the seven phony things.
> 
> Go drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a :  a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b :  a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2:  a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also :  a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order".  You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even have point number 1?  We exist?  Is #1 even necessary?
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course* #1* and *#2* are necessary.  They established the foundation for *#3* and *#4* and *#5* and *#6* and *#7*.  Moreover, *#1* and *#2* carry the qualificatiom of being the pragmatic assumptions for the first principles of existence, dummy.  Anymore stupid questions?  Are making any headway on my annihilation of your *#1* of your six weird things?  Oh, and why do you misstate *#5* of the not weird and perfectly coherent Seven Things?  To evade the truth again?  Yeah.  That's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In terms of maintaining the fraud of your seven pointless things, all of the seven pointless, viciously circular items are required to maintain the fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuh huh.
Click to expand...


_“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”_ – Richard Dawkins

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both space and time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix of anthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me the weirdest thing about the atheist's thinking is they either believe the universe has always existed in same way or that something comes from nothing.  These are the only two sane options that anybody has, theist, atheist or agnostic, and the second option isn't a very good one.  But I don't mean sensible atheists like armchaos, just the crazy ones, like that guy thinking the Big Bang has anything to do with the basic issue.  It's like what is he thinking?  Universe always existing in same way or God?  The atheist says God doesn't exist so he knows that God is the other option.  Is anybody home?  The rest follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, somebody's home, but they haven't paid the light bill in months and they think you might be the collector.  So all you get is, "Nuh huh."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your feelings are hurt. Your frantic efforts at proselytizing
> have been a failure. Your attempt to foist the bogus seven pointless things as a viable argument had also been a disaster. Having a predefined conclusion that the extremist x-tian belief system is true and then employing utterly pointless and viciously arguments along with the specious opinions of others with a similar bias as proof of your opinions is hardly a sustainable argument. In fact, it is viciously contradictory and self refuting. Therefore, the effort necessary to proffer a self refuting argument is revealed as an unadulterated waste of time. You wannabe Jehovah's Witness groupies using the Bibles to prove X-tian'ism (the Various bibles not being subject to external verification), to prove that Witness ideology is true remains a total fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the place of "sillybooboo" insert "SillyHolliebooboo":
> 
> sillybooboo exists.
> The universe exists.
> The idea of God exists.
> God would be the highest thing that exists, the Creator.
> God would be perfect.
> God would know everything about His creation.
> God would be perfectly right in everything about His creaton.
> Pseudoscience and crazy logic is sillybooboo's god.
> sillybooboo's god makes no sense.
> sillybooboos's god doesn't know everything about existence.
> sillybooboo's god is always wrong about everything except that sillybooboo and existence exists.
> sillybooboo's god is not perfect.
> What doesn't make sense cannot be God.
> What is wrong about almost everything cannot be God.
> sillybooboo's god isn't God.
> sillybooboo's god is himself.
> sillybooboo can't logically say God the Creator doesn't exist.
> God logically exists.
> God must exist.
> God exists.
> sillybooboo says "Nuh huh"
> God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness and says "I AM."
> sillybooboo says "Nuh huh" again.
> God laughs at sillybooboo's silliness again.
> God is never wrong.
> Therefore, sillybooboo is silly.
Click to expand...


A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.

Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## sealybobo

If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn’t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice?

_“If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.”_ – Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo

Why would a perfect potter create an imperfect mold, order it to be perfect and then judge it based on the imperfections he gave it?


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.
> 
> Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



No.  You shift a matter that can only be decided by logic and foolishly claim that science is the standard for something that science can have no opinion about.  You are a pseudoscientific hack.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I keep thinking that these 7 things need some cleaning up.
> 
> For instance, 1 "We exist", invites a Solipsists into the discussion.  Personally, I do _not_ wish to deal with solipsistic arguments.
> 
> However,
> 1*) You exist.
> Is acceptable (in terms by what is meant by "you") to a Solipsists.
> 
> 
> Question--are there more than one versions of the 7 things.  I think the one responded to by Hollie has a different 2) than the one I remember..



I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic.  Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

The other versions are failures, attempts to overthrow the objective realities of the real seven . . . as, of course, they assume *#1* and *#2* and then attempt to do what can't be done, i.e., negate the other five of the real McCoy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

So let's review:

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not:  #1*

*Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*


sealybobo said:

*1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.​

You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.

What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_ infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

*sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in their own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*

*sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

_Crickets chirping_

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

_Yawn_

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*


*Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

*That's weird.*

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

*That's not only weird, but magical. *

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?

*sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.
> 
> Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You shift a matter that can only be decided by logic and foolishly claim that science is the standard for something that science can have no opinion about.  You are a pseudoscientific hack.
Click to expand...


Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> So let's review:
> 
> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not:  #1*
> 
> *Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.*
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> *1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
> 
> The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.​
> 
> You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.
> 
> You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.
> 
> You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.
> 
> Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.
> 
> What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?
> 
> Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*
> 
> We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*
> 
> We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*
> 
> Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_ infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?
> 
> Answer: Never!
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> *sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."
> 
> Really?
> 
> Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in their own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*
> 
> *sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."
> 
> Really?
> 
> I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.
> 
> One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.
> 
> Ah! I've got it!
> 
> No such grand theory exists.
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.
> 
> Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.
> 
> _Yawn_
> 
> So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science: http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*
> 
> And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*
> 
> 
> *Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.
> 
> So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?
> 
> Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.
> 
> *That's weird.*
> 
> The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.
> 
> *That's not only weird, but magical. *
> 
> Hocus Pocus.
> 
> Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*
> 
> Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?
> 
> *sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"
> 
> Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.
> 
> Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.



Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.
Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:*

The Seven Things are *LOGICALLY* true! There's no_ if_ about that! That's a *FACT *(Also see *Post #3557*:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).

There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God*:* *#6.*

It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true,* LOGICALLY. *There's no _if_ about that! That's a* FACT.*

The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is *not* debatable!

You dummies keep thinking that there is something in *The Seven Things* that states these things are _not_ debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!

You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such *theories *exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are _*hypotheses*_. Duh!

They are yet to be demonstrated or verified _*hypotheses*_. Duh! * Hypotheses! Guesses!* Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!

Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!

Snap out of it!

Notwithstanding, back to *The Seven Things*, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.

That is also logically true!

Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.

Word.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:*
> 
> The Seven Things are *LOGICALLY* true! There's no_ if_ about that! That's a *FACT *(Also see *Post #3557*:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God*:* *#6.*
> 
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true,* LOGICALLY. *There's no _if_ about that! That's a* FACT.*
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is *not* debatable!
> 
> You dummies keep thinking that there is something in *The Seven Things* that states these things are _not_ debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!
> 
> You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such *theories *exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are _*hypotheses*_. Duh!
> 
> They are yet to be demonstrated or verified _*hypotheses*_. Duh! * Hypotheses! Guesses!* Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!
> 
> Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!
> 
> Snap out of it!
> 
> Notwithstanding, back to *The Seven Things*, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> 
> That is also logically true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.



In other words, _M. Pompous Rawling_ is so completely befuddled, he's reduced to spamming.

No word can describe his incompetence.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:*
> 
> The Seven Things are *LOGICALLY* true! There's no_ if_ about that! That's a *FACT *(Also see *Post #3557*:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God*:* *#6.*
> 
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true,* LOGICALLY. *There's no _if_ about that! That's a* FACT.*
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is *not* debatable!
> 
> You dummies keep thinking that there is something in *The Seven Things* that states these things are _not_ debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!
> 
> You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such *theories *exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are _*hypotheses*_. Duh!
> 
> They are yet to be demonstrated or verified _*hypotheses*_. Duh! * Hypotheses! Guesses!* Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!
> 
> Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!
> 
> Snap out of it!
> 
> Notwithstanding, back to *The Seven Things*, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> 
> That is also logically true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.



Now I get it.  You aren't saying god exists.  I realized this when you said "whether God actually exists or not"

So sure.  If god exists, he would be great.  And he exists in your mind.  Great!  What else you got?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2*

* Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/**.*



sealybobo said:


> *2. The universe had a start - what caused it? *
> 
> *We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess. *




Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that _from nothing, something comes_. *That's weird. *In which case, _from absurdities, more absurdities come_. *That’s weird. 

(See:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)
*
These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. *That's weird.* These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.

As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird. 
*
So we see that there exists yet another option*:* the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird. *


----------



## The Irish Ram

> “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> _Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus



bobo, tell Epicurus God said, "When the time is right."  And, "Where were you Epicurus when I was creating the universe......"


----------



## Hollie

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before we go to Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not, let's review:*
> 
> The Seven Things are *LOGICALLY* true! There's no_ if_ about that! That's a *FACT *(Also see *Post #3557*:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 356 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum).
> 
> There is only *ONE* logical proof among them regarding the existence of God*:* *#6.*
> 
> It's a rhetorical axiom that is inherently true,* LOGICALLY. *There's no _if_ about that! That's a* FACT.*
> 
> The question of whether or not these things hold as actualities outside the logic of our minds *is* debatable, but the fact that these things are logically true inside our minds is *not* debatable!
> 
> You dummies keep thinking that there is something in *The Seven Things* that states these things are _not_ debatable in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds when there is no such assertion among them or anywhere else in sight!
> 
> You're imagining something that is not there, just like sealybobo imagines that his metaphysics are an actuality in science. Duh! So such *theories *exist. Duh! No such things have ever been observed or shown to be possible. Duh! The notions that the physical laws of nature coupled with the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents produce things above the level of basic infrastructure are _*hypotheses*_. Duh!
> 
> They are yet to be demonstrated or verified _*hypotheses*_. Duh! * Hypotheses! Guesses!* Duh! They are based on the assumption of metaphysical naturalism, which presupposes that the material world is all that exists and/or on the assumption of methodological naturalism that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. Duh!
> 
> Talk about begging the question. Duh! That's an instance of begging the question proper when asserted as a done deal or an actual fact. Duh!
> 
> Snap out of it!
> 
> Notwithstanding, back to *The Seven Things*, while the issue of their actuality in terms of ultimacy is debatable, it is a debate wherein the theist stands on the ground of logical consistency and the skeptic stands on the ground of logical paradox.
> 
> That is also logically true!
> 
> Those are the logical choices. Those are the logical consequences and conditions of the choices made, regardless of the actuality in terms of ultimacy outside the logic of our minds.
> 
> Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I get it.  You aren't saying god exists.  I realized this when you said "whether God actually exists or not"
> 
> So sure.  If god exists, he would be great.  And he exists in your mind.  Great!  What else you got?
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2*
> 
> * Continued from Post #3592 **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/**.*
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The universe had a start - what caused it? *
> 
> *We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that _from nothing, something comes_. *That's weird. *In which case, _from absurdities, more absurdities come_. *That’s weird.
> 
> (See:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/)
> *
> These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. *That's weird.* These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.
> 
> As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird.
> *
> So we see that there exists yet another option*:* the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
> 
> You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird. *
Click to expand...

Sheesh. Such are the dangers of religious fanaticism. 

Here we have another example of the confused and twisted ramblings that occur when the simple minded can't separate their fundamentalist beliefs from a rational argument.

*That's more typical than weird.*


----------



## Hollie

The Irish Ram said:


> “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> _Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bobo, tell Epicurus God said, "When the time is right."  And, "Where were you Epicurus when I was creating the universe......"
Click to expand...


Fundie zealot, it may come as a shock to you but we have nothing to suggest that any of your gawds said anything to Epicurus or any other individual. 

Why do you further these falsehoods?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things*
> *1.* We exist!
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> *3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> *6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.
> 
> Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.
> 
> But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!
> 
> Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
> ___________________________
> 
> Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.




*The Seven Phony Things 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.*

*
2.* The cosmological order exists!
_*Cosmology*_ 
*1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*

*Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*


*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of *_*The Five Fraudulent Things™*_*. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.*

4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.*

*Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A *_*tour de force *_*of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding *_*The Five Phony Things*_*™ *

*Did you just make up *_*The Seven Phony Things*_*™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.*

*You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's *_*eternal salvation*_* rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.*

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!*
*You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.*

*One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.*

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3

Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/**.
*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
*


sealybobo said:


> *3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why? *
> 
> *Maybe we don’t know*.



Let's review*:
*
As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird. 
*
So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace _all_ of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird.*​

Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.

He consistently embraces _all_ the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie.  To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox.  You have alternately lied or embraced paradox.  That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. * That's weird.*

Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.

_You_ are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. _You_ contradictorily choose to reject it. * That's weird.* _You_ choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. _You_ want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same _a priori _nature as all the others. * That's weird*.

Hence, _You _don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. _You_ don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.

There is no _we_.

*That's weird.* * 
*
That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic.  That's not weird.  That's a fact!  That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it. 

MY position is logically rock solid.  *Your position is weird.*


----------



## amrchaos

I think there is some things wrong with 3.

"The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"

Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?  

Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3
> 
> Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/**.
> *
> Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why? *
> 
> *Maybe we don’t know*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review*:
> *
> As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird.
> *
> So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace _all_ of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
> 
> You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird.*​
> 
> Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.
> 
> He consistently embraces _all_ the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie.  To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox.  You have alternately lied or embraced paradox.  That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. * That's weird.*
> 
> Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.
> 
> _You_ are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. _You_ contradictorily choose to reject it. * That's weird.* _You_ choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. _You_ want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same _a priori _nature as all the others. * That's weird*.
> 
> Hence, _You _don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. _You_ don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.
> 
> There is no _we_.
> 
> *That's weird.* *
> *
> That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic.  That's not weird.  That's a fact!  That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.
> 
> MY position is logically rock solid.  *Your position is weird.*
Click to expand...

Oh my. The angry thumper is getting very desperate.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?



Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #4

Continued from Post #3604: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087801/**.
.*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
*


sealybobo said:


> *4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior. *
> 
> *Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me. *



Whatever point you think you're making is as obscure as they come, but if you're under the impression that this whatever/whatnot is a _that's what_! supporting the atheist's position, *that's weird! 
*
In any event, everything you need to know about the matter as it pertains to the problems of existence and origin may be found right here on my blog*: *http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

Now that article is not a whatever/whatnot but a _that's what!_ . . . so now what?


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
Click to expand...



The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well. 

I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.

If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
*Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
(Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)

Now God can be a being(sentient)
OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
OR God can be an inanimate object
Or God can be an event
Or God can be any combination of things.

To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
Click to expand...

Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists. 

Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5

Continued from Post #3608: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/**.

.*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.

*


sealybobo said:


> *5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.*
> 
> *No fool, we are constantly seeking him. *




Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim  to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist *That's weird. 
*
So you believe God exists after all, eh?  I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing.  *That's weird. *

You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and *that's*, well, you know, *weird.* 

It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. *That's weird. *

You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you?  *That's weird.   *He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either.  That's not weird.  That's a fact!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5
> 
> Continued from Post #3608: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/**.
> 
> .*
> Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.*
> 
> *No fool, we are constantly seeking him. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim  to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist *That's weird.
> *
> So you believe God exists after all, eh?  I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing.  *That's weird. *
> 
> You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and *that's*, well, you know, *weird.*
> 
> It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. *That's weird. *
> 
> You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you?  *That's weird.   *He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either.  That's not weird.  That's a fact!
Click to expand...

Umm, your seven things are not objectively true. The seven fraudulent things is a time wasting collection of unsupported assertion, bad analogy, false comparison and viciously circular reasoning.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
Click to expand...


You do have a point.  Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God?  Was it God?"

I don't think I want go down that line.

There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
Click to expand...


That's weird.


----------



## amrchaos

Hey Rawlings,

Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #6 and #7

Continued from Post #3611: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10088062/**.

.*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.

*


sealybobo said:


> *6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.*
> 
> *What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine?* He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.
> 
> We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!




sealybobo's *#6 *is really a *#6 *and a *#7, *a redundancy in which he tells us that he doesn't believe that God exists, not once but twice, except, as I've shown, when he does tell us that God exists. *That's weird.*

(sealybobo, you really do need to make up your mind here, instead if jumping back and forth, because *that's weird*.)

However, this denial of God's existence is asserted against a specific theological system of thought, which is off topic. *That's weird.  
*
But I'll address it.

sealybobo says Jesus is not God. Is sealybobo claiming to be something akin to God again? Sure looks like it. *That’s weird. *

Now, I've already shown that sealybobo's position is irrational, logically contradictory and paradoxical, so we may understand why he denies God's existence in one instance and presupposes God's existence in the next. Try as he might, He can't escape the imperatives of the laws of thought.

I've shown that the only rational position to take is that God must be, that this conclusion is well-founded, formally justified under the conventional standards of logic. So the notion that God has in fact revealed Himself directly in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is well within the range of all that is rational and, therefore, possible.

If Jesus of Nazareth is in fact God incarnate as the testimony of the Apostles and others holds, we would expect the very kinds of displays of power and authority attributed to Him.

But sealybobo holds that this historical testimony is the stuff of fairytales.

"WE GOT NO PROOF!", he says.

But we do have testimonial evidence.  As for "proof," that's in the eye of the beholder, so let's take a look at the eye of this beholder, because there's something *weird* about it.

_We weren't there_, he says!

That’s right! sealybobo wasn't there to observe these events, which are of a historical and empirical nature according to the testimonial evidence, so how does sealybobo know that they are fairytales? Is sealybobo hinting that he _was_ there after telling us that he wasn't? *That's weird.*

But sealybobo doesn't just tell us that the reason he doesn't believe the testimony is because he wasn't there, except when he implies that he was there, which is *weird*, he tells us that even if he had been there, he would find that the testimony were all lies or delusions anyway, for he tells us that such displays of power and authority are _unbelievable_.

But why would such things be unbelievable? Would these not constitute the very kind of evidence that sealybobo demands for God existence? Though why the magnificent display of  the cosmos and the logical facts of human cognition are not already enough for him is, well, you know, *weird*. . . .  Oh, that's right, because according to sealybobo, God doesn't exist in the first place.

Hence, sealybobo’s *#6* is God doesn’t exist!

Hence, sealybobo’s implied *#7* is God doesn’t exist!

But as I've already shown, God does exist according the laws of human thought, and sealybobo's position is logically contradictory and paradoxical, the stuff of blind, unjustified faith. *That's weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hey Rawlings,
> 
> Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?



Deduced and inferred facts of existence, with a deduced, axiomatic proof.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have a point.  Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God?  Was it God?"
> 
> I don't think I want go down that line.
> 
> There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.
Click to expand...


Nah.  He has no standing point.  That's already been demolished.  He's just begging the question.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's weird.
Click to expand...

Presupper in 3d.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do have a point.  Even if I try to use the definition I posted, I run into the problem of "Is god anything? If so, then what created God?  Was it God?"
> 
> I don't think I want go down that line.
> 
> There has to be a better way to phrase the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.  He has no standing point.  That's already been demolished.  He's just begging the question.
Click to expand...

You're just sad now, dude.


"Like.  Like..   ..I can prove god as an absolute fact but like....just not ultimately."

Lol fuggin clown.

Ultimately. ...absolutely......lolzzzz

You are reduced to absurdity.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Rawlings,
> 
> Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deduced and inferred facts of existence, with a deduced, axiomatic proof.
Click to expand...

Except that its a fraud.


----------



## G.T.

"Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"

/derp derp  logic.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.



A page back, the boy has invented something he calls _The Laws Of Human Thought_*™ *as pwoof of his gods. 

I'm expecting another long, rambling screed that will include all of his usual slogans and cliches'.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
Click to expand...


Those are all subjective what ifs, immediately dismissed by the only logical standard that can be asserted objectively.  Assuming that God is anything less than a Being of the highest conceivable standard of attribution from the beginning begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the highest conceivable standard.  This is self-evident. 

As I explained elsewhere:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10074502/


And also to another:

Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.

Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.

In answer to your question. . . .

Yes. I am aware of that. So?

That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.

If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.

You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.

As I wrote elsewhere*:
*
Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
​That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.​


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are all subjective what ifs, immediately dismissed by the only logical standard that can be asserted objectively.  Assuming that God is anything less than a Being of the highest conceivable standard of attribution from the beginning begs the question and arbitrarily precludes the highest conceivable standard.  This is self-evident.
> 
> As I explained elsewhere:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10074502/
> 
> 
> And also to another:
> 
> Perhaps you failed to understand that I agreed with the point you were making with GT in my first post to you.
> 
> Now you've gone all wrong and cannot refute "The Seven Things" after all, and you fail to recognize why that's so because you're too busy being rude for no reason, as you think to critique excellent prose out of some insecurity of the herd-mentality.
> 
> In answer to your question. . . .
> 
> Yes. I am aware of that. So?
> 
> That doesn't stop anyone from inserting polytheism in place of the generic construct if that's their poison. I already made that clear and why it logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable attribution for divinity for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I wrote _gods _you'd be complaining about that too, wouldn't you? Yes, of course, you'd have to. If not, why not? While you thoughtlessly go on about the word of the day, that's the question of the day for you.
> 
> You go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution in order to avoid eliminating alternately lower possibilities. If you were to start with something lower, the obviously higher/highest possibilities are eliminated and cannot be inserted. Also, if we did it your way, pantheism couldn't be inserted either. So your way is what begs the question. The highest standard allows divinity to be conceived of as a collective whole of individuals and allows for the insertion of pantheism.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:
> *
> Worse, you're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* from nothing, nothing comes, i.e., _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in its *objectively* highest standard, as otherwise you are begging the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is conscious of the fact that *(1)* the *objectively* highest standard that is logically possible would ultimately be a non-contingent transcendence and is conscious of the fact that *(2)* he cannot logically rule out the possibility of God’s existence.
> ​That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.
> 
> In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about.​
Click to expand...


For anyone who has weed whacked their way through the landscape of _Rawling'isms_ there are always a lot of "face palm moments" with his embarrassing gaffs, self-contradictory and self-refuting arguments. 

However, there are new furrows of _The Stupid_ recently plowed.

Behold:

"That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest standard, even classical, polytheistic philosophers, for the sake of simplicity and to make sure they include the collectively divine option and any given monotheistic option.

In other words, a polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option against the material option. See how that works? That’s all. It’s nothing to worry about."


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.
> 
> The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.
> 
> Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> 
> Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.
> 
> Evidence of absence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You shift a matter that can only be decided by logic and foolishly claim that science is the standard for something that science can have no opinion about.  You are a pseudoscientific hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
> 
> This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.
Click to expand...


Critical thinking?   You?

God is understood by reason and not subject to the LIMITED scope of science.  How is your materialism or ontological naturalism scientifically verifiable?

I'm cutting you off.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anything less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence is not by definition a creation. God does not necessarily exist. Tag is not an axiom because it is not.universally accepted nor proven that god exists.
> 
> Now, have fun pasted some long winded poorly written misnomer.
Click to expand...


Non sequitur.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
Click to expand...



What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
Click to expand...


Actually
To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"

I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?

Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.  

We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.  

There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.

In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.

You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.

Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.  
Understand, the statement

"sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"

Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.

For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..  

See, I just establish "God" as an event.

Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.

I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
Click to expand...





> *brown nose:* What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.






> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?



but brown nose, #3 is - "The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists" - is only in your mind ...

the Everlasting is the Creator of all things ... "greater" is the fact nothing will persist that is not permitted by the Almighty.




> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."



and who are those who read past the above fallacy and drown themselves in the disbelief of others ... "As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of _the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts"_. ... mdr of course -



> *mdr:* Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.




the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth. - insightful mdr, maybe you are alive afterall.



the Bossy imperative: _Only God Knows_ - and confirmed -  Well, only God would know ...  < they, et all are simply lost - the Seven Things.

indeed, how can sinners know anything ?


.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *brown nose:* What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but brown nose, #3 is - "The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists" - is only in your mind ...
> 
> the Everlasting is the Creator of all things ... "greater" is the fact nothing will persist that is not permitted by the Almighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who are those who read past the above fallacy and drown themselves in the disbelief of others ... "As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of _the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts"_. ... mdr of course -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth. - insightful mdr, maybe you are alive afterall.
> 
> 
> 
> the Bossy imperative: _Only God Knows_ - and confirmed -  Well, only God would know ...  < they, et all are simply lost - the Seven Things.
> 
> indeed, how can sinners know anything ?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


God it the Creator.  That's life everlasting knowledge.  What are you talking about.  I said I don't buy into behaviorism or materialism, which I do not regard animals to be mere machines, and neither does God.  Further is our job to rule over them, which means it is also our job to care for them and to use them responsibly.  Notwithstanding, animals our resources.  They did not have the same value before God as mankind.  Christ did not die for them.  He died to redeem us.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
Click to expand...


Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.

In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.  YOU believe in god because he exists in your mind.  So god is real because you believe it to be real.
Click to expand...


Why didn't you answer the question? Where is your proof that humans are born atheist? You need to answer MY questions with answers or I am not going to keep answering yours or responding to your false accusations of things you think I said. 

I believe in God because I communicate with God daily and realize the benefit from it. I've told you that it's not in my mind, but here you seem to indicate that has somehow been proven to be a fact. Are you confused, son? 



> So why can't anything and everything I believe be true too?



Because everything you believe is toxic waste. But for the record, you've not presented evidence for anything you believe. You keep making claims without supporting them. You won't answer tough questions. You avoid them by lobbing more claims you haven't supported. This reply is the evidence. See... I back my claims with evidence. 



> Since I thunk it, it must be true.



If you thunk it, it's about as valuable as the dried sperm wad in your mother's sock. 



> People have always doubted god existed too just like some people have always believed. So your theory is way off.  Sorry.



I didn't have a theory on how many people doubted God's existence. 95% of the species is spiritual and always has been. 5% are freaks of nature. 



> Your only argument here is that more people believe than don't.  So what?



No, my argument is 95%.. not "more" but "almost all." The remaining 5% are statistical freaks of nature who believe in nothingness. 

_



			Implicit atheism
		
Click to expand...

_


> is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"



No... Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God? I understand how an infant can't plainly express, they lack the capability, as they lack the capability to do almost anything. But they can't imply something they aren't aware of. They also can't consciously reject something they aren't aware of. So you must believe all humans are born with awareness of God. Right?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.
> 
> In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?
Click to expand...

That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
Click to expand...


From where I'm standing when someone says they established something in logic that means they did it with a standard that can't be logically refuted. So the standard would have to be objective.  Anyone can say theyt don't believe in the objective standard, but that's not the same thing as negating it. The standing axiom for logic and science is that "something cannot come from nothing", though Rawlings says you should always express it as "from nothing, nothing comes".  I didn't agree with him on that before because "something cannot come from nothing" seemed to mean the same thing.  But now I just figured out why he's right.  But what you're saying is "nothing from nothing", which = nothing. Nothing isn't zero. To add nothing to anything = nothing logically. But that's really not the point anyway. There's nothing being assumed about the idea that God by definition means cause/agent, not effect. An event would be an effect. To think that God is lower than the highest possibility is what assumes something for no good reason.


----------



## amrchaos

His argument is inductive in nature

1)We exist can only be proven inductively.

Solipsism is valid here. I can deductively prove that my mind exist
But when it comes to the things I see, I must use _*induction*_ to prove those things exist. (

He posits that his arguments come from only deduction and inferrence--neither of which is used to establish 1)

From this point on, everything he posits is resting on induction, questionable uses of inferences and assumptinos about things that may not be true.

Another case is 2) Cosmological Order exist is also an_* inductive statement.*_
This seems to rely on the natural science, which is inductive by nature.  By the way, it does not seem like 2) is needed.

Case 3) I seen his arguments for it.  I do not find them plausible--not from a deductive standpoint, not from an inductive standpoint, and especially  not from a standpoint using inferrence.  I suggested to him to drop the need of implying that God is a sentient being and using an open ended definition.


So far, the first 3 statements is heavily reliant on induction, it is not necessary to continue this farce that we are reading a statement based on inference and deductive logic when almost half the material does not make use of such devices in an accurate and sound manner.

*P.S.--Try taken these "7 things" to a Catholic Forum.  I doubt they will treat you as kindly as I have if you posted it and made the same claims about these 7 things as you did here!!*


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.
> 
> In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.
Click to expand...


Lack of thought is not a refutation.  armchaos is refuted and so are you.  Saying it's possible that the Creator of all other things that exist is not sentient makes no sense and saying that the Creator of all other things that exist does not equate to ability doesn't make sense.  Saying that God might be something less than God doesn't make sense.  That's what is self-refuting.  Saying that existence doesn't necessarily mean a creation is true, but that's just another guess that says that the highest order can be logically eliminated.  Nope, that's wrong.  A lower possibility can never eliminate a logically higher possibility.  The logically higher possibility can and often does eliminate the lower possibility and never begs the question like the lower possibility always does automatically. 

Anyone can say or believe anything they want about God, but that doesn't mean that just whatever you say is logical.  Everything in science and logic is based on the absurdity of infinite regression.  That's the cognitive basis for objectivity in human thinking.  See I learned all this the hard way after trying to make the cosmological argument  against an atheist who knew all these things better than me. Once I understood things totally I realized that this atheist wasn't even being honest anyway.  He was just arguing to argue and to make me feel foolish because he obviously knew that the absurdity of infinite regression is the basis of objective thinking.  This understanding in human beings is the basis for objective standards about everything we can think about. See if you understand that and call me stupid again.  Some of you think I'm dumb because I'm still learning to write better, but I'm not.  Some of you think I just follow what Rawlings says with no understanding of my own.


----------



## amrchaos

By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....

Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> His argument is inductive in nature
> 
> 1)We exist can only be proven inductively.
> 
> Solipsism is valid here. I can deductively prove that my mind exist
> But when it comes to the things I see, I must use _*induction*_ to prove those things exist. (
> 
> He posits that his arguments come from only deduction and inferrence--neither of which is used to establish 1)
> 
> From this point on, everything he posits is resting on induction, questionable uses of inferences and assumptinos about things that may not be true.
> 
> Another case is 2) Cosmological Order exist is also an_* inductive statement.*_
> This seems to rely on the natural science, which is inductive by nature.  By the way, it does not seem like 2) is needed.
> 
> Case 3) I seen his arguments for it.  I do not find them plausible--not from a deductive standpoint, not from an inductive standpoint, and especially  not from a standpoint using inferrence.  I suggested to him to drop the need of implying that God is a sentient being and using an open ended definition.
> 
> 
> So far, the first 3 statements is heavily reliant on induction, it is not necessary to continue this farce that we are reading a statement based on inference and deductive logic when almost half the material does not make use of such devices in an accurate and sound manner.
> 
> *P.S.--Try taken these "7 things" to a Catholic Forum.  I doubt they will treat you as kindly as I have if you posted it and made the same claims about these 7 things as you did here!!*



But I understand all this.  Solipsism was a new word for me when Rawlings first mentioned it way early in this thread, way back near the beginning. Then folks started making arguments about antirealism and irrationalism and he countered those too. He just mentioned all of those things again. He qualified all of that and I agree with his qualification. It's fair, objective and logical. Why do you keep going back to that? 

All the theists have already said that the basic evidence for God's existence which gives us the idea of God is based on the assumption that the basic things of consciousness are real. If you accept that this is true, then all the other things follow, deductively and inductively. If you don't they still follow but only deductively. Either way, objectively, they follow. Okay, you win, nothing's real but you. The solipsist still has to be objective about the idea of God because he still has to be objective about the possibility that he could be wrong. I don't have to pay him any mind if he doesn't do that. He still has the seven things in his mind logically just like everyone else, and that argument, the one I just made, is not inductive but deductive.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.



I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
Click to expand...


He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof



I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
Click to expand...

I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.

"I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.

If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.

Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.
> 
> In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of thought is not a refutation.  armchaos is refuted and so are you.  Saying it's possible that the Creator of all other things that exist is not sentient makes no sense and saying that the Creator of all other things that exist does not equate to ability doesn't make sense.  Saying that God might be something less than God doesn't make sense.  That's what is self-refuting.  Saying that existence doesn't necessarily mean a creation is true, but that's just another guess that says that the highest order can be logically eliminated.  Nope, that's wrong.  A lower possibility can never eliminate a logically higher possibility.  The logically higher possibility can and often does eliminate the lower possibility and never begs the question like the lower possibility always does automatically.
> 
> Anyone can say or believe anything they want about God, but that doesn't mean that just whatever you say is logical.  Everything in science and logic is based on the absurdity of infinite regression.  That's the cognitive basis for objectivity in human thinking.  See I learned all this the hard way after trying to make the cosmological argument  against an atheist who knew all these things better than me. Once I understood things totally I realized that this atheist wasn't even being honest anyway.  He was just arguing to argue and to make me feel foolish because he obviously knew that the absurdity of infinite regression is the basis of objective thinking.  This understanding in human beings is the basis for objective standards about everything we can think about. See if you understand that and call me stupid again.  Some of you think I'm dumb because I'm still learning to write better, but I'm not.  Some of you think I just follow what Rawlings says with no understanding of my own.
Click to expand...


Whoa!  You did learn your lesson well from your experience arguing the Cosmological, better than I would have given you credit for.

No one else on this thread has emphatically driven this point home as you just did, and this proof _does_ universally apply.

However, it's important that you have this proof comprehensively straight in your mind. I don't mean to nitpick, but this is important, and I suspect this is the problem to which armchaos is trying to alert you.

State the matter as follows*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of *the irreducible mind *and of the infinite regression of origin is the universal standard for the objective propositions and proofs of justified true belief/knowledge.

In other words, don't leave consciousness (the axioms/proofs of intuition and deduction) out of the equation. When you only assert the inductive aspect of the proof, _the argument from absurdity of the infinite regression of origin_, you're alluding to the empirical inferences of induction that may be objectively asserted as justified true belief/knowledge _only_.

Notwithstanding, you have the right idea, and you're correct to point out that the essence of your argument against the objection of solipsism raised by armchaos _is_ purely deductive. What the Solipsist believes about the actual nature of the other existents in his mind is irrelevant to the fact that he is indeed consciously aware of these rational constructs and that The Seven Things objectively and logically hold on that basis.  The theist doesn't have to demonstrate the concrete reality of these constructs at all.  That issue is utterly immaterial, pun intended.

As for the materialist, he necessarily concedes that the constructs regarding the apparently empirical existents are concrete, so the theist justifiably proceeds with a deductive-inductive argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

MrDVS1 said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrDVS1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who believes in Jesus is just someone who had their brain eaten by a zombie.
> 
> I say that because post resurrection Jesus is a zombie. No bodily fluids, no pulse, no heartbeat, no breathing, no body temperature.
> 
> Just another BS Story from the unknowledgable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MrDVS1
> What about the interpretation that Jesus represents JUSTICE embodied in the realm of man?
> 
> Are you okay with people having faith that JUSTICE exists on a higher level
> and the point of humanity's learning curve is to establish JUSTICE in our laws, relations and society.
> 
> Anything wrong with that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Jesus represents to me is a major BS story, you can keep the interpretations aka spin. Just maybe people should pay more attention to what goes on, on the physical plane, the here and now instead of some mythological higher level.
> 
> Religions are just a means to control people and a barometer as to their intellectual level.
Click to expand...


Fine, MrDVS1. I agree it makes more sense to focus on healthy relations and society in the real world.

On that note, wouldn't a focus on "Equal Justice and Peace" for all people
be a central, unifying focus?

Why not align on that common principle and value that is beneficial to all humanity?

Instead of dividing over religion and politics,
wouldn't it be better to seek to establish equal justice under law
in all our relationships, reach an agreed understanding between people
as we are trying to do here, and then multiple and expand that worldwide.

Do you have any objections to correcting and preventing injustice
and to invest in repairing damaged relations and communities
in order to rebuild good faith and good will in working together on 
sustainable solutions that improve society's outlook and future?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
Click to expand...



Dear GT:
M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.

What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
has anything to do with a logistical proof.

I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.

But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.

I ran into this phenomenon in college.

My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.

It's the same math.

But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.

MD is right, although my three criticisms are
1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
His proof serves as the first and last step:
A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition

It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role

MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.

It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.

#2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person. 
He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.

He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.

He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to 
work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.

I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.

This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.



No, that's not what makes something true.

If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.

Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.

If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.

Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
how to use or interpret dreams to help us.

Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
we tend to believe that person.

So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?

Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.

But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.
Click to expand...


Actully, No

A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.

A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.

An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true. 
(This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?

Think about it.  Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?) 

An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)

In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind.  That is the problem.  How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real?  You can't, you need induction.  In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!!  (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here  in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)

The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.

 If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.    


Can his argument be construed as rational?  I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not.  3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition).   However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.

I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought.  I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *RE:*
> IDIOTS!​



Dear M.D. Rawlings: I can't emphasize enough how much difference it makes to
Please Refrain
from derogatory attitude and insults about people when seeking to resolve issues with the TAG proof.

You are right that the math stands on its own, regardless the fits or chalk you throw in the classroom.
but it is distracting from the integrity and understanding of your proof.

Especially, M.D. when the path to understanding God is through FORGIVENESS in Christ Jesus,
then you cannot teach this concept while expressing
CONTEMPT for others.

The number one issue preventing people from getting and following your proof
is INABILITY TO FORGIVE past conflicts and differences between Christians and nonchristians,
theists and nontheists.

I urge you to take this side factor into account.

No, it is not directly tied in with the truth of the proof.

But indirectly it has 98% to do with why the process will either fail or succeed.

If we are going to teach forgiveness we have to practice it first.

This is a basic Biblical concept.

For God to be on your side, you have to be on the side of God
which is unconditional love and acceptance not retribution and condemnation
due to lack of understanding.

You are jumping ahead, and expecting people to forgive already.
But if you don't demonstrate the same forgiveness,
who are YOU to preach and call other people names like idiots?

These are brilliant conscientious people you are addressing,
far from idiots. Please refrain from this bias and you'll see it makes a difference
in how they receive and work with you with greater tolerance and respect as well.

Thanks MD


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
Click to expand...

You and I vehemently disagree.

You think his problem is he's more advanced. I find that really ridiculous. 

His problem is that he doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, and he doesn't know the difference between an axiom and a baseless assertion.

Sorry Emily, he might be your huckleberry because you presuppose his conclusion, but he isn't the advanced professor he's the kid playing fake smart for all the dummies and flailing when folks of average or above intelligence call him out for being absurd. 

We are worlds apart on that, you and me. Hopefully this clears up your misconception that he's simply miscommunicating his idea and needs to dumb it down. On the contrary, he needs to smarten up and stop being a charlatan.


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> Think about it.  Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)
> 
> An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind.  That is the problem.  How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real?  You can't, you need induction.  In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!!  (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here  in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> 
> Can his argument be construed as rational?  I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not.  3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition).   However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.
> 
> I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought.  I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.
Click to expand...


Dear amrchaos:
What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
Then all the objections come out.

So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.

This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.

Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.

With the proof process I suggest,
the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or  unforgiveness

So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.

But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.

So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.

The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.

but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
Click to expand...


I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive

However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I vehemently disagree.
> 
> You think his problem is he's more advanced. I find that really ridiculous.
> 
> His problem is that he doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, and he doesn't know the difference between an axiom and a baseless assertion.
> 
> Sorry Emily, he might be your huckleberry because you presuppose his conclusion, but he isn't the advanced professor he's the kid playing fake smart for all the dummies and flailing when folks of average or above intelligence call him out for being absurd.
> 
> We are worlds apart on that, you and me. Hopefully this clears up your misconception that he's simply miscommunicating his idea and needs to dumb it down. On the contrary, he needs to smarten up and stop being a charlatan.
Click to expand...


GT if MD doesn't get that when you deal with people, you need to deal with people,
then no, he is not very wise or knowledgeable about how to deal with people.

However, given his intricate expressions of what he sees going on,
he is clearly above average intelligence.

No "idiot" I know can generate or fake the posts he has laid out in detail.

GT he may be missing the obvious, but he does have intelligence on some high level
and I'm just sorely disappointed he doesn't get the simplest basics,
like not calling people IDIOTS and expect to be taken seriously or respected.

Even third graders and fifth graders are taught not to name call or bully people.

So if he is missing elementary points, 
of course he is going to come across completely wrong.

We haven't even gotten past the respect issue yet.
How can we deal with the higher end arguments?

GT let's take first things first. The main thing I want to focus on first
is establishing some kind of mutual respect first, so the namecalling and attitudes are toned down.

After we agree to that, maybe we can proceed to the
logical content and arguments that you, Boss, and others are trying to address.

First things first, agreed?


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't always know
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
Click to expand...


OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.

But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.

I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
to make the same process apply to more cases.

Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> Think about it.  Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)
> 
> An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind.  That is the problem.  How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real?  You can't, you need induction.  In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!!  (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here  in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> 
> Can his argument be construed as rational?  I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not.  3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition).   However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.
> 
> I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought.  I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
> Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
> Then all the objections come out.
> 
> So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
> a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.
> 
> This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.
> 
> Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
> MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
> which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
> for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
> and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.
> 
> With the proof process I suggest,
> the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or  unforgiveness
> 
> So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
> to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
> then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.
> 
> But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
> is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.
> 
> So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
> for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.
> 
> The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
> It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.
> 
> but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
> that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
> in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry
You are seeing something I don't see in his first 3 points.

However, if he go over to the Catholics, they will straighten him and his arguments out.  My job here and now is to convince him to submit his arguments to some of those guys that takes arguments about God and religious concepts much more seriously than we do.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
Click to expand...

We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.

Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.

And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.

The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.

Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.

And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.

He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.

This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.

I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> Think about it.  Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)
> 
> An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind.  That is the problem.  How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real?  You can't, you need induction.  In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!!  (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here  in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> 
> Can his argument be construed as rational?  I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not.  3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition).   However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.
> 
> I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought.  I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> What do you think of the idea of a "contrapositive" proof process?
> Basically Christians and Deists start the proof by STATING the conclusion.
> Then all the objections come out.
> 
> So in a REAL contrapositive proof, the proof would be established "globally" by showing
> a UNIVERSAL conflict that explains all cases.
> 
> This doesn't apply perfectly here, but it is close to the same process.
> 
> Instead of proving a conflict that results every time,
> MD just states this as a conflict that relied on defining God = creator/knowledge
> which isn't perfectly global either. So this isn't totally perfect, but it can be adjusted
> for each person's starting definition of God = [something universal that exists]
> and show SOME contradiction comes up later but in different forms.
> 
> With the proof process I suggest,
> the COMMON FACTOR = forgiveness or  unforgiveness
> 
> So this could be seen as a contrapositive proof,
> to show when conflicts aren't resolved to reach agreement on God
> then in EVERY case there is a pattern of unforgiveness of a conflict or unresolved issue.
> 
> But the reason this is not a perfect logical/universal proof
> is there is not ONE example of all cases of unforgiveness that blocks agreement on the proof.
> 
> So technically to prove it requires demonstrating this factor
> for EACH and EVERY case individually, since everyone has a different version.
> 
> The pattern is universal, but cannot be proven by science as MD said correctly.
> It can be demonstrated as a theory and verified in every case studied.
> 
> but there is no way to prove it will always happen for all humanity.
> that part will always be taken on faith, that forgiveness/ unforgiveness is the common factor
> in whether people reach agreement on God or they cannot resolve their differences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry
> You are seeing something I don't see in his first 3 points.
> 
> However, if he go over to the Catholics, they will straighten him and his arguments out.  My job here and now is to convince him to submit his arguments to some of those guys that takes arguments about God and religious concepts much more seriously than we do.
Click to expand...


I emailed my friend who is teaching at a Catholic University.
if this is too much work for a busy professor, maybe one of his students may take interest.



			
				emailtoKR said:
			
		

> Dear K:
> I hope you are doing well.
> Sorry to bother you as I'm sure you are busy with the new school year.
> 
> I found a Veteran/theist online who is convinced that the
> TAG argument essentially proves the existence of God by definition.
> 
> Other people are saying the proof is already circular,
> and set up to define and state the terms it is trying to prove.
> 
> Can you or your students explain the difference between
> a deductive and inductive proof, or explain in
> plain terms that the CONTENT is correct
> but the presentation is not perfectly universal.
> 
> Can I ask you to share this link with your students
> if any of them are studying the arguments about God, (in particular using TAG
> Transcendental argument for the existence of God - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)
> 
> It still assumes and limits the definition of God
> to be something that isn't necessarily universal to all people.
> (some people understand God as truth or wisdom, nature or forces
> of life/laws of the universe, and may not make the leap to God as creator)
> 
> Is there a quick link, reference, or reply you can share
> that won't take up too much of your time?
> 
> I do want to work with this Veteran to build a website
> and forum to prove a Consensus on God and Jesus
> by applying this same process to all cases and conflicts
> over the meaning of God, Christianity, religion and the Bible.
> 
> Here is the link to the thread where another Member
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 365 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> asked for help of a Catholic logician
> who can better explain what is missing from the TAG proof.
> 
> Thanks, K
> 
> If you have BETTER resources or links for forming a Consensus on God, I plan to pursue this anyway.
> I thought this Veteran "M.D. Rawlings" would be a good team leader
> since he is so confident his arguments establish the truth on God.
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 235 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> 
> I pointed out that not all people agree to
> define God = Creator and Source of Knowledge
> 
> But I acknowledge that all people who believe in God
> can reconcile with this proof, so it still works by definition,
> because we AGREE to define God this way.
> 
> I advised to adjust the same proof to
> let God = whatever people call the ultimate source of truth and life
> or in some cases God = Creation, Universe or Life itself
> and the same process can be used to reconcile with all people.



M.D. Rawlings: Is there a local Catholic university where you live?
The University of St. Thomas in Houston is where my friend K was
before he moved and took teaching jobs elsewhere.  Can we go
through Catholic depts. and churches to set up a network online
to establish a consensus on God? What do you think of that idea?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is some things wrong with 3.
> 
> "The inability to logically argue against God (Creator)"
> 
> Is that not an assumption of God as a being(sentient)?
> 
> Also, is this not suggesting an inductive argument based on past events--i.e. "If no one has logically disproved the idea of god in the past, then no one will logically disprove the idea of god in the future"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed that. God, by definition,  is the Creator.  To assume anyg less is to make Him a creature, not God. That's self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The definition assumes that everything is created by a sentient being called God.  That is an assumption as well.
> 
> I am assuming that the first statement is what you are calling your definition.
> 
> If you really wish to establish a definition.  Try using
> *Henceforth, God is that which created everything.*
> (Hmm.., there is a bit of a problem in that statement as well)
> 
> Now God can be a being(sentient)
> OR God can be several  Beings(sentient)
> OR God can be an inanimate object
> Or God can be an event
> Or God can be any combination of things.
> 
> To just imply that which created everything is anything does need some establishing beforehand.  Leaving it open as to what God is can avoid asking "How do you know that God is a being(sentient)?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *brown nose:* What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but brown nose, #3 is - "The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists" - is only in your mind ...
> 
> the Everlasting is the Creator of all things ... "greater" is the fact nothing will persist that is not permitted by the Almighty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who are those who read past the above fallacy and drown themselves in the disbelief of others ... "As for animals, I certainly don't buy behaviorism or materialism, and both have been essentially falsified anyway, at least in terms of _the conscious whole being greater than the sum of its parts"_. ... mdr of course -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* Well, only God would know, so we have to go to scripture, and then we have the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the issue as to what scripture, if any, objectively speaking, does one believe to be the truth. - insightful mdr, maybe you are alive afterall.
> 
> 
> 
> the Bossy imperative: _Only God Knows_ - and confirmed -  Well, only God would know ...  < they, et all are simply lost - the Seven Things.
> 
> indeed, how can sinners know anything ?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God it the Creator.  That's life everlasting knowledge.  What are you talking about.  I said I don't buy into behaviorism or materialism, which I do not regard animals to be mere machines, and neither does God.  Further is our job to rule over them, which means it is also our job to care for them and to use them responsibly.  Notwithstanding, animals our resources.  They did not have the same value before God as mankind.  Christ did not die for them.  He died to redeem us.
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.
This is clearly faith based and not proveable by man's limited means.
We can REPRESENT the infinite, but cannot "prove" it logistically
because even our logic proofs rely on DEFINITIONS that are finite while God is infinite.

So MD I agree with you that the proof is consistent and provides a universal framework of logic;
but as I said, the definition of God has to be adjusted and open to each person's different take on God.

As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
and saying your "God = Creator" is LESS than the ultimate "Almighty"
this same proof would have to be adjusted where God = "Almighty" not Christian Creator

B. BreezeWood,
if the TAG proof were to be adjusted where
Almighty is the level of God that MD is trying to say exists by default and by definition.
would you be OK with this proof?

By substituting Almighty as the highest source of all things.
Can that be the top and focus point of the proof, and then this would be true?

Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.
> 
> Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.
> 
> And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.
> 
> The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.
> 
> Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.
> 
> And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
> It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.
> 
> He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.
> 
> This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.
> 
> I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.
Click to expand...


Yes, GT on both points
1. I believe you have been more cordial and respectful than this namecalling I saw from MD.
2. I agree with your point that MD should acknowledge that what we set the definition to of God at the beginning
may need to change for each person or audience, and  it is NOT necessarily universal to set God = creator or
source of all knowledge. 

My mother understands "wisdom" and "spiritual laws" but questions the truth and knowledge of man as delusional.

So that language/concept is not going to fly with all people
but leave out some people's understanding of God and teh meaning to them in their lives and reality.

GT if you please work with me and others anyway,
MD will come around as we focus on teh content
and not the poor opinions expressed of the people here.

I see a lot me good than bad, and the bad attitudes can change.
The good points are going to carry this proof process anyway.

So I ask you to keep focusing on that, the good points, and please forgive the bad
until we can find better ways to correct the things going wrong here. Thanks!


----------



## G.T.

Allrighty. Fair enough, you asked in a pleasant way and who am I to be an asshole? I'm not one.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other thing could possibly be greater than an eternal and transcendent Creator of everything and everyone else that exists?  You're imaging an arbitrary descriptor less than the only objective construct?!  It's a no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.
> 
> In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of thought is not a refutation.  armchaos is refuted and so are you.  Saying it's possible that the Creator of all other things that exist is not sentient makes no sense and saying that the Creator of all other things that exist does not equate to ability doesn't make sense.  Saying that God might be something less than God doesn't make sense.  That's what is self-refuting.  Saying that existence doesn't necessarily mean a creation is true, but that's just another guess that says that the highest order can be logically eliminated.  Nope, that's wrong.  A lower possibility can never eliminate a logically higher possibility.  The logically higher possibility can and often does eliminate the lower possibility and never begs the question like the lower possibility always does automatically.
> 
> Anyone can say or believe anything they want about God, but that doesn't mean that just whatever you say is logical.  Everything in science and logic is based on the absurdity of infinite regression.  That's the cognitive basis for objectivity in human thinking.  See I learned all this the hard way after trying to make the cosmological argument  against an atheist who knew all these things better than me. Once I understood things totally I realized that this atheist wasn't even being honest anyway.  He was just arguing to argue and to make me feel foolish because he obviously knew that the absurdity of infinite regression is the basis of objective thinking.  This understanding in human beings is the basis for objective standards about everything we can think about. See if you understand that and call me stupid again.  Some of you think I'm dumb because I'm still learning to write better, but I'm not.  Some of you think I just follow what Rawlings says with no understanding of my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  You did learn your lesson well from your experience arguing the Cosmological, better than I would have given you credit for.
> 
> No one else on this thread has emphatically driven this point home as you just did, and this proof _does_ universally apply.
> 
> However, it's important that you have this proof comprehensively straight in your mind. I don't mean to nitpick, but this is important, and I suspect this is the problem to which armchaos is trying to alert you.
> 
> State the matter as follows*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of *the irreducible mind *and of the infinite regression of origin is the universal standard for the objective propositions and proofs of justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> In other words, don't leave consciousness (the axioms/proofs of intuition and deduction) out of the equation. When you only assert the inductive aspect of the proof, _the argument from absurdity of the infinite regression of origin_, you're alluding to the empirical inferences of induction that may be objectively asserted as justified true belief/knowledge _only_.
> 
> Notwithstanding, you have the right idea, and you're correct to point out that the essence of your argument against the objection of solipsism raised by armchaos _is_ purely deductive. What the Solipsist believes about the actual nature of the other existents in his mind is irrelevant to the fact that he is indeed consciously aware of these rational constructs and that The Seven Things objectively and logically hold on that basis.  The theist doesn't have to demonstrate the concrete reality of these constructs at all.  That issue is utterly immaterial, pun intended.
> 
> As for the materialist, he necessarily concedes that the constructs regarding the apparently empirical existents are concrete, so the theist justifiably proceeds with a deductive-inductive argument.
Click to expand...


I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first.  But my point on solipsism is deductive.  Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way--when you make a list of who stands where on your list, let me state where I stand....
> 
> Not even 1--Due to it requiring induction and the author claiming he has a deductive proof
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying I guess. I deductive proof is just a rational argument right?  There's no appeal to anything outside the mind in what I just said. The solipsist believes he exists but everything else outside his consciousness might not be real. That still doesn't make any of the things that might not be real go away from his mind. He still sees the same seven things just like everyone else and knows the logic of it is right objectively whether he thinks all the things the logic is based on are real or not. That's a deductive proof that’s logically true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> Think about it.  Even claims of "experiences" by believers can be considered empirical evidence for "GOD" and the atheist will discount it!! No matter how much of this type of evidence you give. ( Strange, don't you think, that it is an atheist that is pointing out the paradox of the materialists worldview?)
> 
> An inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> In the argument for the solipsists--The solipsists realizes that the things that he perceives could be figments of his mind.  That is the problem.  How can you DEDUCTIVELY prove something is real 100% of the time when are you have are perceptions that it is real?  You can't, you need induction.  In this case, intuition can also fit the bill as well!!  (Hmm, another funny paradox can arise here  in terms of the existence of God. Don't you find it strange that it is an atheists that is pointing these things out?)
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> 
> Can his argument be construed as rational?  I can say 1 and 2 are rational in the inductive sense. But he is claiming to use deduction, which he is not.  3, as presented, is a mess but can be streghtened and turned into a deductive(Giving a definition).   However, I do find it suspect that he does not wish to do this. Hence, I think he has an ulterior motive to this argument and point 3 is the heart of it.
> 
> I seriously wish he tried posting "7 things" on a Catholic forum, especially one dedicate to philosophy and metaphysically thought.  I am sure they will point out a lot more mistakes than I and probably won't be as gentle about it.
Click to expand...


I understand this much.  I know what inductive and deductive reasoning are and the difference.  I just messed up by implying the wrong part of the proof for the objective standard.  Rawlings got me straight on that.  There's nothing inductive about my refutation of the solipsist objection you made.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first.  But my point on solipsism is deductive.  Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."



Actually, it's okay to say _something coming from nothing is absurd_ if it's qualified.  It's just easier and better to say _from nothing, nothing comes_ because in the philosophical cannon that iteration of the idea is understood to be formally premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind (the subjects of deductive reasoing) and the infinite regression of origin (the objects of inductive reasoning).


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
Click to expand...


No. You are not showing me any such thing.  I have addressed all of this in detail.  How can you not know that?  You've been on this thread from the beginning.  You're regressing and going around and around that mulberry tree again.

I did not state that verbatim as such. That is misleading, GT. Why can't you simply be objective and stop playing games with yourself and others? Do you lack conviction, confidence? Your straw men are pathetic.

Earlier in this thread I allowed for that language without qualification from others as a means of pushing the discussion forward in the face of Jake and Company's crap coupled with QW's crap.

We've already been over the following, and this is the last time with you.  From here out cut and paste.  And by the way, this is why you keep getting cut and paste.

_Ultimacy_ goes to the conventions of *constructive logic* only! And in constructive logic the ultimate purpose of suspending certain axioms/proofs of organic logic is to either affirm their credibility, not throw them out.

All alternate forms of logic are necessarily bottomed on the universal principle of identity of organic thought. Hence, the extrapolations of alternate forms of logic must inevitably conform with the organic principle of identity or they are not held to be actualities, but mere hypotheticals or absurdities!

The reality of alternate forms of logic _is_ organic logic merely asserted in such a way as to amplify our intuitive power of supposition in order to generate additional, potentially legitimate hypotheses for both rational and scientific discourse.

The principle of identity allows for the suspension of certain kinds of axioms/proofs, for analytic purposes, that absolutely hold in organic/classical logic. It also allows that paradoxical, seemingly absurd potentialities may be left open for science. But such scientific propositions remain mere hypotheses from which science does *not* proceed in the absence of empirical verification/demonstration.

Currently, in both logic and science, for example, _from nothing, nothing comes_ stands as the working theory of rational and scientific discourse! Neither logic nor science proceed from apparent absurdities. Science remains bottomed on the cause-and-effect dynamic of one metaphysical apriority of naturalism or another, and science is limited to the investigation of empirical phenomena. Science cannot and does not assert anything one way or the other in direct fashion about the transcendental constructs of rational discourse.

Hence, on these terms and on these terms only are certain universals suspended in constructive logic and in science. That is to say, they are not necessarily imposed absolutely, once again, for analytical purposes.

The law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination, for example, are suspended in constructive logic, demonstrated on a case by case basis only. Transcendental proofs that are absolute in organic logic are assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values in constructive logic, and other presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, which you fallaciously label as informal fallacies, are assigned truth values if of an empirical in nature.

According to your logic, nitwit, the cause-and-effect dynamic of naturalism for science would be a logical fallacy.

The Seven Whether or Knots, for example, are expressed in the terms of constructive logic for the analytic purpose of demonstrating the nature of the atheist's paradoxically contradictory thinking.

_Knock, Knock. _Anybody home?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots* 
*
1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
That's weird.


----------



## G.T.

MDS response to the failure that is tag: obsessive copy paste - full of naked assertion and internal logical fallacies, and a continued non understanding of what axiom means.

Add in the ad him attacks.

A general fat failure of a post. 

Don't you know that the primacy of existence is not disproven?

Don't you know 'god is the source of knowledge' cannot be an axiom until GOD HIMSELF IS PROVEN, &universally accepted as well? 

Your 'logic' is fundamentally flawed at the most basic levels. 


'From nothing nothing comes' is meaningless in proving god. First objection: 'nothing' having EVER existed, has not been proven so it cannot be rationally assumed.  Your house is built of straw.

Second, if nothing ever DID exist, just because we've never observed something come from nothing doesn't make it impossible. Another straw man masquerading as an absolute.

Further, the law of identity....excluded middle.....etc etc etc ALL DOWN THE LINE are meaningless in a proof of "god" unless you can show necessity for them being grounded in a sentient mind. Since you can't and haven't, your house is built on cotton. Worse than straw, at this point.




And finally - you're going to have to keep dipduckdodging that request for a peer reviewed paper on tag in "academia" because ONE DOESNT EXIST. your appeal failed there, cowgirl. 

Carry on failing.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first.  But my point on solipsism is deductive.  Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's okay to say _something coming from nothing is absurd_ if it's qualified.  It's just easier and better to say _from nothing, nothing comes_ because in the philosophical cannon that iteration of the idea is understood to be formally premised on the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind (the subjects of deductive reasoing) and the infinite regression of origin (the objects of inductive reasoning).
Click to expand...

"The philosophical cannon". How fitting.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> That's weird.


There is nothing to support your fraudulent claim that there is any such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought."

You just make up this nonsense as you go, right?


----------



## G.T.

I think if Michael David Justin Davis Rawlings actually had the definition of AXIOM etched into his brain with a laser beam off of the Stat Trek Enterprise, he would curl up in a little ball like a baby and cry himself to sleep sucking his thumb.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually
> To insert a sentient being here with reference to the Cosmological argument does, again, raise the question "How do you know if this was a sentient being?"
> 
> I think I've already pointed out that some people believe the Big Bang created the Universe.  If that is the case, could not the first cause therefore be the Big Bang?  If so, then is there a claim that the Big Bang is obviously sentient?
> 
> Another argument is that There was something that caused the Big Bang.  Thus we have a continued chain that leaves open the possibility that 2) The notion of the cosmological order(as it pertains to this Universe) is no longer relevant.
> 
> We are assuming "everything" to mean more than our Universe and the question of "when the  universe began?" and models pertaining to it are no longer sufficient.  We need a model for things outside of our observable Universe.  Scientifically we do not have.   Even so, the idea that everything(including that which exist outside of our observable universe) had a start is purely conjecture.  We can't say if it had a beginning or not without hand waving.
> 
> There is a cosmological model to Our (observable) universe.  A Cosmological model for anything outside it is pure conjecture.  That, which is seemed to be reference to if we talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" can not be fully establish based on the science we do have.
> 
> In fact, we do not know if it even had a start.  To suggest one way or another is conjecture. Likewise, the chain of events that led up to the Big Bang is also open to speculation despite the supposition that only a sentient being could have started this chain.
> 
> You can not use Creator whatsoever do to the implication that it implies a being(sentient)  The Cosmological argument does not actually support this(It just suggest there was a first cause) If we stick to a cosmological model of our universe to describe "everything".  Nor does it support a sentient being as the first cause if we try to supercede a cosmological model for our universe.
> 
> Sorry, I still feel that you have to leave the definition open.
> Understand, the statement
> 
> "sentient + "nothing from nothing" = Creator"
> 
> Assumes what "nothing from nothing" with the addition of sentience should be called.  However, you can apply multiple sentient beings, inanimate objects, Events and so on and place the appropriate word to the other end and it would make sense to whomever that wishes to suppose What that god actually is.
> 
> For instance "Big Bang" + "nothing from nothing"=  that which creates our Universe..
> 
> See, I just establish "God" as an event.
> 
> Finally, this talk about the highest level of sentience--Is that really an attempt to make "God" a sentient being.  It is possible that God is not sentient at all and the "Highest levelled sentient being that existed" is incapable of doing something as grand as create a Planet, let alone an entire Universe(Sentient does not equate to ability).  If you wish to call it God, you can. But you run the risk of calling 2 separate things God.
> 
> I think you definitely need to state the definition without implication in your #3.  I do not agree with your argument for using the implication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me interpose something here.  You fail to grasp the thrust of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mine and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of a divine sentience of the highest conceivable order of being and  _from nothing, nothing comes_:  *sentience + from nothing, nothing comes = Creator.*   You cannot yank the proof out from under the conclusion.  Hence, your objection does not follow and it is eliminated by the proof.  It is your objection that begs the question, not the proof.  The proof negates your logical error. You cannot overturn the first principle, whether you understand it or not.
> 
> In other words we, any one in the world, now asks you:  who/what caused the singularity from whence the Big Bang erupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's standard piffle for christian extremists. You excuse your self-refuting arguments as pointless and absurd because without that exemption, you're faced with the failure of your polytheistic gods and your theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lack of thought is not a refutation.  armchaos is refuted and so are you.  Saying it's possible that the Creator of all other things that exist is not sentient makes no sense and saying that the Creator of all other things that exist does not equate to ability doesn't make sense.  Saying that God might be something less than God doesn't make sense.  That's what is self-refuting.  Saying that existence doesn't necessarily mean a creation is true, but that's just another guess that says that the highest order can be logically eliminated.  Nope, that's wrong.  A lower possibility can never eliminate a logically higher possibility.  The logically higher possibility can and often does eliminate the lower possibility and never begs the question like the lower possibility always does automatically.
> 
> Anyone can say or believe anything they want about God, but that doesn't mean that just whatever you say is logical.  Everything in science and logic is based on the absurdity of infinite regression.  That's the cognitive basis for objectivity in human thinking.  See I learned all this the hard way after trying to make the cosmological argument  against an atheist who knew all these things better than me. Once I understood things totally I realized that this atheist wasn't even being honest anyway.  He was just arguing to argue and to make me feel foolish because he obviously knew that the absurdity of infinite regression is the basis of objective thinking.  This understanding in human beings is the basis for objective standards about everything we can think about. See if you understand that and call me stupid again.  Some of you think I'm dumb because I'm still learning to write better, but I'm not.  Some of you think I just follow what Rawlings says with no understanding of my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoa!  You did learn your lesson well from your experience arguing the Cosmological, better than I would have given you credit for.
> 
> No one else on this thread has emphatically driven this point home as you just did, and this proof _does_ universally apply.
> 
> However, it's important that you have this proof comprehensively straight in your mind. I don't mean to nitpick, but this is important, and I suspect this is the problem to which armchaos is trying to alert you.
> 
> State the matter as follows*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of *the irreducible mind *and of the infinite regression of origin is the universal standard for the objective propositions and proofs of justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> In other words, don't leave consciousness (the axioms/proofs of intuition and deduction) out of the equation. When you only assert the inductive aspect of the proof, _the argument from absurdity of the infinite regression of origin_, you're alluding to the empirical inferences of induction that may be objectively asserted as justified true belief/knowledge _only_.
> 
> Notwithstanding, you have the right idea, and you're correct to point out that the essence of your argument against the objection of solipsism raised by armchaos _is_ purely deductive. What the Solipsist believes about the actual nature of the other existents in his mind is irrelevant to the fact that he is indeed consciously aware of these rational constructs and that The Seven Things objectively and logically hold on that basis.  The theist doesn't have to demonstrate the concrete reality of these constructs at all.  That issue is utterly immaterial, pun intended.
> 
> As for the materialist, he necessarily concedes that the constructs regarding the apparently empirical existents are concrete, so the theist justifiably proceeds with a deductive-inductive argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that now because I do know the difference between deduction and induction, so I guess that's what armchaos meant because I didn't understand him at first.  But my point on solipsism is deductive.  Also, I just got the reason you should always say "from nothing, nothing comes."
Click to expand...


Also, be careful with using the terms _induction_ and _inductive reasoning_ interchangeably without qualification.

Deductive reasoning is essentially "top-down logic," typically, reasoning from a general, major premise and other premises more limited in scope to a specific/certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning reduces everything down to a conclusion, the one that remains.

Inductive reasoning is "bottom-up logic," which in most cases proceeds from specific information/observations to generalizations of probability, so it's more general conclusions are inferences or extrapolations. In science, we assert general theories from such observations.  This is the reason that in science we tentatively verify or falsify things.

The fact of the matter is that deductive reasoning can be applied to well-founded premises about empirical things. The only issue here in this instance is epistemological solipsism, antirealism, irrationalism or skepticism. Which is fine. The qualifying assertion for The Seven Things  pragmatically presupposes that the apparent cosmological order is concrete, real, actual, and that the apparent laws of organic/classical thought actually hold and are synchronized with the properties and processes of empirical phenomena outside of our minds. Everything we do in science pragmatically presupposes these things to be true.

But in any event, the first principles of human cognition need not even appeal to the empirical realm of being as something concrete at all in order to assert any of The Seven Things!

Even the solipsist necessarily concedes that at the very least the constructs related to the apparent existents outside his mind _do_ exist inside his mind, even if he holds that they be nothing more than ideas about things that have no concrete substance beyond the confines of his mind. Further, one can strike *#2* from the list and challenge the solipsist to deny his own existence or account for his origin. . . . The idea of God as his Creator immediately follows. _ Cogito ergo sum_; _ergo est sensa de Deus_ ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God").

So now what? End of the debate, that's what!


----------



## BreezeWood

> emilynghiem said
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
> A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
> we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.
> This is clearly faith based and not proveable by man's limited means.
> We can REPRESENT the infinite, but cannot "prove" it logistically
> because even our logic proofs rely on DEFINITIONS that are finite while God is infinite.
> 
> So MD I agree with you that the proof is consistent and provides a universal framework of logic;
> but as I said, the definition of God has to be adjusted and open to each person's different take on God.
> 
> As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
> and saying your "God = Creator" is LESS than the ultimate "Almighty"
> this same proof would have to be adjusted where God = "Almighty" not Christian Creator
> 
> B. BreezeWood,
> if the TAG proof were to be adjusted where
> Almighty is the level of God that MD is trying to say exists by default and by definition.
> would you be OK with this proof?
> 
> By substituting Almighty as the highest source of all things.
> Can that be the top and focus point of the proof, and then this would be true?
> 
> Thanks!






> *em.* A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
> we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.




that is your argument emilynghiem not mine -

acquiring knowledge is the pursuit of life, it is your religion that believes everyone is a sinner - no God is necessary to "know" the truth is my position.




> *em:* As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
> and saying your "God = Creator" ...




Everlasting = is responsible for all that exists including God -

is what I have stated in this thread emilynghiem.


just to clear up your misgivings  ... thanks.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> No... Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God? I understand how an infant can't plainly express, they lack the capability, as they lack the capability to do almost anything. But they can't imply something they aren't aware of. They also can't consciously reject something they aren't aware of. So you must believe all humans are born with awareness of God. Right?




*"How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God?"*

Apparently, that obvious fact of human cognition needs to be repeated over and over again for some.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood and M.D. Rawlings:
> A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
> we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.
> This is clearly faith based and not proveable by man's limited means.
> We can REPRESENT the infinite, but cannot "prove" it logistically
> because even our logic proofs rely on DEFINITIONS that are finite while God is infinite.
> 
> So MD I agree with you that the proof is consistent and provides a universal framework of logic;
> but as I said, the definition of God has to be adjusted and open to each person's different take on God.
> 
> As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
> and saying your "God = Creator" is LESS than the ultimate "Almighty"
> this same proof would have to be adjusted where God = "Almighty" not Christian Creator
> 
> B. BreezeWood,
> if the TAG proof were to be adjusted where
> Almighty is the level of God that MD is trying to say exists by default and by definition.
> would you be OK with this proof?
> 
> By substituting Almighty as the highest source of all things.
> Can that be the top and focus point of the proof, and then this would be true?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *em.* A. I agree with what BreezeWood said that basically if humans are "sinners"/imperfect, since
> we are LIMIITED and FINITE how can we know for sure about something that is INFINITE AND ETERNAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that is your argument emilynghiem not mine -
> 
> acquiring knowledge is the pursuit of life, it is your religion that believes everyone is a sinner - no God is necessary to "know" the truth is my position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *em:* As with BreezeWood who keeps referring to the "Almightly"
> and saying your "God = Creator" ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everlasting = is responsible for all that exists including God -
> 
> is what I have stated in this thread emilynghiem.
> 
> 
> just to clear up your misgivings  ... thanks.
Click to expand...


Right. So the _Everlasting_ is _God the Creator,_ the highest conceivable entity, and all this noise is over semantics regarding a rose that is still a rose.

Ridiculous.

Define _Everlasting_, BreezeWood.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No... Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God? I understand how an infant can't plainly express, they lack the capability, as they lack the capability to do almost anything. But they can't imply something they aren't aware of. They also can't consciously reject something they aren't aware of. So you must believe all humans are born with awareness of God. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God?"*
> 
> Apparently, that obvious fact of human cognition needs to be repeated over and over again for some.
Click to expand...

Apparently, your fundamentalist views make it difficult for you to resolve some pretty basic concepts. 

Why don't you first define "gawd" and then make a case for your polytheistic gawds.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Why don't you first define "gawd" and then make a case for your polytheistic gawds.



Because things do not have to be defined specifically to make cases for their existence generally. It's like Your Mind... Scientists have discovered it does exist, but they aren't sure what's inside. The gravitational forces are so strong that no light can escape, so we have no way to observe it. We know it exists, but things seem to vanish at the event horizon.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.
> 
> Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.
> 
> And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.
> 
> The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.
> 
> Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.
> 
> And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
> It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.
> 
> He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.
> 
> This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.
> 
> I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.
Click to expand...



I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
"knowledge required that God had existed"

However, my conclusion would be 
"That God had existed"

suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God  no more than "God is that which created the Universe"

Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang.  That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept. 

I guess I should post the argument?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  Just because the concept of god makes you feel good and you think it is useful to you does not make it true.  Is my lucky rabbits foot really good luck and useful to me?
> 
> And just because you can't believe it is not true does not make it true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.
> 
> Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.
> 
> And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.
> 
> The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.
> 
> Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.
> 
> And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
> It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.
> 
> He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.
> 
> This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.
> 
> I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
> "knowledge required that God had existed"
> 
> However, my conclusion would be
> "That God had existed"
> 
> suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God  no more than "God is that which created the Universe"
> 
> Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang.  That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.
> 
> I guess I should post the argument?
Click to expand...

But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what makes something true.
> 
> If someone connects with truth, wisdom and insights by conscience,
> and RELATES to this connection/relationship as "God talking to them"
> then THAT is "true" for THEM, for THAT person.
> 
> Again I would compare talking with God with having dreams at night.
> 
> If these really occur for people, those are THEIR experiences.
> 
> Sealybobo, dreams do not always "make us feel good" or are not always clear how they are useful.
> Some say it is our unconscious trying to resolve problems or release stress. We don't alwaysthat w
> how to use or interpret dreams to help us.
> 
> Yet when someone says "I dreamed X" last night, and I THINK it means Y,
> we tend to believe that person.
> 
> So why not let people have their interpretations and conversations with God?
> 
> Now if those voices tell them to do harmful or evil things, such as Andrea Yates or
> serial killers who see or hear demons, that needs to be resolved and the criminal illness or addiction cured.
> 
> But it is still a REAL experience if that person is sensing those voices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.
> 
> Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.
> 
> And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.
> 
> The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.
> 
> Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.
> 
> And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
> It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.
> 
> He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.
> 
> This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.
> 
> I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
> "knowledge required that God had existed"
> 
> However, my conclusion would be
> "That God had existed"
> 
> suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God  no more than "God is that which created the Universe"
> 
> Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang.  That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.
> 
> I guess I should post the argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.
Click to expand...

Ahh

I take it that you are an agnostic/agnostic atheist based primarily on the definition of the God of Abraham?  Pretty much all agnostics/agnostic atheist in the Western Hemisphere are. 

By the way, Emily, no, I do not know of anyone specific.  But if you can, do present it to your friend and make it clear that you did not write it.  Hopefully he is in  a good when you do.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about cleaning up his proof and turning it deductive
> 
> However I realized sending him over to the Catholics would be much more _instructive_ for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK I know a Catholic theologian who was all into Aquinas and the proofs of God.
> He is a busy professor and may not have time for online anything.
> 
> But maybe I can ask him to please review with MD and see if he can explain some pointers.
> 
> I think MD framework is USABLE but more is needed to add AROUND the proof
> to make the same process apply to more cases.
> 
> Let me ask my friend, or do you know another Catholic church member or teacher
> who enjoys this and can explain it in user friendly terms so we can all follow and participate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We began on a cordial footing and I am not the first to have slung mud.
> 
> Justin Davis if in recall correctly was rude to me, and m.d. followed suit. I haven't given them any respect since, and won't sans apology.
> 
> And further - there is no middle ground on our differences in approach. M.d. NEEDS "knowledge requires god" to be an axiom for the TAG argument to be valid.
> 
> The definition of an axiom is universally accepted as a self evident truth.
> 
> Since he forgoes "universal acceptance" and calls it an axiom anyways - he is being a snake by way of ducking reality.
> 
> And if he did ever use reason to come to his senses and realize it is not an axiom, his entire argument falls apart..
> It is for these reasons that he has already lost. The lofty charade with terribly worded long winded posts that typically make no rational sense to an intelligent human ate attempts at saving face for an argument disproven by philosophers a zillion times on end.
> 
> He furthers his dishonesty by stating that tag has been 'peer reviewed in academia,' however when pressed for any paper or evidence of that, he simply repastes his seven things like he has tourettes. Tag would not pass peer review, and has been debunked a million times over, EVEN BY THEISTS.
> 
> This truth is evidenced by his inability to show TAG passing a credible peer review process. Watch and see.
> 
> I find it gross about human nature that a typical person can't seemingly see through a little snake in the grass. For me it comes natural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can write a deductive logic statement using that uses the statement
> "knowledge required that God had existed"
> 
> However, my conclusion would be
> "That God had existed"
> 
> suggesting that God may not exist now, and will it describe God  no more than "God is that which created the Universe"
> 
> Again, I am in a situation that God could very well be the Big Bang.  That is deism and/or some from of non-theistic concept.
> 
> I guess I should post the argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But if youre using a non sentient 'god' then calling it 'god' is changing the context of what humans coined as 'god(s) for all of our history- so really a different term altogether would be more fitting for what youve been alluding to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh
> 
> I take it that you are an agnostic/agnostic atheist based primarily on the definition of the God of Abraham?  Pretty much all agnostics/agnostic atheist in the Western Hemisphere are.
> 
> By the way, Emily, no, I do not know of anyone specific.  But if you can, do present it to your friend and make it clear that you did not write it.  Hopefully he is in  a good when you do.
Click to expand...

In my rational mind I'm agnostic.

When I'm emotional or creative, I hope there's more.

I tell everyone that aside from the joy of family & friends, I won't die happy unless I can do two things: time travel, and learn our origins of all existence.

Both are a real long shot. Its really hard for me to be intrigued. Sometimes, good ideas in movies/music/literature can catch me.

I'm also into ASMR big time. 

Through the Wormhole is my favorite TV show. Shark tank after that.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you first define "gawd" and then make a case for your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because things do not have to be defined specifically to make cases for their existence generally. It's like Your Mind... Scientists have discovered it does exist, but they aren't sure what's inside. The gravitational forces are so strong that no light can escape, so we have no way to observe it. We know it exists, but things seem to vanish at the event horizon.
Click to expand...

 That's a ridiculous attempt at a failed analogy.

There's nothing supernatural about gravity. Gawds, on the other hand....


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> His argument is inductive in nature
> 
> 1)We exist can only be proven inductively.
> 
> Solipsism is valid here. I can deductively prove that my mind exist
> But when it comes to the things I see, I must use _*induction*_ to prove those things exist. (
> 
> He posits that his arguments come from only deduction and inferrence--neither of which is used to establish 1)
> 
> From this point on, everything he posits is resting on induction, questionable uses of inferences and assumptinos about things that may not be true.
> 
> Another case is 2) Cosmological Order exist is also an_* inductive statement.*_
> This seems to rely on the natural science, which is inductive by nature.  By the way, it does not seem like 2) is needed.
> 
> Case 3) I seen his arguments for it.  I do not find them plausible--not from a deductive standpoint, not from an inductive standpoint, and especially  not from a standpoint using inferrence.  I suggested to him to drop the need of implying that God is a sentient being and using an open ended definition.
> 
> 
> So far, the first 3 statements is heavily reliant on induction, it is not necessary to continue this farce that we are reading a statement based on inference and deductive logic when almost half the material does not make use of such devices in an accurate and sound manner.
> 
> *P.S.--Try taken these "7 things" to a Catholic Forum.  I doubt they will treat you as kindly as I have if you posted it and made the same claims about these 7 things as you did here!!*



Nonsense! From beginning to end.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents.  The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts.  That is the pertinent distinction.

The OP assumes that *(1)* we exist and that *(2)* the cosmological order exists. You're off theme. And I already qualified The Seven Things accordingly. If one accepts that *#1* and *#2* are true, the rest follow automatically, and nothing you're going on about here or anywhere else refutes that. This is at least the fourth time you've been told these things.

If you want to wax philosophical about the meanderings of solipsism go ahead, but they're irrelevant to the established presuppositions of this OP and The Seven Things.

The solipsist can go bark at moon. Or he can deny _his_ existence. Good luck with that as he necessarily holds that much to be real about himself, if not about any one else or any other thing. Now let him account for his origin: _ergo est sensa de Deus _follows_._

Moreover, the solipsist does *not* assert or infer his existence inductively! That's ridiculous. Self-awareness is the most immediately rational intuition of them all! I don't care what you find implausible. Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're confused.

You're real objection has nothing to do with *#3*, but goes to *#2:* the existence of the cosmological order, which is _only_ relevant insofar as solipsism, antirealism or  irrationalism is concerned. And I don't have to give a flip or flop about any one of these epistemologies.  The idea that any one or that any cogent argument would necessarily be bound by them, or that any well-founded premise would necessarily be subject to the dictates of these paradigms is ridiculous.

But since you brought this irrelevancy up, though this puts us off topic, disregards the established presuppositions of this thread, strike *#2* from The Seven Things and then explain to us how _Cogito ergo sum_; _ergo est sensa de Deus_ ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God") is *not* purely deductive, indeed, famously deductive.  More to the point, tell us how these apprehensions, these intuitions, and their nature are *not* purely rational.

Got the Father of modern philosophy, Descartes, the founder of epistemological rationalism, anyone? Got the Father of classical liberalism, Locke, the founder of epistemological empiricism, anyone? How about the historically famous debate between them over the merits of deductive reasoning (Descartes, Mr. Cogito himself) versus the merits of inductive reasoning (Locke)?

There's your farce!

Explain to us how the only defensibly objective idea of God  (the Creator) is not open-ended.

It is _your _assertion that begs the question and would arbitrarily preclude the conceivably highest standard of divine attribution. I'm not dropping sentience, and no sensible person is going to drop sentience. That's ridiculous! We intuitively recognize that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness! You're trying to preclude the highest, objectively manifest possibility and do so on the grounds of epistemological rationalism no less, as if solipsism were an issue after *#2* is struck.

There's your farce!


----------



## G.T.




----------



## amrchaos

I think Boss idea of "awareness of God" can be taken to mean " to have a concept of what God is"  If so, I totally agree with you Boss.

In fact, I have numerous competing concepts of "what God is" and "what God was".  Some of which I can't discount. Others which I can't disprove.  A few that I actually seen!

When someone says he is an atheist(agnosticism implied), there is some specific god concept they do not accept.

There is no such thing as a "Pure" atheists.  There is a definition for God that no atheist can rationally say it is illogical.  But this definition of God is not the God of Abraham.  

Now Boss, given that I have awareness of different types of Gods, which one am I should take for a monotheistic world view?  Doing so requires I refute the others, why would that make sense?

I am also pretty sure most of you became aware of Greek Gods.  That imposed several concepts of what a God is, and even suggested Goddess as well. Why did you refute those Gods after becoming aware of them?  

That is basically what is going on with nonbelievers in terms of the God of Abraham.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


>




Which is stronger--
A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
.
Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?

Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!

I dare you
I double dare you
I triple dare you!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hey Rawlings,
> 
> Is the 7 things some kind of Inductive proof?



No.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is stronger--
> A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
> .
> Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?
> 
> Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!
> 
> I dare you
> I double dare you
> I triple dare you!!
Click to expand...



You dare me to do what, exactly?  What are you talking about?  The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them _is_ deductive!  It's a syllogism.

Don't go playing the  game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive  reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly structured and executed and the premises are true.


----------



## amrchaos

I think I am getting what is going on

I think MD think that I am a materialist.
That is, he thinks I believe that the Scientific Worldview is superior to others.  Probably because I am an atheist?

Boy, if that is the case, MD,you are in for a rude awaken about how I use "world views", which I call viewpoints.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is stronger--
> A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
> .
> Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?
> 
> Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!
> 
> I dare you
> I double dare you
> I triple dare you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dare me to do what, exactly?  What are you talking about?  The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them _is_ deductive!  It's a syllogism.
> 
> Don't go playing the  game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive  reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly sknowured and executed and that the premises are true.
Click to expand...

You don't know fact from opinion, axiom from assertion , or deduction from induction.

Its not like they're rocket science either.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is stronger--
> A Deductive logic statement made in Philosophy?
> .
> Or an Inductive logic statement(i.e. a scientific statement made using empirical evidence on past weather formation, for example) made by a Meteorologists?
> 
> Believe me--I m tired of this farce--go to a Catholic forum focused on philosophy and theological concepts and make that statement, MD!!
> 
> I dare you
> I double dare you
> I triple dare you!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You dare me to do what, exactly?  What are you talking about?  The Seven Things are objective facts of human cognition, purely rational in nature, and the proof/argument among them _is_ deductive!  It's a syllogism.
> 
> Don't go playing the  game with me that I don't know the difference between deductive  reasoning and inductive reasoning and which one of the two is arguably more certain assuming the arguments of the former are soundly structured and executed and that the premises are true.
Click to expand...

Post the "7 things" in A Catholic forum--One dedicated to philosophy or Theological concepts!!

Go and do it now!!

Oh--make those statements you are making.  It does not help when the theist here are trying to argue that deductive and inductive logic are the same--or mixed terminology. 

I am pretty sure the theist on a Catholic forum will surely keep the terminology clear and unmixed.  Plus do and say a lot more about the problems of your 7 things.

Again, I'll say it so you would understand

*POST YOUR "7 THINGS" ON A CATHOLIC FORUM DEDICATED TO PHILOSOPHY AND/OR THEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS!!*

Just do it.  What are you afraid of, theists insulting you.

By the way--make some of those remarks that you made here.  I am pretty sure that would _humor_ some of them!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
Click to expand...


*What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
has anything to do with a logistical proof.
I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.*


You're full of shit.    I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus.  You don't know what talking about.  I'm learned on both sides of that equation.  Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.


----------



## G.T.

still waiting on that peer reviewed TAG paper from "academia" dipstick


Small issue: its an unsound argument.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Like guys....I can't believe anyone thinks we are saying we can prove god in the ultimate sense......lol! We can only prove him as an ultimate absolute fact!"
> 
> /derp derp  logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.*
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.    I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus.  You don't know what talking about.  I'm learned on both sides of that equation.  Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.
Click to expand...



Emily is not talking about your proof.  In fact, I think emily is down with  all 7 points!!

She is referencing how you deal with people that ask questions or criticize aspects of your proof!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?



Whaaaaa?  The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence?  What else what be the evidence for God's existence?  Nothingness?

You're out of friggin' mind.





> Inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)



Bullshit!  The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time.  Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific.  The solipsists are nincompoops.




> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.



Bullshit!

There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive.  The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.



> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.



You're an idiot.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whaaaaa?  The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence?  What else what be the evidence for God's existence?  Nothingness?
> 
> You're out of friggin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time.  Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific.  The solipsists are nincompoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive.  The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

again, I will say it

*Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.*

...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you're lying again.  Wait!  Yes I can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.*
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.    I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus.  You don't know what talking about.  I'm learned on both sides of that equation.  Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily is not talking about your proof.  In fact, I think emily is down with  all 7 points!!
> 
> She is referencing how you deal with people that ask questions or criticize aspects of your proof!!
Click to expand...



*That's weird.*  I don't care what she's talking about.  She's full of shit and so you.  They're not mine.  These facts of human cognition belong to us all.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whaaaaa?  The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence?  What else what be the evidence for God's existence?  Nothingness?
> 
> You're out of friggin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time.  Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific.  The solipsists are nincompoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive.  The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, I will say it
> 
> *Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.*
> 
> ...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.
Click to expand...


And watch what happens?   LOL!  You mean share with them the very same observations made by Augustine and Aquinas centuries before me?  The same observations asserted in scripture, made by Calvin, Whitehead and many, many others?  I'm quite sure these things would be nothing new to them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I think I am getting what is going on
> 
> I think MD think that I am a materialist.
> That is, he thinks I believe that the Scientific Worldview is superior to others.  Probably because I am an atheist?
> 
> Boy, if that is the case, MD,you are in for a rude awaken about how I use "world views", which I call viewpoints.



I never thought any such thing, and until today I thought you had real on your shoulders.  Now I see that you're liar and an idiot of the same make and model as GT, Hollie, sealybobo and company.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actully, No
> 
> A rational argument can take many forms.  However, asking if it is an inductive  argument or  deductive argument carries significant weight.
> 
> A Deductive argument is meant to argued a guranteed/absolute truth from the merits tht each statement used to reach tht conclusion is guranteed true and logically handled.
> 
> An inductive argument provides a conclusion that is probably true.
> (This is an underpinning problem for the natural sciences.  For a theists, an argument using empirical evidence for the existence of God will be attack along these lines. So why try?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whaaaaa?  The existence of the universe and its constituents are not the fundamental evidence for God's existence? Current science and empirical facts are not relevant to the philosophical and theological concerns regarding God's existence?  What else what be the evidence for God's existence?  Nothingness?
> 
> You're out of friggin' mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inductive argument can make use of deductive statements, However a deductive arguments cannot make use of inductive statements because it can deteriorate the gurantee of its conclusion(Hence, any argument that uses inductive statements are most likely inductive.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  The syllogism of deductive reasoning uses the premises of inductively derived general rules and principles all the time.  Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific.  The solipsists are nincompoops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arguments in the 7 things are inductive.  1) can be strenghten to a deductive statement("I exist"--you exist is not correct). There is no saving 2 (in terms of deduction--natural science and any based on the natural science is inductive.) and it is misused in his arguments for 3).  However 3) can be strenghten to form a definition and it makes 2 pointless except there is an attempt to connect the First Cause to that most "Most Divine Sentient being" which need not be the first Cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit!
> 
> There's only one formal argument in The Seven Things, and that argument is purely deductive.  The other six items on that list are purely rational, self-evident facts of human cognition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were just talking about the most Divine thing(be it whatever) you will get God back.. But when you add in the new restriction of sentience, you can only get back god if you already know that God is sentient.  Which he does not show and any equting to that is basically an  assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, I will say it
> 
> *Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.*
> 
> ...and please, feel free to make the same comments tht you made here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And watch what happens?   LOL!  You mean share with them the very same observations made by Augustine and Aquinas centuries before me?  The same observations asserted in scripture, made by Calvin, Whitehead and many, many others?  I'm quite sure these things would be nothing new to them.
Click to expand...


Then do it, and find out if you predictions about their reactions is as you think.

Again, let me reiterate what to do:
*Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.*

You can do it now--You can cut and paste it here

Philosophy - Catholic Answers Forums


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*

Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are _*not*_ used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis of the classic arguments for God's existence?!  Shut up. (Do you even think about the implications of what you were suggesting when you claimed that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the essence of the evidence for God's existence?  No, you didn't, did you?)_ I_ don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, but a formal argument?!  Shut up. God is not objectively understood to be a sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.


LOL!


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I am getting what is going on
> 
> I think MD think that I am a materialist.
> That is, he thinks I believe that the Scientific Worldview is superior to others.  Probably because I am an atheist?
> 
> Boy, if that is the case, MD,you are in for a rude awaken about how I use "world views", which I call viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought any such thing, and until today I thought you had real on your shoulders.  Now I see that you're liar and an idiot of the same make and model as GT, Hollie, sealybobo and company.
Click to expand...


I lied about what, specifically?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?" 

And the answer is still no.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I lied about what, specifically?



*Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups
*
Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are _*not*_ used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis of the classic arguments for God's existence?!  Shut up. (Do you even think about the implications of what you were suggesting when you claimed that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the essence of the evidence for God's existence?  No, you didn't, did you?)_ I_ don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, but a formal argument?!  Shut up. God is not objectively understood to be a sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.

LOL!


----------



## G.T.

Michael David Justin Davis rawlings is drooling again.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
everything resides within the Everlasting and is caused by it.
.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!



1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!

You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument

2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!

Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.  

3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!

To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.

4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?! 

G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address. 

5. God is not sentient?

I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!

You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)


6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?! 

I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.

7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!

Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.

Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.

Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.

That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
Click to expand...



Nonsense! From beginning to end.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents. The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts. That is the pertinent distinction.

The OP assumes that *(1)* we exist and that *(2)* the cosmological order exists. You're off theme. And I already qualified The Seven Things accordingly. If one accepts that *#1* and *#2* are true, the rest follow automatically, and nothing you're going on about here or anywhere else refutes that. This is at least the fourth time you've been told these things.

If you want to wax philosophical about the meanderings of solipsism go ahead, but they're irrelevant to the established presuppositions of this OP and The Seven Things.

The solipsist can go bark at moon. Or he can deny _his_ existence. Good luck with that as he necessarily holds that much to be real about himself, if not about any one else or any other thing. Now let him account for his origin: _ergo est sensa de Deus _follows_._

Moreover, the solipsist does *not* assert or infer his existence inductively! That's ridiculous. Self-awareness is the most immediately rational intuition of them all! I don't care what you find implausible. Your reasoning is ridiculous. You're confused.

You're real objection has nothing to do with *#3*, but goes to *#2:* the existence of the cosmological order, which is _only_ relevant insofar as solipsism, antirealism or irrationalism is concerned. And I don't have to give a flip or flop about any one of these epistemologies. The idea that any one or that any cogent argument would necessarily be bound by them, or that any well-founded premise would necessarily be subject to the dictates of these paradigms is ridiculous.

But since you brought this irrelevancy up, though this puts us off topic, disregards the established presuppositions of this thread, strike *#2* from The Seven Things and then explain to us how _Cogito ergo sum_; _ergo est sensa de Deus_ ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God") is *not* purely deductive, indeed, famously deductive. More to the point, tell us how these apprehensions, these intuitions, and their nature are *not* purely rational.

Got the Father of modern philosophy, Descartes, the founder of epistemological rationalism, anyone? Got the Father of classical liberalism, Locke, the founder of epistemological empiricism, anyone? How about the historically famous debate between them over the merits of deductive reasoning (Descartes, Mr. Cogito himself) versus the merits of inductive reasoning (Locke)?

There's your farce!

Explain to us how the only defensibly objective idea of God (the Creator) is not open-ended.

It is _your _assertion that begs the question and would arbitrarily preclude the conceivably highest standard of divine attribution. I'm not dropping sentience, and no sensible person is going to drop sentience. That's ridiculous! We intuitively recognize that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness! You're trying to preclude the highest, objectively manifest possibility and do so on the grounds of epistemological rationalism no less, as if solipsism were an issue after *#2* is struck.

There's your farce!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
Click to expand...




 Deductive reasoning is essentially "top-down logic," typically, reasoning from a general, major premise and other premises more limited in scope to a specific/certain conclusion. Deductive reasoning reduces everything down to a conclusion, the one that remains.

Inductive reasoning is "bottom-up logic," which in most cases proceeds from specific information/observations to generalizations of probability, so it's more general conclusions are inferences or extrapolations. In science, we assert general theories from such observations. This is the reason that in science we tentatively verify or falsify things.

The fact of the matter is that deductive reasoning can be applied to well-founded premises about empirical things. The only issue here in this instance is epistemological solipsism, antirealism, irrationalism or skepticism. Which is fine. The qualifying assertion for The Seven Things pragmatically presupposes that the apparent cosmological order is concrete, real, actual, and that the apparent laws of organic/classical thought actually hold and are synchronized with the properties and processes of empirical phenomena outside of our minds. Everything we do in science pragmatically presupposes these things to be true.

But in any event, the first principles of human cognition need not even appeal to the empirical realm of being as something concrete at all in order to assert any of The Seven Things!

Even the solipsist necessarily concedes that at the very least the constructs related to the apparent existents outside his mind _do_ exist inside his mind, even if he holds that they be nothing more than ideas about things that have no concrete substance beyond the confines of his mind. Further, one can strike *#2* from the list and challenge the solipsist to deny his own existence or account for his origin. . . . The idea of God as his Creator immediately follows. _ Cogito ergo sum_; _ergo est sensa de Deus_ ("I think, therefore, I am; therefore, the idea of God").

So now what? End of the debate, that's what!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
_________________________________
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots* 
*
1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

*That's weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #1*

*Because #1 is more complex than the others, I'll deal with it separately in this post and with the others in another.
*

sealybobo said:

*1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer. Wrong! This argument is *is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.​
You necessarily concede that the idea of God the Creator exists in your mind as a possibility of a concrete nature every time you open your yap and deny there be any actual substance behind it; that is to say, you necessarily concede in a contradictorily fashion that God the Creator's existence is a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You necessarily violate the fundamental laws of human thought when you propose that something can exist without God the Creator existing, a proposition that on the very face of it is contradictory and actually proves the opposite. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that the very same evidence serving as the material foundation for the idea of God the Creator that exists in your mind, namely, the cosmological order, is not evidence for God's existence after all. *That's weird*.

You contradictorily assert that your notions about design rule out what cannot be logically ruled out. *That's weird*.

You presuppose God's existence in _your_ teleological argument of non-design as you claim to know how God the Creator would necessarily go about designing things. *That's weird*.

Which is it? Can't you make up your mind, or are you trying to escape something from which no one, not even Houdini, can escape? *That's weird*.

What is the essence for all this injudicious *weirdness*?

Well, in addition to you're logical errors, you habitually violate the boundaries of scientific inquiry as you pretentiously and unwittingly propound what is nothing more than the subjective mush of the materialist's metaphysics: a rationally and empirically indemonstrable and, therefore, unjustified presupposition! *That's weird.*

We routinely hear the gossip of this injudicious *weirdness*, this pseudoscientific blather, coming from the yaps of materialists at the professional levels of philosophy and science too. *That's weird.*

We are told that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure. *That's weird.*

Precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has such a thing ever actually been observed?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

But not just that, precisely when in the history of rational or empirical experience has it ever been demonstrated that the physical laws of nature could exist without a Law Giver or that the _self-ordering_ infrastructures of the cosmological order could exist in the first place without a Creator?

Answer: Never!

That's not weird. That's a fact.

*sealybobo*: "Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems."

Really?

Okay. I suppose that the foundational infrastructure for the cosmological order as a whole and the variously discrete, seemingly innumerably infinite infrastructures therein are pretty damn ordered and complex in their own right, as you rightly say, so I guess you have me there . . . or do you? *That's weird.*

*sealybobo*: "All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again billions of years."

Really?

I'm sorry, there's something seriously wrong with that claim. It strikes me as being *weird* somehow.

One moment, please. Let me think about this. Let me put my finger on it.

Ah! I've got it!

No such grand theory exists.

_Crickets chirping_

That's not weird. That's a fact.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the limitations of the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents, the more apparent it is that they cannot never produce anything above the level of basic infrastructure, let alone assemble themselves into anything like the kinds of things that have never been known to be produced by anything else but sentient beings. That's not weird. That's a fact.

Now, admittedly, I've heard the *weird* rumors and the gossip and the whatnots about what is not over and over again for what sometimes seems like billions of years, but that's all anyone has ever talked about so far, and I must say that I'm a little bored by it all.

_Yawn_

So let me "even life itself" up a bit with these fun facts from science:
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html*.*

And here are some more fun facts from science regarding the actualities of the Teleological Argument for God's existence, as opposed to the fantasies of the atheist's dogmatically religious, teleological argument against it*:*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9837233/*,*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9857173/*.*


*Newsflash: *the Teleological Argument stands as does the Pasteurian law of biology*: *_omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life._ The idea that life arose from nonliving materials is known as the hypothesis of _abiogenesis_, the prospects for which appear to be less and less probable in the face of the ever-mounting pile of empirical evidence against it.

So, once again, what precisely is the substance for these *weird* rumors, the substance of these whatnots that are not?

Answer: the scientifically indemonstrable, philosophical hypothesis of metaphysical naturalism, that's what. This is the notion that presupposes (without a shred of evidence, but the assumption that _we are here; therefore . . ._) that all of cosmological and biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect, that at some time in the distant past the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents jumped the shark of basic infrastructure, even though no such thing has ever been observed or is known to be possible.

*That's weird.*

The staggeringly complex systems of life, for example, which are exponentially more complex than the most complex things known to be produced above the infrastructural level of being by sentient agents only, are said to have arisen systematically, by chance and happy coincidence over time, even though it is abundantly clear that the assemblage of even the simplest form of life would have required instantaneously synchronous processes and events using complex, highly ordered post-biotic systems and materials.

*That's not only weird, but magical. *

Hocus Pocus.

Now you see it or perhaps you still don't as your wont is that of a wild-eyed fanatic of materialistic dogma, mouth agape in awe over nothing at all, believing in magic and fairytales. *That's weird.*

Unicorns, anyone? Fairy dust? Zeus? Spaghetti monsters? I got oceanfront property in Arizona for sale. *(That's weird.)* What do I hear for the opening bid?

*sealybobo*: "I'll give ya everything I got!"

Sold, to the man with the plan of a whatnot that ain't not! Oops! That's a double negative asserting the positive.

Well, that's okay. Let us at least leave *sealyobo* a bone to gnaw on.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #2*

*Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087257/**.
*

sealybobo said:



> *2. The universe had a start - what caused it? *
> 
> *We don’t know. We can ask science but if science can’t tell us all we can do is guess. *



Here you concede that you exist and that the universe exists. You know that either a material substance has always existed or an immaterial divinity has always existed and created the material substance that has existed ever since, unless of course you're arguing that _from nothing, something comes_. *That's weird. *In which case, _from absurdities, more absurdities come_. *That’s weird. 

(See: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10070904/**)*

These are the choices. We know what the choices are. These are not guesses. *That's weird.* These are the only logical alternatives by necessity.

As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird. *

 So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace all of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird.  *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3 

Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/**.*

Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
*
sealybobo said:


*3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why? *

*Maybe we don’t know*.​
Let's review*:*

As you have conceded that* #1* and *#2* are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of The Seven Things are logically true, including* #6* in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. That's weird.

So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace _all_ of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1) *the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.

You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird.*

Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.

He consistently embraces _all_ the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie. To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox. You have alternately lied or embraced paradox. That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. *That's weird*.

Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.

_You_ are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. _You_ contradictorily choose to reject it. That's weird. _You_ choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. _You_ want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same _a priori _nature as all the others. *That's weird.*

Hence, _You _don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. _You_ don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.

There is no _we_.

* That's weird.*

That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic. That's not weird. That's a fact! That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it. 

MY position is logically rock solid. Your position is *weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #4 

 Continued from Post #3604: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087801/**.*

* Also, The Seven Things that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.*

* 
sealybobo said: *

* 
4. The DNA code informs, programs a cell's behavior. 

Huh? Maybe you or boss can explain this one to me.​*

Whatever point you think you're making is as obscure as they come, but if you're under the impression that this whatever/whatnot is a _that's what_! supporting the atheist's position, that's weird!

In any event, everything you need to know about the matter as it pertains to the problems of existence and origin may be found right here on my blog*:* http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html.

Now that article is not a whatever/whatnot but a _that's what!_ . . . so now what?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #5 

Continued from Post #3608: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087964/**.

.*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.


sealybobo said: *

*5. We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

No fool, we are constantly seeking him.*​


 Well, this one's easy: there you go again presupposing God's existence as you claim to know something absolutely, as if from on high, about something that only God could know anything about, as you argue that God doesn't exist *That's weird.*

So you believe God exists after all, eh? I thought you said we couldn't know or rationally believe such a thing. *That's weird.* 

You sure do keep jumping from one belief to another a lot, and that's, well, you know, *weird*. 

It looks like you're trying to evade/escape something you can't. *That's weird.* 

You didn't really believe that Hume knew what he was talking about, did you? That's weird. He didn't evade/escape the cognitive facts either. That's not weird. That's a fact!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #6 and #7 

Continued from Post #3611: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10088062/**.

.*
Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.

sealybobo said: 

*
*6. Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God revealing himself to us.

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because he constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.

We're supposed to believe an unbelievable fairy tale? WE GET NO PROOF? Notice how sure the author is of point 6? As if he saw it for himself? This is what makes Christians just as dumb as every other religion. Mormons, Islam, Greek Gods, Jehova. Maybe their story is the best one of them all but its still just made up yet this guy uses the Jesus story as proof a god exists. Show me a miracle god!*​ 


 sealybobo's *#6* is really a *#6* and a *#7*, a redundancy in which he tells us that he doesn't believe that God exists, not once but twice, except, as I've shown, when he does tell us that God exists. *That's weird.*

(sealybobo, you really do need to make up your mind here, instead if jumping back and forth, because *that's weird*.)

However, this denial of God's existence is asserted against a specific theological system of thought, which is off topic. *That's weird.* 
But I'll address it.

sealybobo says Jesus is not God. Is sealybobo claiming to be something akin to God again? Sure looks like it. *That’s weird. *

Now, I've already shown that sealybobo's position is irrational, logically contradictory and paradoxical, so we may understand why he denies God's existence in one instance and presupposes God's existence in the next. Try as he might, He can't escape the imperatives of the laws of thought.

I've shown that the only rational position to take is that God must be, that this conclusion is well-founded, formally justified under the conventional standards of logic. So the notion that God has in fact revealed Himself directly in the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is well within the range of all that is rational and, therefore, possible.

If Jesus of Nazareth is in fact God incarnate as the testimony of the Apostles and others holds, we would expect the very kinds of displays of power and authority attributed to Him.

But sealybobo holds that this historical testimony is the stuff of fairytales.

"WE GOT NO PROOF!", he says.

But we do have testimonial evidence. As for "proof," that's in the eye of the beholder, so let's take a look at the eye of this beholder, because there's something weird about it.

_We weren't there_, he says!

That’s right! sealybobo wasn't there to observe these events, which are of a historical and empirical nature according to the testimonial evidence, so how does sealybobo know that they are fairytales? Is sealybobo hinting that he _was_ there after telling us that he wasn't? *That's weird.*

But sealybobo doesn't just tell us that the reason he doesn't believe the testimony is because he wasn't there, except when he implies that he was there, which is weird, he tells us that even if he had been there, he would find that the testimony were all lies or delusions anyway, for he tells us that such displays of power and authority are _unbelievable_.

But why would such things be unbelievable? Would these not constitute the very kind of evidence that sealybobo demands for God existence? Though why the magnificent display of the cosmos and the logical facts of human cognition are not already enough for him is, well, you know, weird. . . . Oh, that's right, because according to sealybobo, God doesn't exist in the first place.

Hence, sealybobo’s #6 is God doesn’t exist!

Hence, sealybobo’s implied #7 is God doesn’t exist!

But as I've already shown, God does exist according the laws of human thought, and sealybobo's position is logically contradictory and paradoxical, the stuff of blind, unjustified faith. *That's weird.*


*

*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots* 
*
1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

*That's weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum**Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

*Related*: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!*

I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *G.T.*
I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *G.T.*

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

*1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that logically proves the opposite of what it asserts. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible fact of human cognition.

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. *


*2.* What _is_ controversial is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *G.T.*, are *intentionally* misleading others about what the TAG argument actually proves.

*No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about #2!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#*1*!

And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves given the nature of the Object of the TAG are the following*: *_Why_ is this axiom of human logic biologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

*"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"*

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are biologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic? Hmm.

_Why_ is that in our head as an axiom?

*The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?"
> 
> And the answer is still no.



Yeah.  Sort of like your nonsense that  the absurdity _from nothing, nothing comes_ constitutes an argument from ignorance as if logic or science formally proceed from absurdities?

Let's review _your_ argument from ignorance again. . . .

Actually, that's nonsense. It's your fallacy on display, the allegation of an informal fallacy as premised on a hidden/undisclosed apriority that you did not put into evidence or define.

So let me help you. Your hidden/undisclosed apriority is in fact a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I have written elsewhere:

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned valid, albeit, might or might not be true values.
All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science: constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that something can come from nothing is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen! Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.​
Logic proceeds from _justifiable_ true beliefs/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that something can come from nothing.

*The logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that from nothing, nothing comes, stands!*

*Proceed*, Boss; Clayton, as usual, is wrong.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

*[Edit: it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic. Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents. Hence, these can be empirically supported. Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms. Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates. So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here. Sorry for the confusion.]*

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

*Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*GT Continues His Shape-Shifting Ways*


The following is the first post in which I refuted GT's last conceivable objection, in which I left the door slightly open for him to squeeze through so that the follow-up post would close it. 

Now, I'm not playing games with anyone. It's just that the apprehension of these things is difficult for us all, for we live in a world of dreams hammering us with mindless slogans repeated over and over again until they become axiomatic truths in our minds, though they be utter tripe. So we don't think, we react. The objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin stand, whether, objectively speaking, they be illusions or not, i.e., not real at all beyond the confines of our minds due to the necessities of organic logic. I cannot prove God's existence to anyone, but I can prove, rather, the facts of human consciousness prove, that "The Seven Things" are absolute, inescapable cognitions that, at the very least, exist in our minds and are true in our minds every time we think about them. 

This is the refutation, posted earlier, that GT is still evading*:*

The _idea_ of God _is_ hardwired! I didn't change anything! And you just affirmed that fact.

GT writes: "Originally, you said god as an idea, was in our brains. True."

Yeah. That _is_ true, isn't it?

GT writes: "Then, you changed it to the idea of god is "hardwired" into our brains, biologically."

Changed it? No. I took you by the hand and led to the next step that you still need to take with me.

These statements are true and are one and the same thing!

The fundamental laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle: comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity) are objectively absolute and universal, clearly, at the very least, bio-neurologically hardwired. Most philosophers and scientists (even materialists) now hold this to be true, based on the overwhelming rational and empirical evidence. The old Aristotlean-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been roundly falsified. The cross-cultural, experimental data overwhelming supports this conclusion.

Hence, we apprehend, via these bio-neurologically hardwired laws of thought, as you concede, that the potential substance behind the idea of God as Creator (an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent sentience of unparalleled power and greatness) cannot be logically eliminated and a finite human being _cannot_ logically state/think, on the very face of it, that anything whatsoever can exist without a Creator!

Oh wait! My bad. You're still not being totally straight with us about the fact and the axiomatic nature of the latter. Oh, well, moving on. . . .

Now, this axiom of human cognition, this logical proof, does _not _constitute a scientific verification of God's existence, and no one on this thread ever claimed that it did, but the organic logic of human beings holds that _God exists_ nevertheless! If God does not in fact exist outside the logic of our minds, this logical proof of human cognition is contradictorily paradoxical.

The idea that God exists in accordance with the organic laws of human thought _is_ an axiom of the same nature as that of *2 + 2 = 4*!

But you won't acknowledge that fact or the nature of this cognition! You keep arguing that absolute _a priori_ intuitions, the fundamental axioms/tautologies of human cognition, constitute informal fallacies of circular reasoning/begging the question.

Oh, wait! My bad. 

Actually, what you want to do is take all the axiomatic _a priories_ of logic and mathematics _sans_ the axiom of divine necessity. That one, which is of the very same nature as the others, you want to arbitrarily throw out or slap the label of informal fallacy on it. Special pleading. Special treatment. You do this when the intellectually honest person would objectively concede that while this cognition may not be ultimately true, because it is an _innately latent axiom_, it most certainly is not an informal logical fallacy and would be a paradoxical axiom if it were not ultimately true, which throws you, the atheist, into the realm of contradiction, not the theist!

And don't tell me you’re an agnostic, for only a fanatical atheist would go on lying about the fact and the nature of this cognition.

Oh, wait! My bad again.

You _did_ just acknowledge it for what it is! The idea of God is in our brains! That cognition is hardwired, just like the other _a priories_ concerning spatial dimension and time, geometric forms, the infrastructural semantics for language acquisition, the infrastructural logic for linguistic and mathematical propositions, including the latent_ a priories_, the moral and intellectual axioms thereof.

Now all that's left for you to do is to admit that because a finite human being cannot logically say/think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ that cognition is an _innately latent axiom_ of organic logic, an incontrovertible logical proof for God's existence, not a logical fallacy, just like professional logicians of peer-reviewed academia know to be true, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists.​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Then do it, and find out if you predictions about their reactions is as you think.
> 
> Again, let me reiterate what to do:
> Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.
> 
> You can do it now--You can cut and paste it here
> 
> Philosophy - Catholic Answers Forums



I have a better suggestion.  You first.

1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are _not_ used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.

All human beings are mortal beings.
Irishmen are human beings.
Irishmen are mortal beings.

Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data.  The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts. That is the pertinent distinction.

With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning?  Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.

Here's some more help for ya:

A *syllogism* (Greek: συλλογισμός – _syllogismos_ – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Deductive reasoning*, also *deductive logic* or *logical deduction* or, informally, *"top-down" logic*,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Inductive reasoning* (as opposed to _deductive_ reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be _probable_, based upon the evidence given.[1]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). ***

Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
***By the way, that's why I kept writing _generally_ regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves  in the other direction.  

Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?

_Crickets chriping_

2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.

Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact.  That should be interesting.

3.  Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind.

4.  Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as *you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy*. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make _all _arguments inductive.  How could that be, dummy?)

A *transcendental argument* is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments


Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.

Deal?


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
Click to expand...


This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.


----------



## G.T.

Someone went psycho hose beast and copy paste copy paste copy paste happy last night. Holy shit.

Say it until you're blue in the face m.d., you still have no idea what axioms are, are clueless as to what begging the question is and its implications and continue to dip duck dodge showing any peer reviewed paper on TAG from "academia."


Poor fella.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then do it, and find out if you predictions about their reactions is as you think.
> 
> Again, let me reiterate what to do:
> Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.
> 
> You can do it now--You can cut and paste it here
> 
> Philosophy - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better suggestion.  You first.
> 
> 1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are _not_ used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.
> 
> All human beings are mortal beings.
> Irishmen are human beings.
> Irishmen are mortal beings.
> 
> Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data.  The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts. That is the pertinent distinction.
> 
> With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning?  Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.
> 
> Here's some more help for ya:
> 
> A *syllogism* (Greek: συλλογισμός – _syllogismos_ – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Deductive reasoning*, also *deductive logic* or *logical deduction* or, informally, *"top-down" logic*,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
> Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
> 
> Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
> 
> Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Inductive reasoning* (as opposed to _deductive_ reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be _probable_, based upon the evidence given.[1]
> 
> The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.
> 
> In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). ***
> 
> Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> ***By the way, that's why I kept writing _generally_ regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves  in the other direction.
> 
> Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?
> 
> _Crickets chriping_
> 
> 2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.
> 
> Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact.  That should be interesting.
> 
> 3.  Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind.
> 
> 4.  Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as *you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy*. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make _all _arguments inductive.  How could that be, dummy?)
> 
> A *transcendental argument* is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments
> 
> 
> Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.
> 
> Deal?
Click to expand...


There's no deal to be had. The pointless TAG argument has repeatedly been shown to be a fraud. 

Your nonsensical Seven Fraudulent Things has also been refuted as a fraud.

Both of the above statements are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


*The Seven PhonyThings 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.*

*
2.* The cosmological order exists!
_*Cosmology*_ 
*1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*

*Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*


*3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of *_*The Five Fraudulent Things™*_*. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.*

4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.*

*Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A *_*tour de force *_*of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding *_*The Five Phony Things*_*™ *

*Did you just make up *_*The Seven Phony Things*_*™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.*

*You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's *_*eternal salvation*_* rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.*

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!*
*You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.*

*One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.*

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.*

*Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be *_*fruitfully*_* considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?*

*Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.*

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then do it, and find out if you predictions about their reactions is as you think.
> 
> Again, let me reiterate what to do:
> Post your "7 things" in a catholic forum dedicated to philosophy and/or theological concepts.
> 
> You can do it now--You can cut and paste it here
> 
> Philosophy - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a better suggestion.  You first.
> 
> 1. Why don't you post your nonsense that well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are _not_ used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning.
> 
> All human beings are mortal beings.
> Irishmen are human beings.
> Irishmen are mortal beings.
> 
> Deductive reasoning does not preclude scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., it does not preclude ordinary empirical data.  The essence of deductive reasoning is the reduction of general truths to specific conclusions, typically, within the formal framework of syllogisms. Generally, inductive reasoning proceeds from a related collection of observed facts to general rules or principles which comprehensively account for the facts. That is the pertinent distinction.
> 
> With that in mind, is the above syllogism a deductive argument or an example of inductive reasoning?  Shoot. I kind of gave that way, but you needed the help.
> 
> Here's some more help for ya:
> 
> A *syllogism* (Greek: συλλογισμός – _syllogismos_ – "conclusion," "inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.
> 
> Syllogism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Deductive reasoning*, also *deductive logic* or *logical deduction* or, informally, *"top-down" logic*,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
> Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
> 
> Deductive reasoning (top-down logic) contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottom-up logic) in the following way: In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion is left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from initial information. As a result, induction can be used even in an open domain, one where there is epistemic uncertainty. Note, however, that the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
> 
> Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Inductive reasoning* (as opposed to _deductive_ reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be _probable_, based upon the evidence given.[1]
> 
> The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.
> 
> In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below). ***
> 
> Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> ***By the way, that's why I kept writing _generally_ regarding the normal progression of inductive reasoning before I hunted this up for you, as in some rare instances, statistical probabilities, it moves  in the other direction.
> 
> Where exactly did you get the notion that deductive reasoning precludes scientifically derived premises or premises held to be true about material existents; i.e., premises about ordinary empirical data?
> 
> _Crickets chriping_
> 
> 2. Post your silly claim that the cosmological order and its constituents are not the very essence of the evidence for God's existence.
> 
> Try to convince them that the classic proofs/arguments for God's existence aren't premised on that fact.  That should be interesting.
> 
> 3.  Post your silly claim that God is not objectively understood to be the sentient Creator in the light of the purely RATIONAL axiom of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind.
> 
> 4.  Why don't regale the site's members with the idiocy that the TAG is an example of inductive reasoning, as *you conflate the rational-empirical dichotomy with the deductive-inductive dichotomy*. (You don't even know what the essence of your error is, do you? the error that would necessarily make _all _arguments inductive.  How could that be, dummy?)
> 
> A *transcendental argument* is a deductive philosophical argument which takes a manifest feature of experience as granted, and articulates that which must be the case so that experience as such is possible.[1][2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification that are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments
> 
> 
> Transcendental arguments - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​
> 
> Then, after you're laughed off the site, I'll post The Seven Things and defend them against all comers without fail.
> 
> Deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no deal to be had. The pointless TAG argument has repeatedly been shown to be a fraud.
> 
> Your nonsensical Seven Fraudulent Things has also been refuted as a fraud.
> 
> Both of the above statements are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> 
> *The Seven PhonyThings
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.*
> 
> *
> 2.* The cosmological order exists!
> _*Cosmology*_
> *1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> *3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of *_*The Five Fraudulent Things™*_*. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.*
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.*
> 
> *Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A *_*tour de force *_*of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding *_*The Five Phony Things*_*™ *
> 
> *Did you just make up *_*The Seven Phony Things*_*™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.*
> 
> *You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's *_*eternal salvation*_* rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.*
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.*
> 
> *One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.*
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.*
> 
> *Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be *_*fruitfully*_* considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?*
> 
> *Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.*
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...

Well done. This would at least tell a rational person that "the seven laws of tourettes" are not axiomatic.


----------



## amrchaos

I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense

It is possible for  child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.

But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...

By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"

I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds.  But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.


----------



## Hollie

amrchaos said:


> I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense
> 
> It is possible for  child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.
> 
> But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...
> 
> By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"
> 
> I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds.  But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.



I understand your disagreement and it may, in part, be my fault in terms of definitions. I used the term "theism" with specific regard to the context of "god" in terms of Western conceptions of god.

The source for theistic belief finds its definition in a supreme being, in western culture known as "god". In this creature, logically impossible to start off with, unknowable at best to end with, humanity has built great civilizations, campaigned bloody and countless wars, and allowed divisions and bigotries to hold sway.

The Western conceptions of polytheistic god(s) (De' heyzeus ----> a "holy spirit" ----> the Big Cheese) have been, like many of the core issues of theism, defined without regard to authority, proofs, or evidence. Effectively, what any single person chooses to say a god is, that god is; the more people agree on some vague referents to the god in question, the more likely that god will be considered the true (_sic_) god.

I will grant your that a child raised in remote jungle may well invent various conceptions of gods to represent elements of the natural world, consistent to what humanity has historically done. As we know, humanity has ascribed god-hood to both animate and inanimate objects. My focus was to explore the concept of the specific Western polytheistic gods, how the fabrication of them relies solely on the irrationality of faith, and how gods, far from being the creators of humanity, are actually at the mercy of humanity.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sealybobo's Seven Weird Whatevers and Whatnots that Are Not: #3
> 
> Continued from Post #3592: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087417/**.
> *
> Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *Post #3602, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.
> *
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why? *
> 
> *Maybe we don’t know*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's review*:
> *
> As you have conceded that *#1 *and *#2 *are logically true, you necessarily concede that the rest of *The Seven Things* are logically true, including *#6 *in which you concede that it is not possible to say/think that _God the Creator doesn't exist_. Therefore, you concede that it is impossible to logically rule out God's existence and that the TAG positively proves that God exists according to the absolute laws of human thought. You hold that God exists, but you also hold that God doesn't exist. *That's weird.
> *
> So we see that there exists yet another option: the option to embrace _all_ of the other axioms of organic logic and arbitrarily reject the "God axiom," which is of the very same nature as the others, *(1)* the option to stand on the theist's foundation of logical consistency or *(2)* stand on the foundation of a logically contradictory paradox.
> 
> You choose the latter as you sneer at the former, claiming that the former is irrational and that the latter is rational. *That's weird.*​
> 
> Hence, the theist stands on a foundation of an incontrovertible, axiomatic proof in accordance with the laws of human thought, under the terms of organic/classical logic.
> 
> He consistently embraces _all_ the axioms of organic logic, including the "God axiom," which is bullet proof. It objectively and universally holds true, logically! To assert that this is not a fact of human cognition is to lie.  To acknowledge it and walk away is to embrace paradox.  You have alternately lied or embraced paradox.  That's your position, not the theist's, as you argue that the theist is being unreasonable. * That's weird.*
> 
> Hence, the theist justifiably asserts that God is the universal Principle of Identity, the very essence and the ground of all laws: the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the laws of natural rights, and the physical laws of nature.
> 
> _You_ are well aware of the fact of the incontrovertible "God axiom" in organic/classical logic. _You_ contradictorily choose to reject it. * That's weird.* _You_ choose not to know/believe that it's perfectly rational to hold that God is the Law Giver. _You_ want the other axioms of human cognition, but not that one, which is of the very same _a priori _nature as all the others. * That's weird*.
> 
> Hence, _You _don't know why the physical laws of nature hold universally. _You_ don't believe what organic/classical logic tells you about Who is behind it all.
> 
> There is no _we_.
> 
> *That's weird.* *
> *
> That which I believe to be true constitutes justified true belief/knowledge under the laws of organic/classical logic.  That's not weird.  That's a fact!  That's the common sense of ontological and epistemological consistency, and my conviction is objectively and logically bullet proof, unlike your subjective mush and the pseudoscientific blather that comes with it.
> 
> MY position is logically rock solid.  *Your position is weird.*
Click to expand...


I was watching a show on monkeys this weekend.  After watching the show, I'm sure even they wonder and might even ponder to themselves how/why and MAYBE they even think of us as gods.  I don't care what you say.  The more I discover, the more I realize there is no god.  The more you talk, the more I believe there is no god.  I watch radical islamists on 60 minutes and I realize what a crock of shit this god concept is and how bad it is for us.  I don't care that it makes you feel better.  God also makes the suicide bomber feel better about what he's doing.  You are all stupid.  I can tell we are evolving as a society.  Sure every once in awhile we take a step back, like when we went to war in Iraq.  I thought after we easily wiped out the Kosovo army that we would never have to send young Americans into war and that kind of war was over, but boy did we take a step or two back to the 1960's with that one.  

Anyways, my point is, many Americans and Europeans don't believe in God.  I was watching this show Tracing Your Roots on PBS and they helped this famous asian chef trace his roots back to before Christ.  I wondered, how come the asians didn't get word of Christ or why didn't they all buy the story.  They say everyone knew and heard about Jesus.  Why didn't the asians all go along?  Probably because it never happened.  And where is their story of when god visited them?  And look at the Arab story.  Very clever, just like the New Testament.  Suckers!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.
> 
> 5.  Currently religious people can not verify if god exists.
> 
> The rest is just horse shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it, you believe that all you need to do is SAY something and it is accepted as fact? Where is your PROOF that all humans are born atheist? Are you ASSUMING this because they aren't born knowing how to talk or use the toilet? They are also born not knowing how to breathe, the doc has to slap their ass. Maybe breathing, talking and using the toilet are bullshit?
> 
> Atheism is specific disbelief in God. The only way to be an atheist when you're born is if you are born with awareness of God.  Is that your argument? Has to be, because you can't disbelieve what you aren't aware of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a minute.  YOU believe in god because he exists in your mind.  So god is real because you believe it to be real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you answer the question? Where is your proof that humans are born atheist? You need to answer MY questions with answers or I am not going to keep answering yours or responding to your false accusations of things you think I said.
> 
> I believe in God because I communicate with God daily and realize the benefit from it. I've told you that it's not in my mind, but here you seem to indicate that has somehow been proven to be a fact. Are you confused, son?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why can't anything and everything I believe be true too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everything you believe is toxic waste. But for the record, you've not presented evidence for anything you believe. You keep making claims without supporting them. You won't answer tough questions. You avoid them by lobbing more claims you haven't supported. This reply is the evidence. See... I back my claims with evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I thunk it, it must be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you thunk it, it's about as valuable as the dried sperm wad in your mother's sock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have always doubted god existed too just like some people have always believed. So your theory is way off.  Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't have a theory on how many people doubted God's existence. 95% of the species is spiritual and always has been. 5% are freaks of nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your only argument here is that more people believe than don't.  So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is 95%.. not "more" but "almost all." The remaining 5% are statistical freaks of nature who believe in nothingness.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> Implicit atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". _Explicit atheism_ is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No... Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." How can one imply Atheism without an awareness of God? I understand how an infant can't plainly express, they lack the capability, as they lack the capability to do almost anything. But they can't imply something they aren't aware of. They also can't consciously reject something they aren't aware of. So you must believe all humans are born with awareness of God. Right?
Click to expand...


That site I link you to has all the evidence all laid out for you.  It's a tough thing to prove to someone that their imaginary friend they have isn't real as you are proof of.  If it's real in your head, how are you going to rationally take in all the information.  You're probably already formulating your arguments before you even read the details.  Where is the proof?  That's another point that site makes.  You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto us your imaginary friend is real?  You sound like a radical islam guy.  Try talking any sense to that guy and he just keeps on talking over you.  Do you think he's even listening?  Fuck no!  He's so brainwashed.  Just like you.


----------



## Boss

Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> That's weird.



Show me a link


Boss said:


> Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.



That's all I have for you today pal.  Tomorrow is an election day.  Stay home.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense
> 
> It is possible for  child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.
> 
> But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...
> 
> By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"
> 
> I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds.  But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.



And we have more of the same philosophical bullshit of the irrational, cultural relativist kind*:* as if the laws of thought were not universal, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that self-subsistence were not of a higher order of being than contingency, as if the objective ramifications of the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin were not self-evident to all human beings, in other words, as if the denizens of more primitive cultures were not human beings and would be incapable of apprehending or fail to apprehend these necessary distinctions if put to them, whether they believe them to hold ultimately true or not, as if any person of a sound and developmentally mature mind would fail to recognize these objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions! . . . as if the relativist nincompoop could actually explain how two  diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions would both  be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference, as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically.

"But it might be this some other or it might be that some other!  I just can't *objectively* demonstrate that!"

That's right, you can't, and that's the point, the reality of the objective facts of human cognition, as opposed to your subjective, relativist mush, that flies right over your head.


----------



## amrchaos

I take it that you do not like

We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums

So how bout

Theology and Philosophy

Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".


.

just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?

also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?

or that whatever exists had to be created ....

just curious.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
Click to expand...


It's something along that line, alright.

It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypothetical potentialities  of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.

It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.

This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.

Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.

But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"

Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?

Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.

Can we do any of these things with science?

No.

Does science define itself?

No.

Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?

Yes.

Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?

No.

Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?

No.

Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?

Yes.

When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?

Yes.

In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?

No.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make them go away?

No.

Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

Does that make this conviction go away?

No.

Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?

No.

Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?

No.

LOL!

But the shifts aren't normal!

LOL!

Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?

But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!

No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.

Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!

LOL!

Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply the very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue without flinching, if you dare, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand the atheist mindset at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes most atheists  forever to grasp the essence of other viewpoints that their not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you people can do?

Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!

Are all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind capable of following the logic of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?

Yes.

But it might be this or it might be that!

Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?

Yes.

But they might be this or they might be that!

And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning​

*Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!

*Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with hollie's #3 in a sense
> 
> It is possible for  child raised in remote jungle in an atheistic environ to develop the fundamental theistic concepts of ancestral worshiping or even some forms of animism and some other even non-theistic concepts.
> 
> But to come up with a super sentient being that created this universe--with the characteristics and so forth described in Judaism, that in itself will require a lot more than imagination...
> 
> By the way--I still think that 3) is to be changed to "I exist"
> 
> I don't want to mislead any schizophrenics to think their old friend Bob is real outside the confines of their minds.  But of course, using some of these arguments, Bob is real and everybody that claimed he was not were lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have more of the same philosophical bullshit of the irrational, cultural relativist kind*:* as if the laws of thought were not universal, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that consciousness is of a higher order of being than inanimateness, as if it were not self-evident to all human beings that self-subsistence were not of a higher order of being than contingency, as if the objective ramifications of the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin were not self-evident to all human beings, in other words, as if the denizens of more primitive cultures were not human beings and would be incapable of apprehending or fail to apprehend these necessary distinctions if put to them, whether they believe them to hold ultimately true or not, as if any person of a sound and developmentally mature mind would fail to recognize these objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions! . . . as if the relativist nincompoop could actually explain how two  diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions would both  be true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference, as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically.
> 
> "But it might be this some other or it might be that some other!  I just can't *objectively* demonstrate that!"
> 
> That's right, you can't, and that's the point, the reality of the objective facts of human cognition, as opposed to your subjective, relativist mush, that flies right over your head.
Click to expand...

A classic example of a _Rawling'ism_. A confused, meandering rant that makes no sense.

...."as if the notion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes were not self-negating, for if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes must necessarily be absolutely false, logically."

I'm afraid that the angry, self-hating fundamentalist crank doesn't understand his entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
Click to expand...


I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.

This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
Click to expand...



The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*amrchoas* seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure.  Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up.  LOL!  And of course _his_ misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction is goes to two things:  *(1)* his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world  standard for logic and science and *(2) *his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.

I see clearly what his cognitive problems are.  Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically, not in the reactionary terms of _his_ worldview, but, objectively, on the terms of _their_ premise?

No!

So because you guys never put into evidence what the actuality is regarding the nature of these things . . . on their own terms, not as filtered through your personal biases, it's not clear that you even know what it is you're arguing against in the first place.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Mr. Bloviate, your entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of your polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic and hinders your ability to objectively evaluate opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of your polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions.

Check!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *amrchoas* seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure.  Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up.  LOL!  And of course _his_ misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction goes to two things:  *(1)* his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world  standard for logic and science and *(2) *his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.
> 
> I see clearly what his cognitive problems are.  Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically?
> 
> No!


You, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two are arguably/routinely more sure.


Check!


----------



## sealybobo

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I think before you can say you know for sure god created the universe  you would first have to know how he created it.  Good point!  Theists don't even know how the universe was created and yet they are sure who created it.  Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
Click to expand...


Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.  

USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!



Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!

Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer:  of course not!

By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?

Good luck with that.

But, really, what caused the singularity?

Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

But, really, what caused the singularity?

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

LOL!

. . . unto infinity and beyond!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
Click to expand...



While I think amrchaos is  just pulling on our legs with the inductive and deductive stuff, that's funny.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While I think amrchaos is  just pulling on our legs with the inductive and deductive stuff, that's funny.
Click to expand...


I don't know.  Maybe.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
Click to expand...

The boy has lost it. 

His entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The boy has lost it.
> 
> His entirely subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of the existence and origin of his polytheistic gawds upon reflection, at the very least in terms of their distinctions, are problematic.
Click to expand...


Last night I was watching this show on these monkey's and how they take care of each other but will kill another monkey that isn't part of their tribe.  They looked so much like pre historic man.  They were swimming in this pool and they were amazed at how the water splashed when the rain drop hit the water.  You should have seen the look on their faces.  I could imagine them thinking it must be magic or a god.  We can't get into monkey's heads yet and perhaps they aren't smart enough yet, but one day I'm sure we will be able to convince them that god exists.  I'm sure it won't be difficult.  Look at us right?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.

The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> That's weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a link
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boob, you're grandstanding again with babbling incoherent nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all I have for you today pal.  Tomorrow is an election day.  Stay home.
Click to expand...


You need link for things that are objectively self-evident?  Someone else to tell you that's it's okay believe that which is obviously true logically?  Dude.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
Click to expand...


Understand what you are asking:

What caused the singularity?

That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )

You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.   

As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!

 What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?

So 2 problems arises:

1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.

2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.




You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.
> 
> USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.
Click to expand...



No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them.  They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about.  As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.

*But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words.  All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.*

Recall?

*sealybobo writes*:
Here are my 7

1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
*2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
*3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist. 
4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
*5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
*6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​

Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3 *and *#4 *of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.

Your *#2 *is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation

Your *#3 *contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.

Your *#5 *is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.

Your *#6 *contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.

And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.

So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
#5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.

See how that works?

*No one escapes The Seven Things.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I don't know.  Maybe.




He has to be. I know some don't get it but come on like you said if what he's saying was true, no arguments are deductive.  It's crazy.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos's Seven Shut Ups*
> 
> Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!  Shut up.  Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!  Shut up.  I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!  Shut up.  The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!  Shut up. God is not sentient?  Shut up!  Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!  Shut up! The TAG is an inductive argument?!  Shut.  Up.  You.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.Well-founded inductive inferences or extrapolations are not used as premises in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning?!
> 
> You are using inductive statements in what you are calling a deductive argument
> 
> 2. Nothingness is the basis for God's existence?!
> 
> Any claims about "Nothingness", if it has been posited, has been posited by you.  I cannot really talk about anything outside of the observable Universe--apperently that includes whatever led to the Big Bang, which could very well be the God you are looking for--or could be something you disagree with.
> 
> 3. I don't know that deductive conclusions are generally surer?!
> 
> To be honest, I really do not know if you do or you don't.  But it does seem like you do not know the difference between an inductive argument, such as those primarily made in the natural science, versus an deductive argument, made in philosophy.
> 
> 4.The six basic observations in The Seven Things are not self-evident facts of human cognition recognized by all due to the absolute laws of human thought, not formal arguments?!
> 
> G.T. already explained that to the crowd you are trying to address.
> 
> 5. God is not sentient?
> 
> I do not assert this in your proof!  I do not assert if god is a collection of sentient being that play the role of GOD.  I do not assert anything.  That is why I suggest leaving the idea that god is sentient or not or whatever  OPEN!!
> 
> You are asserting that God is sentient.  You do not prove this, you _assume _this in your attempts to argue 3)
> 
> 
> 6. Your subjective bullshit is open-ended?!
> 
> I tried to suggest to make your argument strong in order to avoid any form skepticism.  If you think that is being subjective, then I really question your abilitity to be objective.
> 
> 7. The TAG is an inductive argument?!
> 
> Your first 3 statements are inductive that can be changed into deductive statements.  OK--not 2--the need for the natural science makes that inductive.
> 
> Why you do not wish to make those changes is something you can answer.
> 
> Yes, the "7 things" is an inductive argument.  Each statement leaves open the ability to question and point out possible counter examples.  Its strength, the confidence of its truth, relies on the individual prejudices of the reader in terms of the statements--which could change from reader to reader.
> 
> That, sir, is the characteristic of an Inductive argument.  Not deductive, but inductive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
Click to expand...


Hollie:  You're wrong but I don't know why.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.
> 
> USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them.  They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about.  As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.
> 
> *But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words.  All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.*
> 
> Recall?
> 
> *sealybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3 *and *#4 *of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2 *is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3 *contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5 *is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6 *contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> #5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things.*
Click to expand...


*Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
1. We exist. 

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to pwoove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## amrchaos

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?
Click to expand...



I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.

First, list some of  the evidence for
1) The people that tells you it is credible.
2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
3) Testimony of experiences of others
4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)

Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.  

It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive.  Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't reasonable skepticism.  It's brain dead solipsism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.
> 
> USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them.  They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about.  As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.
> 
> *But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words.  All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.*
> 
> Recall?
> 
> *sealybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3 *and *#4 *of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2 *is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3 *contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5 *is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6 *contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> #5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things.*
Click to expand...


I agree with the thing I said but not your 7 things or when you write that no one escapes the 7 things. I've already escaped.  

What is it that you think is unescapable?  

#1.  I agree with the point that I exist.  After that you're just rambling.
#2.  No I don't assume his existence.  

Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions.

But it is also true that theists do not presuppose god’s non-existence, atheists are simply unconvinced of god’s existence. Arguments made by theists can be refuted without appealing to a god’s potential non-existence.
Arguments made by atheists _against_ god’s existence, be they _a priori _or _a posteriori, _are not invalid due to the fact that proponents of presuppositionalism have failed to establish reason and logic as being dependant upon the existence of god.


----------



## Hollie

amrchaos said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.
> 
> First, list some of  the evidence for
> 1) The people that tells you it is credible.
> 2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
> 3) Testimony of experiences of others
> 4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)
> 
> Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.
> 
> It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive.  Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.
Click to expand...


People hold the bibles as credible evidence of supernaturalism for the same reason that people hold the Koran, the Vedas, etc., as similar evidence. Those are the human authored books that are a part of their respective cultures and geographic place of birth.

Does anyone think that _M. Pompous Rawling_ wouldn't be pounding his Koran if he had been born and raised in Pakistan?


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.
> 
> USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them.  They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about.  As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.
> 
> *But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words.  All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.*
> 
> Recall?
> 
> *sealybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3 *and *#4 *of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2 *is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3 *contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5 *is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6 *contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> #5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 1. We exist.
> 
> Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to pwoove your gawds.
> 
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 
> 3.* The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> 
> 4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...


Lamest list ever.  I don't even care what the 7 are anymore.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.
> 
> First, list some of  the evidence for
> 1) The people that tells you it is credible.
> 2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
> 3) Testimony of experiences of others
> 4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)
> 
> Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.
> 
> It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive.  Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People hold the bibles as credible evidence of supernaturalism for the same reason that people hold the Koran, the Vedas, etc., as similar evidence. Those are the human authored books that are a part of their respective cultures and geographic place of birth.
> 
> Does anyone think that _M. Pompous Rawling_ wouldn't be pounding his Koran if he had been born and raised in Pakistan?
Click to expand...



GOD damn right he would


----------



## amrchaos

Hollie said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> *1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.
> 
> First, list some of  the evidence for
> 1) The people that tells you it is credible.
> 2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
> 3) Testimony of experiences of others
> 4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)
> 
> Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.
> 
> It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive.  Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People hold the bibles as credible evidence of supernaturalism for the same reason that people hold the Koran, the Vedas, etc., as similar evidence. Those are the human authored books that are a part of their respective cultures and geographic place of birth.
> 
> Does anyone think that _M. Pompous Rawling_ wouldn't be pounding his Koran if he had been born and raised in Pakistan?
Click to expand...



I believe that Koran would be in tatters--and his fellow muslims would condemn him for not treating it well!


----------



## Hollie

amrchaos said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> just for the record, as you digress to christianity why do you refer that as a valid religion, derived from a written document ?
> 
> also at the moment of singularity did any"thing" exist ?
> 
> or that whatever exists had to be created ....
> 
> just curious.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't digress.  I pointed out that beyond the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications, any further knowledge would require direct revelation from God.  In response to this or that I might from time to time share the only assessment of those kinds of things I believe to be credible.  I wouldn't in good conscience recommend ideas about such matters that I did not believe to be true.  Folks are still free to make up their own minds or check it out for themselves.  Anybody can buy and read a Bible.  That's all.
> 
> The singularity is currently believed to have emerged via a fluctuation of gravitational energy from the quantum vacuum from whence we also get virtual particles within the extant universe in accordance with the apparent cogency of the special and general theories of relativity and quantum physics. We don't know, scientifically, at this point, what caused the quantum vacuum or what's behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone think that any of the bibles are a credible source of objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and their ramifications or direct revelation from the gods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can explin why people would hold the Bible as a credible source. The process of doing so can be considered a form of inductive logic s well.
> 
> First, list some of  the evidence for
> 1) The people that tells you it is credible.
> 2)The benefits one can find in the aspects of the world view it creates
> 3) Testimony of experiences of others
> 4)Personal experiences(if the individual has them)
> 
> Depending on how much you trust these forms of evidence, the argument that can be made for the Bible and what it says can be overwhelmingly true to certain individuals.
> 
> It is easy to tell that such an argument is inductive.  Therefore skepticism of any and all evidence is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People hold the bibles as credible evidence of supernaturalism for the same reason that people hold the Koran, the Vedas, etc., as similar evidence. Those are the human authored books that are a part of their respective cultures and geographic place of birth.
> 
> Does anyone think that _M. Pompous Rawling_ wouldn't be pounding his Koran if he had been born and raised in Pakistan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that Koran would be in tatters--and his fellow muslims would condemn him for not treating it well!
Click to expand...

That would be a _crime against koranity_. 

A capital offense if the wrong people get their hands on you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
Click to expand...



*Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*

That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.

So what are you imposing on them that's not there?

Knock, knock.  Anybody home?

You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's something along that line, alright.
> 
> It's system-building, philosophical bullshit. It's not even the arguably practical skepticism of methodological solipsism, let alone that of epistemological skepticism, which is formally asserted in constructive logic and the hypotheticals of science as provided for by the principle of identity of the organic laws of human thought.
> 
> It's the impractical idiocy of _Nuh-huh!_ It's the idiotic attitude that never goes anywhere profound, that would have us all stuck on stupid, still living in caves, had it prevailed in history.
> 
> This was the one thing that QW and I agreed on. Oh wait! No we didn't, because according to QW philosophy is bullshit . . . which, of course, is philosophical bullshit.
> 
> Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as.
> 
> But QW's response is "Nuh-huh!  Science precedes logic and has primacy over consciousness . . . and so philosophy is bullshit!"
> 
> Which is the same thing as asserting a mysteriously ill-defined, _philosophical_ metaphysics for science, which demonstrates to anyone paying attention that logic necessarily precedes science, that consciousness necessarily has primacy over science. That is to say, agency necessarily has primacy over methodology. Philosophy proper is the tool by which we objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, the tool by which we define science and it's boundaries, the tool by which we establish what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> So what is the philosophy that science precedes or has primacy over philosophy?
> 
> Utter bullshit that bastardizes both and meanderings off into the land of la-la.
> 
> Can we do any of these things with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does science define itself?
> 
> No.
> 
> Indeed, did we not first establish a proper philosophical foundation for science in history, via a centuries-long process of trail and error, getting ever-closer to the goal, before we were finally able to assert a scientific methodology that mostly works as guided by a regiment of critical skepticism (not a brain-dead idealistic skepticism) and objective logic?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Can we established what does or does not constitute justified true belief/knowledge with science?
> 
> No.
> 
> Do empirical existents and the data thereof define and interpret themselves?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is the denial of this reality system-building, philosophical bullshit that abuses philosophy, the tool by which _we_ (conscious, rational beings) objectively determine the metaphysical properties of existents and thusly define them as they come at as, while the methodology of science is merely the stuff of tentative verification or falsification premised on the logical proofs of objectivity, healthy skepticism, necessity and possibility?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> When philosophy is dragged out of its domain of _the what_ and into the domain of _the how_ and _the why_ does it not get all stupid and convoluted?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> In other words, do humans beings escape the organic imperatives of human thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle?
> 
> No.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make them go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Is this inescapable conviction bottomed on the imperatives of human thought?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> Does that make this conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness seemingly synchronized with the properties and the processes of the material realm of being outside our minds every time we do anything seemingly effective or test it? In other words, do the various, seemingly concrete apprehensions of human consciousness appear to be actually and rationally aligned?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this pragmatic conviction go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> Does the language of mathematics universally hold up in our minds as synchronized with the rational properties and the processes of the material realm in terms of the physical laws of nature regardless of the variously discrete astronomical and subatomical shifts in paradigm?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Does that make this coherent and consistently functional apprehension go away?
> 
> No.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> But the shifts aren't normal!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Oh? So now what naturally is, isn't normal?
> 
> But the Newtonian level of apprehension is _my_ reality!
> 
> No. It's not. Only scientifically illiterate rubes don't know that the subatomic level has foundational primacy over the Newtonian level of apprehension and that we are closing in on a unified theory to close the gaps in our knowledge. Behold the little god in the gaps fallacy.  There never was and never will be anything such as a God in the gaps fallacy.
> 
> Uh . . . well . . . I mean . . . that is to say . . . it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Right. So let us assume for the moment that all of these amazing, rational and empirical coincidences are actual, that they rationally and universally hold as common sense and experience suggest, and objectively proceed accordingly, if for no other reason but to discover what the contents of our minds divulge about the problems of existence and origin in accordance with the objectively applied imperatives of human thought without paradoxically/contradictorily looking away from those axioms that are of the very same _a priori_ nature as those you want to keep. In other words, atheist, allow yourself to do what you've never bothered to do before in your life with these issues*:* apply this very same standard to these issues as you have always pragmatically applied to every other issue, whether your ultimate bias be _materialism_, _irrationalism_, _subjectivism_, _relativism_, _antirealism_, _hard solipsism_ or any other kind of stupid _ism_.
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> You can't back out of your paradigm long enough to view the matter from an absolutely objective standpoint as I can?   I understand you guys at a glance because I can be objective.  It takes you guys forever to grasp the essence of things that you're not used to thinking about.  Hollie, especially, remains clueless.  A partially absolute standpoint on the basis of the universal imperatives of human thought sullied by some subjective bias or another is the best you can do?
> 
> Nuh-huh! It might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Do all persons of a sound and developmentally mature mind as a matter of practicality conduct their lives as if these things were logically true regardless of what they might believe to be ultimately true about them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But it might be this or it might be that!
> 
> Assuming that *#1 *and *#2 *are true, as, of course, the OP presupposes and those of us with common sense routinely do*:*  do the other five of The Seven Things necessarily follow on that basis, logically?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But they might be this or they might be that!
> 
> And there you have it*:* system-building, philosophical bullshit that never goes anywhere but around and around the mulberry bush.
> 
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
> Here we go round the mulberry bush
> So early in the morning​
> 
> *Emily:* It's the physics students who can explain the mathematics of calculus best!
> 
> *Rawlings:* And its commonsensical persons like *Boss and I* who explained the essence of both to all of you pie-in-the-sky, system-building, philosophical bullshitters!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was pretty cool that Rawling was the victim of his own _Rawling'isms_. He's a bit like listening to Dubya Bush who could literally stutter and mumble for paragraphs at a time and never make a coherent point.
> 
> This latest disaster of _Rawling'isms_ was especially fun as the boy was apparently arguing against himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The philosophical bullshit that impedes the ability to objectively and honestly state the respective worldviews on their own terms from their own premises on display once again.  No ability to even demonstrate that you properly understand what you're arguing against in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well instead of posting the 7 things over and over again, which you should know we aren't reading anymore, you should move on and point out what it is we are missing.  Because these 7 things don't prove anything to any thinkers.
> 
> USMB Theists are shaking their heads in agreement with you but trust me they don't know what the fuck you are saying either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No real thinkers are thinking that they prove anything beyond what they are on face of them.  They are just the objective, self-evident facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, and you are a liar, plenty of theists understand what I'm talking about.  As for the rest, they're obviously not thinking.
> 
> *But what are you taking about anyway? You put yourself down for them via your own words.  All of you have put yourselves down with your own words.*
> 
> Recall?
> 
> *sealybobo writes*:
> Here are my 7
> 
> 1, Us existing doesn't prove a god exists.
> *2.* Science says the cosmological order does not prove a god exists.
> *3.* *You would have to meet god to "know" he exists and no one has ever met him. And you would have to be a god yourself to "know" that no god(s) exist.
> 4.* If _your all powerful god existed yes he would be amazing. _
> *5.* Theists can't prove god exists.
> *6.* The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
> *7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!​
> 
> Okay, so we have you down on *#1, #2, #3 *and *#4 *of the origin truths right off the top, and at the same time we have you saying all kinds of false things.
> 
> Your *#2 *is, of course, false. Nothing can be asserted about God at all by science, and science doesn't prove or disprove things. Science verifies or falsifies things. Logic is used to prove or disprove things in proofs of logical validation or negation
> 
> Your *#3 *contradicts your *#2*, as you simultaneously place yourself above God to make absolute statements about God, which means you assume His existence in order to tell us things about His experiences with others and make the absurd statement that a creature, which presupposes God's existence again, would have to turn into God, which presupposes God's existence again, in order for the creature to know that he's no longer a creature but the Creator. That's weird.
> 
> Your *#5 *is a false dilemma because theists don't have to prove God exists at all, or even prove He's exists for Him to exist.
> 
> Your *#6 *contradicts the fact that you necessarily acknowledged that you can't logically eliminate God's existence in your various incoherencies.
> 
> And because you contradict yourself in your *#1 *by conceding that you exist, you necessarily hold in organic logic that God (the Creator) _does_ exist. In other words, you say you exist but your existence doesn't prove that the Creator, Who by definition and necessity would have to exist in order to have created you, exists after all. Hmm. That's doesn't work. So we know that we have you down on *#6 *of the origin truths too.
> 
> So the only one we're missing out of the origin truths for you is *#5* and *#7 *by extension.
> #5 reads: "Science cannot verify or falsify God's existence." Since that's true, we'll just put you down for that one and chalk you up for all seven of the original truths, as #7 merely summarizes the previous six.
> 
> See how that works?
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with the thing I said but not your 7 things or when you write that no one escapes the 7 things. I've already escaped.
> 
> What is it that you think is unescapable?
> 
> #1.  I agree with the point that I exist.  After that you're just rambling.
> #2.  No I don't assume his existence.
> 
> Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.
> 
> When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of  showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions.
> 
> But it is also true that theists do not presuppose god’s non-existence, atheists are simply unconvinced of god’s existence. Arguments made by theists can be refuted without appealing to a god’s potential non-existence.
> Arguments made by atheists _against_ god’s existence, be they _a priori _or _a posteriori, _are not invalid due to the fact that proponents of presuppositionalism have failed to establish reason and logic as being dependant upon the existence of god.
Click to expand...




Dense.


----------



## Boss

*Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
*
The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
Click to expand...

You have completely lost touch with your own rambling screeds. 

LOL!

The phones ringing but no one is there to answer.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.



Is that why you're an atheist? You don't believe in Zeus?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
Click to expand...


I feel you.  This is just sort of people magicians love to have fill the seats at their performances.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have completely lost touch with your own rambling screeds.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The phones ringing but no one is there to answer.
Click to expand...


There's another one.  Magic.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.



No we don't.  We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass.  It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.  

Its just another problem with the theist story.  

I have a spirit.  Does that prove a god exists?  Nope.  In fact my spirit says there is no god.  But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god.  It won't make any difference when we're both dead.  And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.  We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass.  It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.
> 
> Its just another problem with the theist story.
> 
> I have a spirit.  Does that prove a god exists?  Nope.  In fact my spirit says there is no god.  But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god.  It won't make any difference when we're both dead.  And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.
Click to expand...


You assume God don't exist because you think God has to be a sentient being, you don't comprehend spiritual nature. Except for you, silly boob... you accept spiritual nature, believe in Karma, admit that you have a spirit... but don't believe in God and think we made that up. But that's okay because we all know what your deal is here, you hate religion and religious people. It is your hatred for religion and religious people which causes you to be an Atheist/Agnostic Activist.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?





> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!


.








are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy 


*"But, really, what caused the singularity"*

the end becoming the beginning ....

.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.  We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass.  It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.
> 
> Its just another problem with the theist story.
> 
> I have a spirit.  Does that prove a god exists?  Nope.  In fact my spirit says there is no god.  But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god.  It won't make any difference when we're both dead.  And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume God don't exist because you think God has to be a sentient being, you don't comprehend spiritual nature. Except for you, silly boob... you accept spiritual nature, believe in Karma, admit that you have a spirit... but don't believe in God and think we made that up. But that's okay because we all know what your deal is here, you hate religion and religious people. It is your hatred for religion and religious people which causes you to be an Atheist/Agnostic Activist.
Click to expand...


Nope.  We see no evidence of god physical or spiritual.  That's all just in your head.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
Click to expand...



Question:  Does the 7 things have an objective voice?


Boss said:


> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.



hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.

So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.

Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.

Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.  We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass.  It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.
> 
> Its just another problem with the theist story.
> 
> I have a spirit.  Does that prove a god exists?  Nope.  In fact my spirit says there is no god.  But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god.  It won't make any difference when we're both dead.  And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume God don't exist because you think God has to be a sentient being, you don't comprehend spiritual nature. Except for you, silly boob... you accept spiritual nature, believe in Karma, admit that you have a spirit... but don't believe in God and think we made that up. But that's okay because we all know what your deal is here, you hate religion and religious people. It is your hatred for religion and religious people which causes you to be an Atheist/Agnostic Activist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  We see no evidence of god physical or spiritual.  That's all just in your head.
Click to expand...


So why do you have an idea of God in your head?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?

Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?

See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?
> 
> Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.
Click to expand...


Answer:  No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster.  To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Question:  Does the 7 things have an objective voice?
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
Click to expand...


Yeah. You called the Big Bang, a contingent event, God, which is immediately rejected as nonsense because according to your logic the singularity would have to be God, not the Big Bang.  But wait a minute!  The singularity can't be God, according to your logic, because the quantum vacuum would have to be God. . . .


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it that you do not like
> 
> We cannot be created since consciousness is irreducible and primary - Catholic Answers Forums
> 
> So how bout
> 
> Theology and Philosophy
> 
> Go ahead, and post your "7 things" there.  Please repeat the comments you made here over there!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Got it.  And that's an orthodox Catholic or Protestant doctrine?  Since when?  That overthrows the _ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind?  How could that be?  The argument is predicated on human consciousness, which we already know to be finite and, therefore, divisible, reducible, something that cannot have primacy in the first place.   It's a patently obvious straw man, one that actually proves the opposite of what it claims:  human consciousness if finite and therefore contingent.  LOL!
> 
> Just a few posts down from that, a member asks, and I paraphrase for the sake of accuracy: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> By the way, did you lose sight of my question regarding the origin of the singularity out of which the Big Bang emerge?  Still working on that?  Need some more time to figure out how in the hell you're going to overthrow the _ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin?
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> Are you under the impression that your crap evades skepticism, is above credulity, is convincing?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> . . . unto infinity and beyond!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what you are asking:
> 
> What caused the singularity?
> 
> That cannot be conclusively determined.  I can only form conjectures here, and to choose any one thing out of the possibilty of something else is subjectivity.  Any other words, we could label it "God" and leave open what actually is.  The reason is simple, we do not know what definitively caused the Big Bang. (Note: I used as an example that some people could very well call the Big Bang the first Cause that led to the development our Universe.  Under that assumption, The Big Bang is God.  However, That is not what is being suggested in the question given.  )
> 
> You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective.
> 
> As An example, I can demonstrate how even suggesting that question shows that you're not objective.  For instance, it can be assumed that  that the Big Bang is neither cause 1 nor cause 2!!
> 
> What does this say about the Cause that caused the Big Bang? Apparently it is not God according to the Cosmological Argument.  So why are you even asking about what that cause is if it can be assumed it is not God as well?
> 
> So 2 problems arises:
> 
> 1) It is possibly irrelevant to ask the question "What cause the Big Bang?" when it is the First Cause that is being sought and what cause the Big Bang may not be the first cause.  Note: This stands outside what is being described in the cosmological model for our universe, and is left to speculation.
> 
> 2)Whatever is the first Cause, as argued in the Cosmological argument, may or may not be one sentient being.  In other words, you have to determine what those characteristics are, not just ssume those characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find characterististics of the first cause, .Which, in this case, is no longer possible in terms of natural science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "You, on the other hand,  assume it has to be a sentient being.  That is not being objective."*
> 
> That statement is false.  Objectively speaking, I assume no such thing. Objectively speaking,  The Seven Things assume no such thing.
> 
> So what are you imposing on them that's not there?
> 
> Knock, knock.  Anybody home?
> 
> You're not really reading or thinking about these things on their own terms, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Question:  Does the 7 things have an objective voice?
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. You called the Big Bang, a contingent event, God, which is immediately rejected as nonsense because according to your logic the singularity would have to be God, not the Big Bang.  But wait minute!  The singularity can't be God, according to your logic, because the quantum vacuum would have to be God. . . .
Click to expand...


Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
Click to expand...


Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?

What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.


----------



## G.T.

The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?
> 
> Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer:  No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster.  To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.
Click to expand...


More meaningless philosophical bullshit. _Objectively speaking_ is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.

You alleged that I assume in the expression of *#3* of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about.  There is no such assumption expressed in *#3*.  _You_ assumed that.  _You_ assumed something not expressed at all.  I wonder why.  You don't know why or how you did that?

*That's weird.*


----------



## amrchaos

You can take GT response s basically my answer.

OH, and by the way.  The issue of sentience in terms of the 7 things is really about point 3.  It is being assumed that God is sentient by the statement, and I suggested not implying but leave it OPEN by using a definition.

i.e. the question is not whether or not God is sentient, the question is why imply God is sentient when it has not been properly argued for?


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?
> 
> Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer:  No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster.  To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More meaningless philosophical bullshit. _Objectively speaking_ is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.
> 
> You alleged that I assume in the expression of *#3* of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about.  There is no such assumption expressed in *#3*.  _You_ assumed that.  _You_ assumed something not expressed at all.  I wonder why.  You don't know why or how you did that?
> 
> *That's weird.*
Click to expand...



By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
Then by referencing what you mean by creator, you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.

Now you argue that you did not imply sentience.  So does that mean you dictated that concept?

Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.  

Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.

It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.


----------



## amrchaos

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?
> 
> Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer:  No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster.  To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More meaningless philosophical bullshit. _Objectively speaking_ is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.
> 
> You alleged that I assume in the expression of *#3* of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about.  There is no such assumption expressed in *#3*.  _You_ assumed that.  _You_ assumed something not expressed at all.  I wonder why.  You don't know why or how you did that?
> 
> *That's weird.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
> Then by referencing what you mean by creator(not posted in 7 things, there is another post he reference for arguing #3), you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.
> 
> Now you argue that you did not imply sentience.  So does that mean you dictated that concept?
> 
> Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.
> 
> Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.
> 
> It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.
Click to expand...


----------



## amrchaos

Great, I wrote a second post!!


----------



## Boss

​


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> ​


This was actually pretty dope tbh


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.



No, that is your interpretation.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your interpretation.
Click to expand...

No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience



No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.
Click to expand...

That crack rock must be great.

Sentience is simply an ability to perceive. Omnipotence is unlimited power.

Unlimited power doesn't include the power to perceive on boss planet?

Shut up dude, you're falling into the annoying contrarian category.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't.  We assume god(s) don't exist dumbass.  It is most THEISTS who say god made us in his image.
> 
> Its just another problem with the theist story.
> 
> I have a spirit.  Does that prove a god exists?  Nope.  In fact my spirit says there is no god.  But its ok if your spirit thinks there is a god.  It won't make any difference when we're both dead.  And if it makes you feel better about your life then allah akbar dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume God don't exist because you think God has to be a sentient being, you don't comprehend spiritual nature. Except for you, silly boob... you accept spiritual nature, believe in Karma, admit that you have a spirit... but don't believe in God and think we made that up. But that's okay because we all know what your deal is here, you hate religion and religious people. It is your hatred for religion and religious people which causes you to be an Atheist/Agnostic Activist.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.
Click to expand...

So basically, you have created your gawds to be a bigger, badder version of the competing gawds. 

How, umm... stereotypical.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.
Click to expand...


We've established the verbatim scripture doesn't say God is a sentient being. I don't doubt that you interpret God as a sentient being, I'm sure that's why you posted it. It doesn't matter how you interpret sentience, unless sentience applies itself to omnipotent omniscient spiritual entities somehow. As far as I am aware, it only applies to physical life.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is your interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it is verbatim scripture and an understanding of what the term sentient is defined as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've established the verbatim scripture doesn't say God is a sentient being. I don't doubt that you interpret God as a sentient being, I'm sure that's why you posted it. It doesn't matter how you interpret sentience, unless sentience applies itself to omnipotent omniscient spiritual entities somehow. As far as I am aware, it only applies to physical life.
Click to expand...

As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive. 

Unlimited.


Limitation.



That's why I can only assume crack addict


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> *Unlimited* power doesn't include the *power to...*



Ahem... careful here.... it's VERY tricky.... What is the _KEYWORD?_  Think G.T.... Think!!


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unlimited* power doesn't include the *power to...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem... careful here.... it's VERY tricky.... What is the _KEYWORD?_  Think G.T.... Think!!
Click to expand...

Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient. 

Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive.



No, unlimited power means there is no need for perceive. Also omniscience.... All-knowing, all-powerful.. *unlimited* in both. Please explain why it would need "sentience" as defined by your favorite source?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.



I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as you're concerned, Unlimited power has The limitation of not being able to perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, unlimited power means there is no need for perceive. Also omniscience.... All-knowing, all-powerful.. *unlimited* in both. Please explain why it would need "sentience" as defined by your favorite source?
Click to expand...

You're not even close to good at the verbal gymnastics you're apparently majoring in dude.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
Click to expand...

Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others. 

What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?

Stop that. You're flailing.


----------



## G.T.

One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
Click to expand...


As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms. 

But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.



Perception? What would God need this for? 

per·cep·tion
pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
_noun_

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
You continue describing a human attribute which you somehow think GOD needs to have.

Why is that?


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.
> 
> But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.
Click to expand...

Your position is a waste of fucking time.

How is that?

A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.

Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people. 

Gluck with that.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't. YOU assume sentience because you can't imagine anything else. Nothing implies a creator requires sentience. The Creator is omnipotent, which trumps sentience.
Click to expand...


GT's right.  You are starting to lose it.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> One would think that the power of perception would fall under unlimited powers, but there are some damn good shrooms out there I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perception? What would God need this for?
> 
> per·cep·tion
> pərˈsepSH(ə)n/
> _noun_
> 
> the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
> You continue describing a human attribute which you somehow think GOD needs to have.
> 
> Why is that?
Click to expand...

Play your neener neener game with a crack rock that talks after you smoked some shrooms as a pregame.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
Click to expand...



Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience*:* a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore: "In modern Western philosophy, _sentience_ is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."

Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about *#3* or  *#4*. What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness*:* a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator.  For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

*But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.*

Why wouldn't God have interior sensations, such as subject-object impressions and feelings?  Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first?  This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things.   Objectively apparent cognitions regarding _the idea of God _in our minds, in terms of logical possibility, simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them in a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:*  welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

No one escapes The Seven Things.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.



Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly asserts that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.


----------



## amrchaos

Sentient is defined to be the ability to percieve or feel things.

If the Judaic God is not sentient, he can not become angry, jealous, or even care.

I can see this in the book of Job.

But the story of Noah, The reasons for the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorrah, the commandment of not having any other gods before him.....etc.

Are we talking about the same God here, Boss?  What qualities of your God that leads to the above if it is not sentient.

By the way, even if you do remove sentient from the Judaic God, I still hve some problems with it.  Just letting you know ahead of time.


----------



## amrchaos

Since we have open that can of worms "What are the characteristics of God"  I do remember one claim about God posed by a Catholic Nun

God is Love


Use that as the definition of God. It exist. I've experienced it in many forms. Observed it being administered to others. At times, wish that was all God actually was. 

Sure ends a lot of debates about God.  Too bad it is not universally accepted


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.
Click to expand...

As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.
Click to expand...


Given by humans to God or given by God to humans.  Welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

See *Post #3811*.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.



No need for all that.  Just don't beg the question and the objective facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are self-evident.

Just when you guys thought I'd lost my mind, just in the nick of time, I find your minds for you (*Post #3811*)*:
*
Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible, cannot be logically ruled out.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:* welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *​


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible doesn't explicitly say god is sentient, but it states that he does or says things which make him necessarily sentient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the Bible doesn't use the term sentient, but it certainly assert that He has sentience and/or is sentient, experiences interior sensations like feelings and subject-object impressions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the christian polytheistic gawds are of human invention, it is not surprising that they were given human attributes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given by humans to God or given by God to humans.  Welcome to the club of The Seven Things.
> 
> See *Post #3811*.
Click to expand...

The seven fraudulent things. 

I have no use for your club of the damaged.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck in finding sentients at the end of a sequence of seemingly non-sentient things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for all that.  Just don't beg the question and the objective facts of cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are self-evident.
> 
> Just when you guys thought I'd lost my mind, just in the nick of time, I find your minds for you (*Post #3811*)*:
> *
> Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them in a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.
> 
> Clearly the latter is logically possible, cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:* welcome to the club of The Seven Things.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things. *​
Click to expand...

The seven fraudulent things of the religious zealot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer:  of course not!
> 
> 
> But, really, what caused the singularity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"
> 
> Answer: of course not!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying Flora has no consciousness - you are certain consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems ... realy
> 
> 
> *"But, really, what caused the singularity"*
> 
> the end becoming the beginning ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.  Do you have something objectively apprehensible to add to that, something I don't known?
> 
> Also, I didn't claim that consciousness is derived from bioneurological systems, did I?
> 
> See.  This is what I'm talking about.  This is the one of the biggest problems that humans have.  They read or think their biases into things rather than simply backing out of their paradigms  and , objectively, taking things as they come at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Answer:  No the 7 things do not have an objective voice because much of it is the subjective opinion of the poster.  To say "Objectively speaking" is really to talk about nothing when referencing the 7 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More meaningless philosophical bullshit. _Objectively speaking_ is an idiom that means that the speaker's/thinker's personal bias is irrelevant to the apparent fact of the matter.
> 
> You alleged that I assume in the expression of *#3* of The Seven Things that God is sentient, which is what you've been going on about.  There is no such assumption expressed in *#3*.  _You_ assumed that.  _You_ assumed something not expressed at all.  I wonder why.  You don't know why or how you did that?
> 
> *That's weird.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By using the term creator, you make an implication of sentience
> Then by referencing what you mean by creator, you use sentience in your very questionable argument for sentience in creator.
> 
> Now you argue that you did not imply sentience.  So does that mean you dictated that concept?
> 
> Again, you can use an open definition that does not assume anything.
> 
> Yet you wish to argue a point that you tried to prove and then try to place the burden on me to disprove it when what I suggested avoids such argument.
> 
> It is like your 7 things is meant to cause argument, and your tactic is try to bully(although, highly unsuccessively) others into accepting your position.
Click to expand...


Nope, sorry.  You spoke too soon again.  Be careful with appearances.

There is rhyme to my reason.
As everything comes in its season.
A time to think.
A time to reflect.
A time to stop and say:
"Let the objective apprehensions,
The logical distinctions,
The simple facts of existence have their way."

*The Seven Things*
*1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts 2599 and 2600*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!


The term _*sentience*_ does not appear in The Seven Things, *but*. . . .


Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:* welcome to the club of The Seven Things.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *​

The lead of this revealing *Post #3811*:


Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience*:* a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore: "In modern Western philosophy, _sentience_ is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience


Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about *#3* or *#4*. What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness*:* a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator. For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

*But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.*

Why wouldn't God have interior sensations, such as subject-object impressions and feelings? Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first? This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things. Objectively apparent cognitions regarding _the idea of God _in our minds, in terms of logical possibility, simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

*. . .*​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> You can take GT response s basically my answer.
> 
> OH, and by the way.  The issue of sentience in terms of the 7 things is really about point 3.  It is being assumed that God is sentient by the statement, and I suggested not implying but leave it OPEN by using a definition.
> 
> i.e. the question is not whether or not God is sentient, the question is why imply God is sentient when it has not been properly argued for?




It doesn't have to be argued. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness.  The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows.  You keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence.  From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God:  none of these things can be logically ruled out!  That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable.  Any notion  less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.

But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . higher, share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals.  Welcome to The Seven Things Club.  Confession is good for the soul.

See that most revealing *Post #3811*.  Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.

You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind: sentience!

Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression/sensation of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of that sentient sensation.

With these subject-object, sentient sensations indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.

You think you’re the first solipsist I’ve run into/this is the first time I’ve heard the solipsist objection.

No one escapes The Seven Things.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.



*
Well, God would have to have self-awareness ... it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.*


if that is - #1 We exist!, self awareness then your definition for existence is exclusionary for the purpose of humanity as you perceive it rather than for all creation you refuse for some reason to accept as a possibility ...

since when will self awareness lead to imortality, in fact it proclaims the opposite quality of mortality, baseless thought and certain death. the parable of Noah, awareness without self.

hopefully I have not just agreed with Bossy -

self awareness is sin.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Well, God would have to have self-awareness ... it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.*
> 
> 
> if that is - #1 We exist!, self awareness then your definition for existence is exclusionary for the purpose of humanity as you perceive it rather than for all creation you refuse for some reason to accept as a possibility ...
> 
> since when will self awareness lead to imortality, in fact it proclaims the opposite quality of mortality, baseless thought and certain death. the parable of Noah, awareness without self.
> 
> hopefully I have not just agreed with Bossy -
> 
> self awareness is sin.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Still interposing indemonstrable subjective opinions that beg the question, that which would eliminate that which cannot be logically ruled out about the idea of God, eh?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.
> 
> But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position is a waste of fucking time.
> 
> How is that?
> 
> A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.
> 
> Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people.
> 
> Gluck with that.
Click to expand...


What IS perception? I posted the definition: 

*the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.*
See and hear? Those are human senses. What purpose does God have for them? 
Become aware? How can God "become aware" if God already knows all? 

I didn't say God can't perceive, I said God doesn't need to. That's a human attribute. WE need to perceive because we are humans not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent spiritual entities. Sentience is something required by humans, it is human cognition. God doesn't have any use for human cognition. God CREATED it for HUMANS! 

But.... Here is a classic example of my point. Atheists can't see this. In their minds, it makes NO sense. They can only view God as some kind of mystical super-being with sentience and humanistic attributes. They fail to comprehend Spiritual Nature. The idea of "spiritual existence" is something they cannot wrap their minds around. The only kind of "existence" they are capable of contemplating is physical. Therefore, they conflate God with physical nature and science and demand to see physical proof that can never be shown. They imagine a God that can't be proven because that God simply doesn't exist.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take GT response s basically my answer.
> 
> OH, and by the way.  The issue of sentience in terms of the 7 things is really about point 3.  It is being assumed that God is sentient by the statement, and I suggested not implying but leave it OPEN by using a definition.
> 
> i.e. the question is not whether or not God is sentient, the question is why imply God is sentient when it has not been properly argued for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be argued. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness.  The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows.  You keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence.  From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God:  none of these things can be logically ruled out!  That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable.  Any notion  less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.
> 
> But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . higher, share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals.  Welcome to The Seven Things Club.  Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> See that most revealing *Post #3811*.  Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind: sentience!
> 
> Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression/sensation of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of that sentient sensation.
> 
> With these subject-object, sentient sensations indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> You think you’re the first solipsist I’ve run into/this is the first time I’ve heard the solipsist objection.
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.
Click to expand...


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

*The Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

1.* We exist! 

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

*
2. The cosmological order exists!
*Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

 It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*


 3. The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
*
4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
*
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
*
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
*
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.
> 
> But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position is a waste of fucking time.
> 
> How is that?
> 
> A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.
> 
> Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What IS perception? I posted the definition:
> 
> *the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.*
> See and hear? Those are human senses. What purpose does God have for them?
> Become aware? How can God "become aware" if God already knows all?
> 
> I didn't say God can't perceive, I said God doesn't need to. That's a human attribute. WE need to perceive because we are humans not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent spiritual entities. Sentience is something required by humans, it is human cognition. God doesn't have any use for human cognition. God CREATED it for HUMANS!
> 
> But.... Here is a classic example of my point. Atheists can't see this. In their minds, it makes NO sense. They can only view God as some kind of mystical super-being with sentience and humanistic attributes. They fail to comprehend Spiritual Nature. The idea of "spiritual existence" is something they cannot wrap their minds around. The only kind of "existence" they are capable of contemplating is physical. Therefore, they conflate God with physical nature and science and demand to see physical proof that can never be shown. They imagine a God that can't be proven because that God simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.
> 
> But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position is a waste of fucking time.
> 
> How is that?
> 
> A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.
> 
> Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What IS perception? I posted the definition:
> 
> *the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.*
> See and hear? Those are human senses. What purpose does God have for them?
> Become aware? How can God "become aware" if God already knows all?
> 
> I didn't say God can't perceive, I said God doesn't need to. That's a human attribute. WE need to perceive because we are humans not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent spiritual entities. Sentience is something required by humans, it is human cognition. God doesn't have any use for human cognition. God CREATED it for HUMANS!
> 
> But.... Here is a classic example of my point. Atheists can't see this. In their minds, it makes NO sense. They can only view God as some kind of mystical super-being with sentience and humanistic attributes. They fail to comprehend Spiritual Nature. The idea of "spiritual existence" is something they cannot wrap their minds around. The only kind of "existence" they are capable of contemplating is physical. Therefore, they conflate God with physical nature and science and demand to see physical proof that can never be shown. They imagine a God that can't be proven because that God simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


Kind of remind of the claim

"Verily, those who disbelieve, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.

God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes there is a covering.  Theirs will be a great torment."


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you're the one who imposed a limitation on omnipotence by saying that an omnipotent being is not sentient.
> 
> Which is a contradiction in terms you're having.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have imposed NO limits, you are attempting to impose limits of sentience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sentience is not a limitation. It is a singular ability which does not preclude having others.
> 
> What the fuck type of weird definition do you have down for sentience where you'd describe it as a limitation?
> 
> Stop that. You're flailing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said... Post your favorite definition of "sentience" and then explain why an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarily require "sentience" as you claimed. I am arguing that God does not require the attribute of sentience, as this applies to physical carbon-based life forms.
> 
> But I am willing to listen to your argument, if you'll ever present it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your position is a waste of fucking time.
> 
> How is that?
> 
> A being that can't perceive does not have unlimited power.
> 
> Perception is an asset, you're trying to twist it into a liability just to fulfill your ocd to argue with people.
> 
> Gluck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What IS perception? I posted the definition:
> 
> *the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.*
> See and hear? Those are human senses. What purpose does God have for them?
> Become aware? How can God "become aware" if God already knows all?
> 
> I didn't say God can't perceive, I said God doesn't need to. That's a human attribute. WE need to perceive because we are humans not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent spiritual entities. Sentience is something required by humans, it is human cognition. God doesn't have any use for human cognition. God CREATED it for HUMANS!
> 
> But.... Here is a classic example of my point. Atheists can't see this. In their minds, it makes NO sense. They can only view God as some kind of mystical super-being with sentience and humanistic attributes. They fail to comprehend Spiritual Nature. The idea of "spiritual existence" is something they cannot wrap their minds around. The only kind of "existence" they are capable of contemplating is physical. Therefore, they conflate God with physical nature and science and demand to see physical proof that can never be shown. They imagine a God that can't be proven because that God simply doesn't exist.
Click to expand...





> *boss:* But.... Here is a classic example of my point. Atheists can't see this. In their minds, it makes NO sense. They can only view God as some kind of mystical super-being with sentience and humanistic attributes. They fail to comprehend Spiritual Nature. The idea of "spiritual existence" is something they cannot wrap their minds around. The only kind of "existence" they are capable of contemplating is physical. Therefore, they conflate God with physical nature and science and demand to see physical proof that can never be shown. They imagine a God that can't be proven because that God simply doesn't exist.














> *mdr:* Still interposing indemonstrable subjective opinions that beg the question, that which would eliminate that which cannot be logically ruled out about the idea of God, eh?



*mdr: "So terrestrial-bound consciousness can exist without the existence of bioneurological systems?"

Answer: of course not!*



> "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."




why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.

Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.

_self_ - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (*Answer: of course not!)*

*bioneurological systems* =/= God

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
Click to expand...


A being doesn't have to be physical and there's no reason to think that God can't be sentient.  I don't understand why that would be a bad descriptor.  If God is aware of His exsistence then he can have feelings.  I get why BreezeWood doesn't like that because he's  a pantheist but he can't logically disprove God's not conscious.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience*:* a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore: "In modern Western philosophy, _sentience_ is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."
> 
> Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is not the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.
> 
> The notion arises when persons think about *#3* or  *#4*. What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?
> 
> The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?
> 
> Answer: Unparalleled.
> 
> So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness*:* a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator.  For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.
> 
> *But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.*
> 
> Why wouldn't God have interior sensations, such as subject-object impressions and feelings?  Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first?  This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.
> 
> Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things.   Objectively apparent cognitions regarding _the idea of God _in our minds, in terms of logical possibility, simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.
> 
> Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case, would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics that do not violate any standard of perfection just because humans have them in a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite reflections of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.
> 
> Clearly the latter is logically possible.
> 
> As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of certain cognitive attributes or powers that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:*  welcome to the club of The Seven Things.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't that be "to a lesser degree."  Just saying.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take GT response s basically my answer.
> 
> OH, and by the way.  The issue of sentience in terms of the 7 things is really about point 3.  It is being assumed that God is sentient by the statement, and I suggested not implying but leave it OPEN by using a definition.
> 
> i.e. the question is not whether or not God is sentient, the question is why imply God is sentient when it has not been properly argued for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be argued. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness.  The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows.  You keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence.  From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God:  none of these things can be logically ruled out!  That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable.  Any notion  less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.
> 
> But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . higher, share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals.  Welcome to The Seven Things Club.  Confession is good for the soul.
> 
> See that most revealing *Post #3811*.  Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind: sentience!
> 
> Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression/sensation of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of that sentient sensation.
> 
> With these subject-object, sentient sensations indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> You think you’re the first solipsist I’ve run into/this is the first time I’ve heard the solipsist objection.
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 
> *
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> *Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The *idea* that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, *exists* in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> *
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> *
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> *
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...


If you raise a child in Hollie's house he will tell you he doesn't believe that God the Creator exists so he doesn't exist either so he will admit that God exists logically.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A being doesn't have to be physical and there's no reason to think that God can't be sentient.  I don't understand why that would be a bad descriptor.  If God is aware of His exsistence then he can have feelings.  I get why BreezeWood doesn't like that because he's  a pantheist but he can't logically disprove God's not conscious.
Click to expand...


I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension. 

God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect. 

Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A being doesn't have to be physical and there's no reason to think that God can't be sentient.  I don't understand why that would be a bad descriptor.  If God is aware of His exsistence then he can have feelings.  I get why BreezeWood doesn't like that because he's  a pantheist but he can't logically disprove God's not conscious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension.
> 
> God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect.
> 
> Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A being doesn't have to be physical and there's no reason to think that God can't be sentient.  I don't understand why that would be a bad descriptor.  If God is aware of His exsistence then he can have feelings.  I get why BreezeWood doesn't like that because he's  a pantheist but he can't logically disprove God's not conscious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension.
> 
> God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect.
> 
> Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.
Click to expand...


How stereotypical. You have assigned the attributes to your gawds that preceding religionists have assigned to their gawds.


----------



## amrchaos

Careful Hollie

Boss concepts are not following the more_ modern_ notions of the Judeo-Christian God.

I hope I don't need to say anything else


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Careful Hollie
> 
> Boss concepts are not following the more_ modern_ notions of the Judeo-Christian God.
> 
> I hope I don't need to say anything else



Well, I don't know what "the more_ modern_ notions of the Judeo-Christian God" means, but his notions are not biblical, and in my opinion they are not rational.  Also, I need to repost a couple of revised posts below, edited to make a few things clear.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: ... You assume it has to be a sentient being.
> *
> The only people who assume this are Atheists. It's why they can't believe in God. They have no concept of spiritual beings. They assume God must be an invisible sentient being, which seems ridiculous to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmmm, my atheism is predicated upon the Judaic description of God, in which sentients is a part of the that definition.
> 
> So, it seems you are correct. However, that is not the only problem I have with the Judaic God.
> 
> Just remember this--I can give a definition of God that neither you nor I can reject because it does exist nd observable!!.  But those "Gods" are not the Judaic God.  Sentients, by itself, is not the problem.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add, and those gods are sentient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh... okay, well I don't have a dog in the hunt here because My God isn't a religious incarnation of any kind, but I am always intrigued with atheist arguments against Christianity, it's a little hobby of mine. Judaic religion uses The Bible, last I checked. Can you please show me the Scripture where The Bible says God is a 'sentient being'? I did a search at Bible.com but came up lacking any hits with that term. Therefore, if the Bible doesn't say it, then why do you claim it does?
> 
> What humans very often do, and Christians do this all the time, is attribute a lot of human-like attributes to God, when God has no logical reason to need such attributes. But it often causes confusion among Atheists who reject spiritual nature, because they can't rationalize spiritual existence. Sentience, however, is what Rawlings is defining as "cognition" and this is a human attribute. Humans need sentience, God doesn't. God is a Spiritual power beyond sentience. It created Sentience. God is also technically not a "being" because that would denote a physical being, which is all an Atheist can imagine anyway. So basically, you have an invalid descriptor with "sentient being" when applied to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A being doesn't have to be physical and there's no reason to think that God can't be sentient.  I don't understand why that would be a bad descriptor.  If God is aware of His exsistence then he can have feelings.  I get why BreezeWood doesn't like that because he's  a pantheist but he can't logically disprove God's not conscious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension.
> 
> God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect.
> 
> Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.
Click to expand...


Boss, this is not right, biblically, by definition or logically.  See my revised post addressed to you and Amrchaos below and the new post addressed to BreezeWood.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Boss:*

Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience*:* a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore*:* "In modern Western philosophy, _sentience_ is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia")”; _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is _not_ the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about *#3* or *#4*.

What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness*:* a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator. For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

*But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.*

Why wouldn't God have interiorly subjective impressions or feelings? Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first? This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Sentience doesn't impinge on the issue of perfection at all.  Perfection and the possession of emotions are not mutually exclusive!

Whaaaaaa?

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in The Seven Things. The objectively apparent cogitations of logical necessity or possibility regarding _the idea of God _in our minds  simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case (sentience) would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite expressions of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible, thus, cannot be logically ruled out.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of attributes or powers of cognition that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:* welcome to The Seven Things Club.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> How stereotypical. *You have assigned the attributes to your gawds* that preceding religionists have assigned to their gawds.



Assign? Attributes? Why would it matter if some humans foolishly did such a thing to God... aka:gawd? 

What IS God, is so far removed from the need for 'attributes' or mortal people to 'assign' something only they could imagine up, that IF God were the human-like entity you imagine, He would LOL at the notion. But God doesn't really care because God doesn't have to care. 

Do you think God is this bearded man sitting in the clouds looking down and thinking..._ Hmm, not real pleased with that Pope and his comments lately... kinda like what these Mormons are doing over here... not to crazy about the Muslim terrorists but the moderates are okay... Crazy Hindus and their Cows!!  _I find that hard to believe, to be honest. If God were capable of "not liking" something, it would simply appear to us in our reality as if it never happened. If God "liked" a certain thing, that would be an essential element of our every day reality. What humans call "Free Will" is merely by the Grace of God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Amrchaos:*


Sentience doesn't have to be argued in The Seven Things. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness for humans. The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows. As for sentience as it would apply to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_, you keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence. From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God*:* none of these things can be logically ruled out! That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable. Any notion less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.

But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . "higher," share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals. Welcome to The Seven Things Club. Confession is good for the soul.

See that most revealing *Post #3837. *Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware of the fact that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.

You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind: sentience!

Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of his experience of that sentient impression.

With these sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.
> 
> _self_ - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (*Answer: of course not!)*
> 
> *bioneurological systems* =/= God
> 
> .



You're still confused.

Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.

The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by *#6* of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.

It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?

Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of _direct evidentiary, inhabited proof_, they are assigned _valid_, albeit, _might or might not be true values_, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.

Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837)*.

If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.

There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.

Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite *Amrchaos' *earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that _do not or might not_ exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.

Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike *#2 *from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!

Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.

People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!

Illusory cogitations.

These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.

Indeed, *Boss'* assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given *A: A = A*. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.

Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837).

No one escapes The Seven Things.*


----------



## Boss

Rawlings, we are not too far off from one another. My argument is the human conception of "sentience" and how that applies to God. We are incapable of thinking beyond sentience, if that makes any sense. Our human minds can reason sentience and understand how that applies to human beings because... we're human beings. God has no 'need' for anything, including sentience. All the things we understand and comprehend as applying to humans, God is already above those things, God created those things for humans. All the complex and difficult to decipher philosophical arguments pertaining to logic and reason... God is ABOVE that.... = *No need for it.*


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful Hollie
> 
> Boss concepts are not following the more_ modern_ notions of the Judeo-Christian God.
> 
> I hope I don't need to say anything else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know what "the more_ modern_ notions of the Judeo-Christian God" means, but his notions are not biblical, and in my opinion they are not rational.  Also, I need to repost a couple of revised posts below, edited to make a few things clear.
Click to expand...

,
OK, he's all yours


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension.
> 
> God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect.
> 
> Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.



Boss!

Sentience is not, in and of itself, self-awareness, metaphysically; rather, it's the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings and finite beings only! Non-technical definitions sometimes throw in the term _aware_, but this does not pertain to self-awareness, but to the awareness (more at the _experience_) of subjective impressions or feelings.

For humans, these subjective impressions include the experiential sensations/perceptions elicited by exterior phenomena.

Of course the idea of God necessarily asserts that God would be self-aware and universally other-aware of everything that exists without any gaps in His knowledge. Humans *become* aware. God would be eternally aware.

You’re making a distinction between divine awareness and knowledge that makes no difference. They are one and the same thing!

Further, you’re confounding an abridged definition of sentience that only applies to finite beings. The unabridged philosophical definition of metaphysics is the only one that matters universally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

I already shared this.

Pay particular attention to the following*:
*
In the philosophy of consciousness, _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] *This is distinct from other aspects of the **mind** and **consciousness**, such as **creativity**, **intelligence**, **sapience**, **self-awareness**, and **intentionality** (the ability to have thoughts "about" something).* Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining _consciousness_, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.​
The universal essence of sentience is interiorly subjective experiences of mental impressions and emotions.

You've put me in a position where I find myself agreeing with the atheists against you, as you’re not making any sense here, except in *Amrchaos'* case, as he thinks the possibility of divine sentience doesn't necessarily adhere to the idea of God in terms of first principles, which is patently false.

The possibility that God would be fully sentient cannot be logically ruled out. It's arguably a logical necessity for a fully conscious being of personhood, mortal or divine, to have emotions. In fact, I'd like someone on this thread explain to me how an omniscient God would not necessarily have emotions.

Think about that.

The Seven Things demonstrate that one cannot rationally rule out the possibility that we are finite expressions of God's consciousness. Your argument that the objective facts of human cognition (for there's no humans as such projecting) anthropomorphize God via the possibility that God has sentient impressions and feelings is bogus. There's nothing in the laws of organic human thought that precludes this possibility, and of course divine sentience wouldn't apply to divinity in the exact same way that applies to humans.

God doesn't _become_ aware, and His interior sentience would be purely mental impressions and emotions.

However, an all-knowing God would be able to experience precisely what we experience (the mental sensations, perceptions and emotions) via the contents of our minds, would He not? He would necessarily know and understand everything we're thinking or feeling.  Ah! So it looks like He must have emotions, logically, in order to know what emotions are and how they are experienced/felt!

Finally, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the expressions of God's sentience in the Bible.

First, the Bible most certainly does assert that God is sentient, Boss. That cannot be denied. You are mistaken.

Second, the authors of the Bible don't mean that God literally hears, sees, smells, tastes or feels things in the sense that humans do as if he had physical ears, eyes, a nose, a tongue or a dermis. They're speaking metaphorically. They knew that the actual means of God's sentience and the higher cogitations thereof would have to be intellectual in nature, an operation of His divine omniscience, not literal, sensory transmissions or sensory data; and neither Jews nor Christians hold that the biblical construct of divine consciousness is an anthropomorphism. Nonsense! The Bible holds that we were created in God's image, that our consciousness is what it is because He made us in His likeness. We are finite expressions of His consciousness.

*To the atheists on this thread: go on contradictorily presupposing God's existence as you necessarily do when you declare to know something about an existing God that the rest of us mere mortals cannot logically rule out!

Keep doing it. I dare you. I double dare you.
*
LOL!

*No one escapes The Seven Things.*


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say a being has to be physical. I said this is the Atheist perception because they cannot comprehend anything but a physical being. Spiritual beings do not exist to an Atheist, the concept of such is beyond their comprehension.
> 
> God is not "sentient" because God doesn't have to be. God is universal everything. God doesn't have to be aware, that is a human attribute. God doesn't have any use for feelings. These are human attributes, things that humans need, things that make humans better. God is perfect.
> 
> Since we are humans, we are incapable of fully comprehending God. We assign variables to God based on our understanding of how humans function, what the universe is like from a human perspective. Words like "conscious" or "sentient" or "aware" are human concepts. God is The Creator of all these things. It's not that God lacks the capability, it's that these capabilities don't apply to God, there is no purpose for God to have them or need them. They are human attributes for humans, not for God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss!
> 
> Sentience is not, in and of itself, self-awareness, metaphysically; rather, it's the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings and finite beings only! Non-technical definitions sometimes throw in the term _aware_, but this does not pertain to self-awareness, but to the awareness (more at the _experience_) of subjective impressions or feelings.
> 
> For humans, these subjective impressions include the experiential sensations/perceptions elicited by exterior phenomena.
> 
> Of course the idea of God necessarily asserts that God would be self-aware and universally other-aware of everything that exists without any gaps in His knowledge. Humans *become* aware. God would be eternally aware.
> 
> You’re making a distinction between divine awareness and knowledge that makes no difference. They are one and the same thing!
> 
> Further, you’re confounding an abridged definition of sentience that only applies to finite beings. The unabridged philosophical definition of metaphysics is the only one that matters universally.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
> 
> I already shared this.
> 
> Pay particular attention to the following*:
> *
> In the philosophy of consciousness, _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[1] *This is distinct from other aspects of the **mind** and **consciousness**, such as **creativity**, **intelligence**, **sapience**, **self-awareness**, and **intentionality** (the ability to have thoughts "about" something).* Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining _consciousness_, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.​
> The universal essence of sentience is interiorly subjective experiences of mental impressions and emotions.
> 
> You've put me in a position where I find myself agreeing with the atheists against you, as you’re not making any sense here, except in *Amrchaos'* case, as he thinks the possibility of divine sentience doesn't necessarily adhere to the idea of God in terms of first principles, which is patently false.
> 
> The possibility that God would be fully sentient cannot be logically ruled out. It's arguably a logical necessity for a fully conscious being of personhood, mortal or divine, to have emotions. In fact, I'd like someone on this thread explain to me how an omniscient God would not necessarily have emotions.
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> The Seven Things demonstrate that one cannot rationally rule out the possibility that we are finite expressions of God's consciousness. Your argument that the objective facts of human cognition (for there's no humans as such projecting) anthropomorphize God via the possibility that God has sentient impressions and feelings is bogus. There's nothing in the laws of organic human thought that precludes this possibility, and of course divine sentience wouldn't apply to divinity in the exact same way that applies to humans.
> 
> God doesn't _become_ aware, and His interior sentience would be purely mental impressions and emotions.
> 
> However, an all-knowing God would be able to experience precisely what we experience (the mental sensations, perceptions and emotions) via the contents of our minds, would He not? He would necessarily know and understand everything we're thinking or feeling.  Ah! So it looks like He must have emotions, logically, in order to know what emotions are and how they are experienced/felt!
> 
> Finally, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the expressions of God's sentience in the Bible.
> 
> First, the Bible most certainly does assert that God is sentient, Boss. That cannot be denied. You are mistaken.
> 
> Second, the authors of the Bible don't mean that God literally hears, sees, smells, tastes or feels things in the sense that humans do as if he had physical ears, eyes, a nose, a tongue or a dermis. They're speaking metaphorically. They knew that the actual means of God's sentience and the higher cogitations thereof would have to be intellectual in nature, an operation of His divine omniscience, not literal, sensory transmissions or sensory data; and neither Jews nor Christians hold that the biblical construct of divine consciousness is an anthropomorphism. Nonsense! The Bible holds that we were created in God's image, that our consciousness is what it is because He made us in His likeness. We are finite expressions of His consciousness.
> 
> *To the atheists on this thread: go on contradictorily presupposing God's existence as you necessarily do when you declare to know something about an existing God that the rest of us mere mortals cannot logically rule out!
> 
> Keep doing it. I dare you. I double dare you.
> *
> LOL!
> 
> *No one escapes The Seven Things.*
Click to expand...



I think we need to make sure Boss is on the same page first.

Don't you think that is more important, MD?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Rawlings, we are not too far off from one another. My argument is the human conception of "sentience" and how that applies to God. We are incapable of thinking beyond sentience, if that makes any sense. Our human minds can reason sentience and understand how that applies to human beings because... we're human beings. God has no 'need' for anything, including sentience. All the things we understand and comprehend as applying to humans, God is already above those things, God created those things for humans. All the complex and difficult to decipher philosophical arguments pertaining to logic and reason... God is ABOVE that.... = *No need for it.*




And I'm arguing that of course human sentience and divine sentience would not be exactly the same.

Sentience does not necessarily assert "a becoming aware." That component of sentience would apply to finite minds only; more at, that would be, arguably, the first principle of sentience in finite minds. God would by definition be eternally aware.

*Hence, the metaphysically universal construct of sentience = mental impressions and emotions and nothing else!*

Most, though not all, of our sentient impressions and feelings are attached to sensory apparatuses. God's wouldn't be. That's all.

It does not follow that God would not necessarily need or want mental impressions or emotions.

Whaaaaaa?

Certainly, He would have the interior mental impressions of sentience by necessity of His omniscience, and how is He going to know everything about us without knowing everything about our mental states, including the intimate details of our subjective sensations, impressions, perceptions and their emotional content if He does not have sentient impressions or emotions?

But let us suspend that question and its apparent ramifications for the moment and simply cut to the chase*:* there is no rational justification for the assertion that the logical possibilities of human cognition are anthropomorphizing God, as we readily recognize the possibility that we might be finite expressions of _God's_ consciousness. Moreover, there is no rational justification for the charge that divine perfection and the mental impressions and emotions of sentience are mutually exclusive. Non sequitur.

I hold that the case for divine sentience in its fullest sense trumps the argument against it, for God’s omniscience appears to require it, and in truth the notion that a divine sentience akin to our own constitutes an anthropomorphism presupposes to know something that cannot be logically ruled out at all: that we are, once again, finite expressions of His consciousness. With all due respect, I say folks are unwittingly pulling a little intellectual hocus pocus on themselves.

I can almost hear God laughing and saying: "Children, it's the other way around. I theologized _you_."

However, I suppose that an argument can be made that divine sentience insofar as emotions go is not a logical necessity for God, but merely a logical possibility, though that seems a little weird in the face of the imperative that He would at the very least have sentience in terms of the mental impressions of the construct of the eternal now due to His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. Why leave the emotional aspect of sentience out? That strikes me as  utterly arbitrary.

Look, I've never thought the emotional aspect of divine sentience out in terms of logical necessity. As this moment I can't put my finger on how it wouldn't be necessary in the face of omniscience, the necessity that nothing is hidden from Him, including the entirety of our mental states, and you certainly have not provided any coherently convincing objection.

But I will give it more thought as there is something niggling at the edge of my mind regarding my impression about the logical necessity of emotional sentience for God. I do, of course, believe the Bible, that God does in fact have emotions of love and joy, for example, as well as anger and hatred for evil, just for starters. . . . But can I assert this on the basis of what the objective facts of human cognition divulge regarding the problems of existence and origin?

Well, until I can put my finger on what's niggling at the edge of my mind, for now I'll just hold that emotional sentience cannot be logically ruled out, for that much is objectively indisputable.


----------



## BreezeWood

*.
No one escapes The Seven Things.*

*
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!*



> - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.




what exists in your mind about the "creator" is not the same as what is a partial concept to a more formal understanding including concepts necessary for an extended existence that God may have arbitrary rule over but is itself dependent on other factors that itself may not control - the Everlasting.

because in the end you are basing your TST on the precepts of an errant document as your source for your knowledge of God there can not be any other conclusion but a misconception of the truth your syllogism is attempting to prove.


TST = Bible =/= God

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> *.
> No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> *
> 3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what exists in your mind about the "creator" is not the same as what is a partial concept to a more formal understanding including concepts necessary for an extended existence that God may have arbitrary rule over but is itself dependent on other factors that itself may not control - the Everlasting.
> 
> because in the end you are basing your TST on the precepts of an errant document as your source for your knowledge of God there can not be any other conclusion but a misconception of the truth your syllogism is attempting to prove.
> 
> 
> TST = Bible =/= God
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So now you write this after I just told you TST  don't assert anything you ascribed to me or them, and don't necessarily preclude your notion of discrete or universal spirituality . . . though* #4* divulges  a logical paradox for a universal spirituality as it is asserted by pantheism.  Why am I not surprised?  BreezeWood, you have got to back out of your paradigm and view TST from an objective standpoint.  Though the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are consistent with biblical scripture, there's nothing overtly biblical in TST themselves!  The only "document" they're based on are the three laws of organic/classical thought.

Whether or not, objectively speaking, the things you're going on about, which I can't understand half the time because you don't coherently express them or premise them on anything discernibly concrete, are ultimately true or not:  you cannot rationally or empirically demonstrate them to anyone else on the basis of justified true belief/knowledge, for they don't even line up with the organic laws of thought in any objective fashion. In other words, if they are true within the subjective range below the only objectively apprehensible and defensible standard of divine attribution, how could any of us know that without direct revelation from God?

And frankly I'm done with these posts of yours.  The laws of thought negate hard pantheism anyway, demonstrate that there's no real practical difference between it and atheism.  As for the form of pantheism you're going on about. . . .    Frankly, I don't buy it.  I don't believe that God would give us the order and rationality of the laws of human thought pointing in one direction when all the while the truth is your esoteric, pantheistic mumbo jumbo that could mean virtually anything with the kitchen sink thrown in. You make some mysterious distinction between the Everlasting and God, a distinction that makes absolutely no difference but one of semantics.  It's ridiculous.  A mystery religion.  God is intentionally confusing us? Misleading us? Lying to us?  Expecting us to guess our way past the universal sign posts into this incoherency of yours?

The fundamental laws of human thought affirm all of TST, and science affirms #1, #2 and #5, as well as a number of extrapolations that can be objectively derived from the TST.  Your ideas don't have anything like that!  There are logical possibilities, but no logical necessities apart from those that already agree with some of TST.  There are a few scientific hypotheticals, but nothing that has yet to be verified by science or even appears to be scientifically verifiable.  Dude!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> *.
> No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> *
> 3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what exists in your mind about the "creator" is not the same as what is a partial concept to a more formal understanding including concepts necessary for an extended existence that God may have arbitrary rule over but is itself dependent on other factors that itself may not control - the Everlasting.
> 
> because in the end you are basing your TST on the precepts of an errant document as your source for your knowledge of God there can not be any other conclusion but a misconception of the truth your syllogism is attempting to prove.
> 
> 
> TST = Bible =/= God
> 
> .
Click to expand...



So you will not back out of your paradigm? Your religion strikes me as being something fragile, something cultish, something fearful and dogmatic, a mantra shaking in its boots before the very thought of objectivity. Why, everything might collapse. You strike me as a man clinging to something with a white-knuckled grip.

Hence, I will now come at you directly from my paradigm, especially given the fact that by your own words you put yourself down for TST, but just blithely go on and disregard the implications. 

There is a spirit loose in this world that is evil, at enmity with God, a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, to kill and destroy. He is the god of incoherent mumbo jumbo that blinds and binds and bombs in the end. That's the everlasting you're talking. He's your god. A lie, utter nonsense.   You are deceived and lost.

Repent! Humble yourself before the true God of your salvation. You are a sinner, guilty before God and condemned. Christ died for you, to redeem you.

Surrender now to that truth, for today is the day of salvation.

For God gave His only begotten Son that none should perish, but have everlasting life in Him: Christ Jesus, the only light in a world of darkness.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings, we are not too far off from one another. My argument is the human conception of "sentience" and how that applies to God. We are incapable of thinking beyond sentience, if that makes any sense. Our human minds can reason sentience and understand how that applies to human beings because... we're human beings. God has no 'need' for anything, including sentience. All the things we understand and comprehend as applying to humans, God is already above those things, God created those things for humans. All the complex and difficult to decipher philosophical arguments pertaining to logic and reason... God is ABOVE that.... = *No need for it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm arguing that of course human sentience and divine sentience would not be exactly the same.
> 
> Sentience does not necessarily assert "a becoming aware." That component of sentience would apply to finite minds only; more at, that would be, arguably, the first principle of sentience in finite minds. God would by definition be eternally aware.
> 
> *Hence, the metaphysically universal construct of sentience = mental impressions and emotions and nothing else!*
> 
> Most, though not all, of our sentient impressions and feelings are attached to sensory apparatuses. God's wouldn't be. That's all.
> 
> It does not follow that God would not necessarily need or want mental impressions or emotions.
> 
> Whaaaaaa?
> 
> Certainly, He would have the interior mental impressions of sentience by necessity of His omniscience, and how is He going to know everything about us without knowing everything about our mental states, including the intimate details of our subjective sensations, impressions, perceptions and their emotional content if He does not have sentient impressions or emotions?
> 
> But let us suspend that question and its apparent ramifications for the moment and simply cut to the chase*:* there is no rational justification for the assertion that the logical possibilities of human cognition are anthropomorphizing God, as we readily recognize the possibility that we might be finite expressions of _God's_ consciousness. Moreover, there is no rational justification for the charge that divine perfection and the mental impressions and emotions of sentience are mutually exclusive. Non sequitur.
> 
> I hold that the case for divine sentience in its fullest sense trumps the argument against it, for God’s omniscience appears to require it, and in truth the notion that a divine sentience akin to our own constitutes an anthropomorphism presupposes to know something that cannot be logically ruled out at all: that we are, once again, finite expressions of His consciousness. With all due respect, I say folks are unwittingly pulling a little intellectual hocus pocus on themselves.
> 
> I can almost hear God laughing and saying: "Children, it's the other way around. I theologized _you_."
> 
> However, I suppose that an argument can be made that divine sentience insofar as emotions go is not a logical necessity for God, but merely a logical possibility, though that seems a little weird in the face of the imperative that He would at the very least have sentience in terms of the mental impressions of the construct of the eternal now due to His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. Why leave the emotional aspect of sentience out? That strikes me as  utterly arbitrary.
> 
> Look, I've never thought the emotional aspect of divine sentience out in terms of logical necessity. As this moment I can't put my finger on how it wouldn't be necessary in the face of omniscience, the necessity that nothing is hidden from Him, including the entirety of our mental states, and you certainly have not provided any coherently convincing objection.
> 
> But I will give it more thought as there is something niggling at the edge of my mind regarding my impression about the logical necessity of emotional sentience for God. I do, of course, believe the Bible, that God does in fact have emotions of love and joy, for example, as well as anger and hatred for evil, just for starters. . . . But can I assert this on the basis of what the objective facts of human cognition divulge regarding the problems of existence and origin?
> 
> Well, until I can put my finger on what's niggling at the edge of my mind, for now I'll just hold that emotional sentience cannot be logically ruled out, for that much is objectively indisputable.
Click to expand...

Jeebus. These cranks are just a bunch of Benny Hinn wannabes.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Look, I've never thought the emotional aspect of divine sentience out in terms of logical necessity. As this moment I can't put my finger on how it wouldn't be necessary in the face of omniscience, the necessity that nothing is hidden from Him, including the entirety of our mental states, and you certainly have not provided any coherently convincing objection.
> 
> But I will give it more thought as there is something niggling at the edge of my mind regarding my impression about the logical necessity of emotional sentience for God. I do, of course, believe the Bible, that God does in fact have emotions of love and joy, for example, as well as anger and hatred for evil, just for starters. . . . But can I assert this on the basis of what the objective facts of human cognition divulge regarding the problems of existence and origin?



Well this is probably where we differ on our views. The Bible doesn't say God is a "sentient being" and we have already established this fact. Now you want to define something called "divine sentience" but that term frankly makes no sense to me. I am not a Christian follower of the Bible, so we have a difference in what we conceptualize as God. My concept doesn't negate or interrupt your _Seven Things_ argument in the least. 

Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists. The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words. we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!


----------



## amrchaos

Just goes to show that each individual concept of God need not be the same!!

Boss is in agreement with you, M.D.  Just that his concept of God is different from your concept.

Also, I do agree with you on this point, M.D.--Boss concept of God is not Biblical.  At least not in the_ Classical_ sense.  It sounds like non-theism, but it may be another form of the "Modern" take on what God is.

Once we start talking about non-theist notions of God, my atheism may become irrelevant. I may be more accepting of their definition than I am of the Biblical sense.


Remember, when I talked about the nun that claimed "God is love"?  If that is true, then I can not claim atheism under that definition!  Understand why?.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> It sounds like non-theism...



Pretty much, which is probably why my Christian sister refers to me as her "atheist brother." I am not keen on organized religion because I believe human religions are all as flawed as the humans who created them. I am a Spiritualist who believes very much in a Spiritual God. My God doesn't have human attributes, doesn't "care" what you do or don't do. It's illogical to me to conclude God "wants" or "doesn't want" things because God is Supreme, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent. There is no "want" or "don't want" when it comes to God. There is no "desire" from God, because God has the power to make anything reality. If God wished for you to worship Him, it would be something you'd do intuitively without thought... When you woke in the morning, before going to pee or make coffee, you'd inexplicably hit the floor on your knees and worship God as he wished, and there would be nothing you could do about it. But God doesn't care what you do. 

So what is the purpose of spiritually acknowledging God? Why does it matter? It doesn't matter to God. It matters to US... We do it for US, not for God. The Spiritual Energy force coursing through our universe can be ridden like a surf wave, enhancing our experience in this universe, enabling inspiration and discovery, enabling love and benevolence. All this benefits US, not God. Likewise, there are counter forces to the Spiritual Energy, they seek to interrupt the flow, to disrupt the energy, creating all kinds of problems and suffering in our universe.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've never thought the emotional aspect of divine sentience out in terms of logical necessity. As this moment I can't put my finger on how it wouldn't be necessary in the face of omniscience, the necessity that nothing is hidden from Him, including the entirety of our mental states, and you certainly have not provided any coherently convincing objection.
> 
> But I will give it more thought as there is something niggling at the edge of my mind regarding my impression about the logical necessity of emotional sentience for God. I do, of course, believe the Bible, that God does in fact have emotions of love and joy, for example, as well as anger and hatred for evil, just for starters. . . . But can I assert this on the basis of what the objective facts of human cognition divulge regarding the problems of existence and origin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is probably where we differ on our views. The Bible doesn't say God is a "sentient being" and we have already established this fact. Now you want to define something called "divine sentience" but that term frankly makes no sense to me. I am not a Christian follower of the Bible, so we have a difference in what we conceptualize as God. My concept doesn't negate or interrupt your _Seven Things_ argument in the least.
> 
> Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists. The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words. we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!
Click to expand...


"Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists."

I thought the above was interesting in that your incomprehensible gawds are defined by you in explicit terms.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The fundamental laws of human thought affirm all of TST.  Dude!



only conceptually, the same as - - *3.* The idea that _Zeus _exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that _Zeus_ exists cannot be logically ruled out! -

as requested previously what is the distinction for "God" in your TST that is not the same as Zeus or the Easter Bunny - that makes it a meaningful concept.




> You make some mysterious distinction between the Everlasting and God, a distinction that makes absolutely no difference but one of semantics.



sorry for you, the Everlasting does more than exist in our minds it is a verifiable concept without which it is your TST that would become meaningless and conceptually is a distinct variable of the cosmological order that is not created and is included as a buffer by religious scriptural documents - Dude!




> Frankly, I don't buy it. I don't believe that God would give us the order and rationality of the laws of human thought *pointing in one direction* when all the while the truth is your esoteric, pantheistic mumbo jumbo that could mean virtually anything with the kitchen sink thrown in.



*pointing in one direction *- really, where - your bible ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Well this is probably where we differ on our views. The Bible doesn't say God is a "sentient being" and we have already established this fact. Now you want to define something called "divine sentience" but that term frankly makes no sense to me. I am not a Christian follower of the Bible, so we have a difference in what we conceptualize as God. My concept doesn't negate or interrupt your _Seven Things_ argument in the least.
> 
> Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists. The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words. we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!



Boss, I've always understood the foundation of your position, which is this*:* you believe _The Seven Things_ and a number of their apparent ramifications to be logically true/valid from the objectively universal standpoint of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought, but you do not believe/know these things to be ultimately true as they are necessarily premised on the bioneurologically hardwired laws of *human* thought, namely, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.

You have also made statements that concur with some of the logical ramifications/extrapolations, but you have also made statements that do not concur with the logical ramifications/extrapolations.

Hence, you have hinted at beliefs about the idea of God that cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge. In other words, you have hinted at beliefs about the idea of God that would necessarily be premised on some subjectively esoteric standard of divine revelation contrary to the imperatives of organic logic and, therefore, not accessibly knowable by your fellow mortals.

Now that _the issue of sentience_ has come to the fore, as I suspected, the point at which your unjustified, utterly arbitrary rationale diverges from the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of human thought is clearly delineated.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Just goes to show that each individual concept of God need not be the same!!
> 
> Boss is in agreement with you, M.D.  Just that his concept of God is different from your concept.
> 
> Also, I do agree with you on this point, M.D.--Boss concept of God is not Biblical.  At least not in the_ Classical_ sense.  It sounds like non-theism, but it may be another form of the "Modern" take on what God is.
> 
> Once we start talking about non-theist notions of God, my atheism may become irrelevant. I may be more accepting of their definition than I am of the Biblical sense.
> 
> 
> Remember, when I talked about the nun that claimed "God is love"?  If that is true, then I can not claim atheism under that definition!  Understand why?.



False on all counts, save one:  Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.  Mine is.  It's not clear to me that Boss' concept is nontheistic at this point in the classical sense, but it clearly is not theistic in the biblical sense.  Mine is on both counts.  Where you got this notion of yours regarding my personal view is anyone's guess, as I have only shared a very small number of my personal views on this thread, and they most certainly are theistically classical and biblically orthodox. 

Notwithstanding, the biblical facts as such are not relevant to the OP, and Boss' notions are simply not rational.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's just pretending that logic doesn't prove or negate things again, abusing formal terms and conventions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just showing you how apparent the ridiculousness is of your entire thesis here.
> 
> "I can prove god logically but not ultimately" is what you said verbatim.
> 
> If your idea of a logical proof doesn't prove something ultimately (which real logic does because in real logic, its an ultimate proof when the premises are absolutely true) -----then you're exercising futility. What you're doing is fucking useless, ASIDE from begging the question and calling things axioms that are NOT universally accepted.
> 
> Saying "I can prove something, but not ultimately" like you've said is a dog chasing its damn tail. Gluck with all of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GT:
> M.D. Rawlings DOES believe the logistical approach covers the essentials,
> and reaching agreement on this will address and solve all the other levels.
> 
> What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> 
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> 
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.
> 
> I ran into this phenomenon in college.
> 
> My Physics friends ended up being better tutors and scored higher on
> Math on the GMAT exams, because they had to apply the same Math
> to Real Life problems that the math students only practiced on the page.
> 
> It's the same math.
> 
> But the Physics students were applying it daily and had a broader
> grasp "in context" of how these symbols and equations/relaitons
> applied in the real world so they understood on a deep level than the theoretical mathematicians
> who understood the global patterns but didn't "specialize" in specific applications in the real world.
> 
> MD is right, although my three criticisms are
> 1. he doesn't get that some people may not relate to his
> opening assertions equating God with knowledge or Creator
> 2. He doesn't get how working with science and real world apps
> will help demonstrate and resolve issues PREVENTING people from getting this logistic proof
> 3. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that 98% of the work
> IS RESOLVING people's issues with #1 and #2.
> His proof serves as the first and last step:
> A. identifying which people relate, or which people have issue #1 to be resolved
> like BreezeWood believes in God but believes this is contrary to the Christian God in MD proof.
> or ID which people have issues like #2 that may require science and experience to resolve
> B. after the resolution process is successful, then people with issues #1 and #2
> will be better able to FORGIVE the flaws with MD proof so we can agree that
> God "includes" God = Creator or God = knowledge, but that is not the only definition
> 
> It still works in terms of God = something that people agree exists and serves that role
> 
> MD proof is not perfect but can still be used to reach agreement.
> 
> It is not his job to deal with #2 although he seems to be interested
> in resolving #1 with people who believe in God but have issues with his proof.
> 
> #2 is not his specialty as he is not a process person.
> He is like the prof who just wants students to get the right answer
> and does not give a flip what "process" they have to go through to resolve their
> issues with either the material content, the symbols used to express it,
> or his way of presenting it, or his way of interacting or failing to with the class.
> 
> He doesn't get that 98% of the population needs to address those issues
> to be on the same page. It is actually the larger reason why we don't agree yet,
> all that processing he doesn't think has anything to do with the proof on the page that makes sense already
> and doesn't require anyone understanding it in order to be true. It is still true, so he doesn't see
> why bother with "idiots" who are "lying to thmeselves" and not getting it.
> 
> He says he understands fundamental religionists are the worst,
> but apparently does not specialize in dealing with them either.
> Boss has to work around MD's biases in order to communicate
> so maybe MD can learn from Boss and Breezewood how to
> work with fellow theists who take exception to his proof.
> 
> I see MD has ZERO ability to deal with nontheists or atheists who don't follow his proof.
> So I can help with that part, if Breeze and Boss can help MD get over his issues with fellow theists over this approach.
> 
> This is a good process, but until we get through to the resolution at the end
> MD doesn't seem to comprehend the larger process going on AROUND the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What he doesn't seem to get is what "demonstrating anything in science or real life"
> has anything to do with a logistical proof.
> I compare him to the Calculus professor who knows that all the math
> works out in the numbers and symbols on the page. And YES this applies
> to ALL APPLICATIONS of calculus in real life.
> But in the process of teaching and learning Calculus,
> it turns out all the PHYSICS students in the class understand and explain the Calculus
> better to other math students. Why? Because the Physics students use Calculus
> every day in their Physics and Real World Applications.*
> 
> 
> You're full of shit.    I recently explained the essence of calculus on this tread in its own right and explained current physics in terms of calculus.  You don't know what talking about.  I'm learned on both sides of that equation.  Show me where I'm wrong and be sure to quote me on these topics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Emily is not talking about your proof.  In fact, I think emily is down with  all 7 points!!
> 
> She is referencing how you deal with people that ask questions or criticize aspects of your proof!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *That's weird.*  I don't care what she's talking about.  She's full of shit and so you.  They're not mine.  These facts of human cognition belong to us all.
Click to expand...


OK Dr. M.D. Rawling, M.D.
Into the BULLRING with you
if you claim "She's full of shit"

The PROCESS of human perception is a key part of the interactions here.

I'm willing to bet you 10 million dollars that
FORGIVENESS is the key to resolving issues with this proof.

That's NOT BS that's human psychology.
Human nature.

YES I AGREE with you the proof works, that if you define God to be X, then
of COURSE you are going to run into contradictions logically if you turn around
and make some conflicting claim or denial about God that goes against X by definition.

That is like saying, hey, let's define God to be something infinite
and therefore slapping some label on God that is finite is going to contradict God being infinite.

I AGREE with you "dumbass"!!!!

What I am ADDING to your proof is what you seem to be missing with people.

You don't get people like Boss and BreezeWood who believe in the Supreme/Almighty
but take issues or exceptions to your FINITE definition of God for the purpose of the logical proof.

What's sad MD is that you are BOTH RIGHT,  you are ALL correct.
and you're only flaw is trying to make each other wrong, when you all have valid points.

INTO THE BULLRING WITH YOU

I can't believe I AGREE WITH YOU and have to challenge you to 
bullring for you to stop this nonsense that I'm talking nonsense!

When I AGREE WITH YOU. WTFFFFF?????

Projection, perhaps?
Meet you in the Bullring if you really want to set up this online
10 million dollar bet that a consensus on God and Jesus
can be reached, where the "proof process" involves demonstrating
a pattern with forgiveness/unforgiveness correlating with success/failure
in reconciling between people of diverse views that don't have to change
as long as people forgive their differences.

That's NOT BS. That's the key to the whole puzzle.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I've never thought the emotional aspect of divine sentience out in terms of logical necessity. As this moment I can't put my finger on how it wouldn't be necessary in the face of omniscience, the necessity that nothing is hidden from Him, including the entirety of our mental states, and you certainly have not provided any coherently convincing objection.
> 
> But I will give it more thought as there is something niggling at the edge of my mind regarding my impression about the logical necessity of emotional sentience for God. I do, of course, believe the Bible, that God does in fact have emotions of love and joy, for example, as well as anger and hatred for evil, just for starters. . . . But can I assert this on the basis of what the objective facts of human cognition divulge regarding the problems of existence and origin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is probably where we differ on our views. The Bible doesn't say God is a "sentient being" and we have already established this fact. Now you want to define something called "divine sentience" but that term frankly makes no sense to me. I am not a Christian follower of the Bible, so we have a difference in what we conceptualize as God. My concept doesn't negate or interrupt your _Seven Things_ argument in the least.
> 
> Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists. The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words. we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!
Click to expand...


Now you make a series of astonishingly false and contradictory claims*:*


*1.  *"The Bible doesn't say God is a 'sentient being' and we have already established this fact."

Who is this _we_ you're going on about? There is no _we_. There's just you making a claim about the Bible that is literarily, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically and, therefore, patently false.

The Bible emphatically and indisputably holds that God _is_ a sentient Being. Even the atheists on this thread know that to be true. Even Hollie knows this to be true, though she, being the mindless, reactionary robot that she is, had to be disabused by *Amrchaos* of the notion that divine sentience is _your_ position.

Your denial of this objectively and empirically demonstrable academic fact on the implied basis of mere semantics is not worth a second glance*:* a rose is a rose by any other name. The Bible also emphatically and indisputably holds that God is much more than just a sentient Being. Hence, any further discussion of your fantasy would be pointless.


*2. *"Now you want to define something called 'divine sentience' but that term frankly makes no sense to me."

This is simply not true.  In spite of you're personal biases, you're perfectly capable of stating what the classical and the biblical views of God are.  In fact, you just did in the above as you elaborated, albeit, inaccurately, on those things that distinguish the classical/biblical view of God from your view of God.

You're perfectly capable of understanding the universal metaphysics of _sentience_, what this conceptual existent's essential nature is*:* the experience of mental impressions and emotions. You're perfectly aware of the fact that humans are sentient beings. You know that at the very least all other mammalians are sentient beings, that avialae are arguably sentient beings, all of whom experience mental impressions and emotions that varying in nature and are experienced at varying degrees of sophistication, respectively.

Hence, you do in fact apprehend, via the law of identity, what the universal essence of sentience is, what divine sentience would be, how it would necessarily differ from that of human beings, as you yourself have already made those very distinctions, and that the possibility of the existence of what would necessarily be the perfect and infinitely greater experiences of divine sentience cannot be logically ruled out. Your protestations to the contrary are ridiculous.


*3.*  "I am not a Christian follower of the Bible, so we have a difference in what we conceptualize as God."

Misleading. The possibility that divine consciousness includes sentience cannot be logically ruled out due to the axiomatically self-evident imperatives of organic logic. I didn't drag the Bible into this. Others did, and the allegation that the Bible does not hold that God's consciousness includes sentience came to the fore. I merely rejected that nonsense*:* not on the subjective grounds of personal belief, but on the objective grounds of the empirically verifiable academics of the matter—the literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts.

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are imperviously indifferent to our personal biases. They shrug their shoulders and defy your pronouncements.  They indisputably demonstrate, once again, that the possibility that divine consciousness includes sentience cannot be logically ruled out!

Neither the biblical facts nor your hermeneutically mysterious and contradictory allegation regarding the biblical construct of divine consciousness is of any significance whatsoever to the OP's false allegations and its rhetorical challenge.


*4.*  "My concept doesn't negate or interrupt your _Seven Things_ argument in the least."

I know that and I agree.

So why do you veer off the path of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin laid out by the imperatives of organic logic into the following, self-negating incoherencies?

Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though we are intrinsically aware that God exists.  The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words, we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!​


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.



I'm not arguing that my  concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation? 

I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just goes to show that each individual concept of God need not be the same!!
> 
> Boss is in agreement with you, M.D.  Just that his concept of God is different from your concept.
> 
> Also, I do agree with you on this point, M.D.--Boss concept of God is not Biblical.  At least not in the_ Classical_ sense.  It sounds like non-theism, but it may be another form of the "Modern" take on what God is.
> 
> Once we start talking about non-theist notions of God, my atheism may become irrelevant. I may be more accepting of their definition than I am of the Biblical sense.
> 
> 
> Remember, when I talked about the nun that claimed "God is love"?  If that is true, then I can not claim atheism under that definition!  Understand why?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False on all counts, save one:  Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.  Mine is.  It's not clear to me that Boss' concept is nontheistic at this point in the classical sense, but it clearly is not theistic in the biblical sense.  Mine is on both counts.  Where you got this notion of yours regarding my personal view is anyone's guess, as I have only shared a very small number of my personal views on this thread, and they most certainly are theistically classical and biblically orthodox.
> 
> Notwithstanding, the biblical facts as such are not relevant to the OP, and Boss' notions are simply not rational.
Click to expand...


Dear MD and Boss CC: BreezeWood and Justin

For God's meaning to be Universal, such a God would satisfy
* BreezeWood's references to the Almighty
* Boss's concept of God as not limited to just the Christian Bible but not contradictory to that either
* Your points and proof
* Mine and Justin's and everyone else

So if you and Boss don't agree yet, then this isn't
a perfect painting of God yet.

BreezeWood also does not feel the Christian painting of God
is capturing the full essence of the Almighty.

May I suggest we all  keep working as MD/Boss are working out their issues.
And when we come to a consensus that satisfies and includes all our
understanding of God, that bigger picture would be closer to the Universal God
than any of our individual perceptions/perspectives and angles.

God would be greater than the sum of the parts,
because God represents something infinite
and each of us only holds a finite piece or perception of the infinite Almighty/Eternal that is God.

So it takes putting ALL our pieces together to paint the Bigger Picture of the greater God
that still exceeds even our closest understanding. God is still greater, being infinite and beyond us.

MD I agree we can REPRESENT God consistently
but to do so for all the population requires translating
your same proof into terms that each person understands as God Almighty.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Who is this _we_ you're going on about? There is no _we_. There's just you making a claim about the Bible that is literarily, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically and, therefore, patently false.



Yes, I posted the query yesterday... Where does the Bible state that God is a sentient being? IT was then deduced that this is not IN the Bible, but it's "inferred" ...well, that means it's someone's interpretation. So quite literally, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically... the Bible doesn't say God is a sentient being. 

You can claim this belief on the basis of your interpretations of the Bible, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your interpretations because I don't believe God needs human attributes.



M.D. Rawlings said:


> You're perfectly capable of understanding the universal metaphysics of _sentience_, what this conceptual existent's essential nature is*:* the experience of mental impressions and emotions. You're perfectly aware of the fact that humans are sentient beings. You know that at the very least all other mammalians are sentient beings, that avialae are arguably sentient beings, all of whom experience mental impressions and emotions that varying in nature and are experienced at varying degrees of sophistication, respectively.



I understand humans and most mammals are sentient beings and can comprehend why that is an important thing for them. I understand mental impressions and emotions are experienced by sentient beings. I don't understand that God has to be a sentient being. You're failing to explain that. 



M.D. Rawlings said:


> I didn't drag the Bible into this. Others did, and the allegation that the Bible does not hold that God's consciousness includes sentience came to the fore. I merely rejected that nonsense*:* not on the subjective grounds of personal belief, but on the objective grounds of the empirically verifiable academics of the matter--the literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts.



The literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts are, you've not shown me that God is, or needs to be, a sentient being. 



M.D. Rawlings said:


> So why do you veer off the path of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin laid out by the imperatives of organic logic into the following, self-negating incoherency?
> 
> _*Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though [1] we are intrinsically aware that God exists. [2] The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words, we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!*_



Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this _we_ you're going on about? There is no _we_. There's just you making a claim about the Bible that is literarily, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically and, therefore, patently false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I posted the query yesterday... Where does the Bible state that God is a sentient being? IT was then deduced that this is not IN the Bible, but it's "inferred" ...well, that means it's someone's interpretation. So quite literally, texturally, hermeneutically, doctrinally, theologically, philosophically, historically... the Bible doesn't say God is a sentient being.
> 
> You can claim this belief on the basis of your interpretations of the Bible, I have no problem with that. I don't agree with your interpretations because I don't believe God needs human attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're perfectly capable of understanding the universal metaphysics of _sentience_, what this conceptual existent's essential nature is*:* the experience of mental impressions and emotions. You're perfectly aware of the fact that humans are sentient beings. You know that at the very least all other mammalians are sentient beings, that avialae are arguably sentient beings, all of whom experience mental impressions and emotions that varying in nature and are experienced at varying degrees of sophistication, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand humans and most mammals are sentient beings and can comprehend why that is an important thing for them. I understand mental impressions and emotions are experienced by sentient beings. I don't understand that God has to be a sentient being. You're failing to explain that.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't drag the Bible into this. Others did, and the allegation that the Bible does not hold that God's consciousness includes sentience came to the fore. I merely rejected that nonsense*:* not on the subjective grounds of personal belief, but on the objective grounds of the empirically verifiable academics of the matter--the literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The literary, textual, hermeneutical, doctrinal, theological, philosophical and historical facts are, you've not shown me that God is, or needs to be, a sentient being.
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you veer off the path of the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin laid out by the imperatives of organic logic into the following, self-negating incoherency?
> 
> _*Humans are wholly inadequate creatures to try and comprehend God, even though [1] we are intrinsically aware that God exists. [2] The thing that is God is so far from anything we are capable of imagining that we simply don't have words to describe it. In absence of words, we attempt to apply the words we are familiar with in human context. We build God in the image of ourselves because that's what we can relate to and understand. Therefore, God has sentience, love, anger, caring, etc. Actual God has no reason or purpose for human characteristics. God is beyond any of that. These are characteristics God designed for humans and relate to humans and their interaction with a physical material universe. Think about that... God made sentience!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.
Click to expand...


As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.

It's not that these perceptions contradict God, but they limit God to a certain context.
So for God to be omnipresent, God transcends any given context.

We can show water in a vase, or in an ocean or river,
water in our bodies, water in air vapor or clouds.
All that IS still water, and doesn't contradict what water is,
but is still too limited for all the water that exist.

I think BreezeWood has similar issues with the Christian God
only focusing on certain relationships with God and not recognizing the bigger picture
of all people's way of relating to God and different meanings/contexts around God.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Well because the facts of human cognition have nothing to do with the attributes of God. Sentience and cognition are attributes God created for man (and some other mammals). You are trying to apply them to God and use logic as a rationale. But logic also doesn't apply because God created that too.


: 

Dear Boss:
1. I think MD would AGREE with you that God does not depend on human science and acceptance to exist, and certainly not on human definitions. that is not the reason for the logical approach.

2. Even if God created us, our minds and conscience, and the laws of science and human nature that works by reasoning through decisions yes/no true/false, etc.
we can still use that to come to an agreement on God.

Even if God created us and inspired the music we make,
we can still use that music to play a song together in harmony.

So let's just use the logic system to agree to terms.

And what I would add, is if you and BW or others don't agree to Christian concept of God = Creator
then let's talk about what God does = that holds the same position in BW's system or yours.

We can still do variations of the same proof to reach agreements between
different people who have a different "default" position or view of God/Life/Truth.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that my  concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?
> 
> I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.
Click to expand...


Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post*:*  my personal beliefs about this matter are  irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.

I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin.  Ever!  Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the  legitimacy of your claims.

All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.

Let me see if I have this right.  God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?

You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.

Why do I say that you imply something magical?

Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness,  so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!

It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.

So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?

In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after _The Seven Things_ suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.

No.  What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every  indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
> if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
> Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
> any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.



You just *imagined* God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with *#4*.

So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently *imagine* God to be what He is, isn't it?

We can and do understand what He is, don't we?

The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?

Yeah! That's right.

And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can _*comprehend*_ the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously _*comprehend*_ the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.

Note that the term *comprehend,* not merely the term *apprehend*, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term *apprehend* come to the fore? We *apprehend* the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never *comprehend* them.

There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things.  There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.

God is perfect. He is not a liar.

By definition, God is the Creator.  Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving _God the Creator_?  Ridiculous.  Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put  into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar.  What is _your_ motive?  Is it monetary?

Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.

God is perfect. He is not a liar.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.
> 
> _self_ - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (*Answer: of course not!)*
> 
> *bioneurological systems* =/= God
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still confused.
> 
> Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.
> 
> The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by *#6* of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.
> 
> It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?
> 
> Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of _direct evidentiary, inhabited proof_, they are assigned _valid_, albeit, _might or might not be true values_, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.
> 
> Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837)*.
> 
> If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.
> 
> Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.
> 
> There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.
> 
> Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite *Amrchaos' *earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that _do not or might not_ exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.
> 
> Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike *#2 *from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!
> 
> Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.
> 
> People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!
> 
> Illusory cogitations.
> 
> These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> *Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.
> 
> Indeed, *Boss'* assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given *A: A = A*. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.
> 
> Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837).
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.*
Click to expand...


Okay.  You lost me. 

You wrote this:  "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."

Then this:  "*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."

This seems contradictory to me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.
> 
> _self_ - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (*Answer: of course not!)*
> 
> *bioneurological systems* =/= God
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still confused.
> 
> Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.
> 
> The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by *#6* of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.
> 
> It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?
> 
> Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of _direct evidentiary, inhabited proof_, they are assigned _valid_, albeit, _might or might not be true values_, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.
> 
> Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837)*.
> 
> If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.
> 
> Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.
> 
> There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.
> 
> Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite *Amrchaos' *earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that _do not or might not_ exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.
> 
> Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike *#2 *from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!
> 
> Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.
> 
> People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!
> 
> Illusory cogitations.
> 
> These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> *Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.
> 
> Indeed, *Boss'* assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given *A: A = A*. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.
> 
> Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837).
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  You lost me.
> 
> You wrote this:  "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."
> 
> Then this:  "*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."
> 
> This seems contradictory to me.
Click to expand...


Well you don't give me much do go on here, but I suspect I know what the problem is.  I actually posted this yesterday, then deleted it because the first version left out the key factor that if not included might cause the reader problems. Apparently, that didn't work.  LOL!  One of the things I spelled out is the second paragraph you quoted.  No doubt you've seen me write that certain ideas cannot be logically ruled in one place and then in other places referred to the very same things as axioms.  So if something can't be logically ruled isn't it an axiom and why am I telling BreezeWood that his logical possibility is not an axiom.  Is this right?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> why boss rules out a physical nature for the Almighty is anyone's guess however physical nature of a being is not dependent on "self" for it to exist physically and to have sentience - and is the flaw for the above biblical quote that is adhered to by mdr and would always preclude a syllogism by mdr to be flawed by his flawed "hardwired" interpretation of what he is trying to define as being God based on that document.
> 
> Flora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from "self", and an aspiration for life and imortality.
> 
> _self_ - is the problem that both the bible and rawlings misconstrue and are in ignorance for its diabolical consequences. (*Answer: of course not!)*
> 
> *bioneurological systems* =/= God
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still confused.
> 
> Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on The Seven Things (TST). Hence, you continue to imagine that TST contain or assert things that aren't there. Illusions.
> 
> The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in TST. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of TST hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by *#6* of TST! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.
> 
> It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic Seven Things of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?
> 
> Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of _direct evidentiary, inhabited proof_, they are assigned _valid_, albeit, _might or might not be true values_, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.
> 
> Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837)*.
> 
> If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.
> 
> Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.
> 
> There's a revelation to think about. TST contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.
> 
> Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite *Amrchaos' *earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that _do not or might not_ exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.
> 
> Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike *#2 *from TST. The other five of TST still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!
> 
> Hence, TST entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.
> 
> People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the TST that aren't there!
> 
> Illusory cogitations.
> 
> These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities and/or possibilities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> *Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.
> 
> Indeed, *Boss'* assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given *A: A = A*. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.
> 
> Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3837).
> 
> No one escapes The Seven Things.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  You lost me.
> 
> You wrote this:  "If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) TST do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion."
> 
> Then this:  "*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K."
> 
> This seems contradictory to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you don't give me much do go on here, but I suspect I know what the problem is.  I actually posted this yesterday, then deleted it because the first version left out the key distinction that might cause the reader problems.  One of the things I spelled out is the second paragraph you quoted.  No doubt you've seen me write that certain ideas cannot be logically ruled in one place and then in other places referred to the very same things as axioms.  So if something can't be logically ruled isn't it an axiom and why am I telling BreezeWood that his logically possibility is not an axiom.  Is this right?
Click to expand...


Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary.    I'm officially confused.  The post gives me a headache.


----------



## G.T.

Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?

Umm, no. No it doesn't.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that my  concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?
> 
> I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post*:*  my personal beliefs about this matter are  irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin.  Ever!  Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the  legitimacy of your claims.
> 
> All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.
> 
> Let me see if I have this right.  God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?
> 
> You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.
> 
> Why do I say that you imply something magical?
> 
> Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness,  so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!
> 
> It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.
> 
> So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?
> 
> In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after _The Seven Things_ suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.
> 
> No.  What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every  indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.
Click to expand...


Again, what we see you exhibiting is complete defiant rejection of any opinion that is not your own. Even when we both agree on God's existence and the Seven Things, you insist on being contrary and outright insulting to me because I challenge the application of human cognition to God. I'm sorry you feel this way, but it doesn't change my opinion. 

Now, you can bow up and make claims inferring I said things that I simply did not say (God's a liar) and you can be as rude and obnoxious about that as you please. I am not shaken. You can try to bolster your contrary opinion to mine with grandiose explanations and pontifications, that's your prerogative. What you CAN'T do is prove me wrong about God. 

*Let me see if I have this right.  God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?*

Well of course... Why do you think Atheists believe things about God that are false? Why do radical Muslims think God is pleased with them flying planes of innocent people into buildings? Why doesn't every human being who ever lived, have the same universal understanding of God? The answer is simple, God is Perfect, he endowed us with a set of logical rules so that we might better understand the material physical universe we experience in reality as humans. 

Trying to explain God with the "logical set of rules" you prescribe, is akin to trying to explain the Windows OS with a Word document. It simply isn't doable. God created Logic! This does not take away from your brilliant analysis regarding the Seven Things. Note that I am not sitting here denigrating and insulting you or calling your opinion bullshit. It just does not make sense to me that God is a "sentient being" with human emotions and cognition... that's all. I reject that assertion because the God I believe in doesn't need those things. God created those things.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?
> 
> Umm, no. No it doesn't.




If TAG cause arguments amongst theists, then it probably is not a good argument for theists.(inductive statement)

yes, I deleted a prev post.  It contain too much junk


----------



## the_human_being

I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.

John 1.1 comes out to the Log e.  I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.

Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss' concept of God is _not_ biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that my  concept is or isn't biblical, but do you say it's not because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of biblical God or because the scripture says God is this sentient being you imagine? OR maybe you mean my interpretation is not a Christian interpretation?
> 
> I don't think my God contradicts the biblical concept, although it may not conform to man's interpretations of the biblical concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as I said to you before, and I'll now say to the person you thoughtlessly agreed with your post*:*  my personal beliefs about this matter are  irrelevant to the objective facts of the matter, to the biblical facts and the logical facts of human cognition, and once again you are merely asserting a standard of belief that defies the universally objective standards of justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> I have never once claimed to know things about God beyond what the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition divulge when brought to bear on the problems of existence and origin.  Ever!  Yet others, including you, including the atheists--for crying out loud!--have claimed to know all kinds of things about God as if from on high that are contrary to the very same imperatives of organic logic. So you veer off into some land of dreams that provides no discernibly objective standard of reason by which we might certify or verify the  legitimacy of your claims.
> 
> All I need do is point at the fact that there is no legitimate reason to believe that God is lying to us.
> 
> Let me see if I have this right.  God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?
> 
> You weirdly imply that humans anthropomorphize God by some magical means, in effect, though you simultaneously concede that we understand God the way we do because of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic.
> 
> Why do I say that you imply something magical?
> 
> Because you weirdly and unjustifiably close the door on the undeniable, the indisputable, the incontrovertible fact of the more reasonable possibility that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, beginning with the sentient characteristics of His consciousness,  so that we could understand Him and commune with Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. That possibly CANNOT BE LOGICALLY RULED OUT!
> 
> It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Indeed, that is the only logically coherent and non-paradoxical position to take, as the denial of that necessarily declares God to be a liar, a God of confusion, a God of chaos . . . in the face of a mathematically well-ordered universe of physical laws apparently aligned with our organic logic.
> 
> So God is not the universal Principle of Identity, the very substance and the ground of the logic He endowed to His creature and to the creatures thereof, but is a liar Who devised a creation that misleads us at virtually every turn and about virtually everything that is ultimately true?
> 
> In other words, you claim that by these very same laws of thought we know God exists . . . yet everything that follows after _The Seven Things_ suddenly, without warning, totally out of the blue, veers off into bullshit. God is just screwing with our minds.
> 
> No.  What's happening here is that you veer off into bullshit all by yourself in spite of every  indication that the opposite must be true about God and His creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what we see you exhibiting is complete defiant rejection of any opinion that is not your own. Even when we both agree on God's existence and the Seven Things, you insist on being contrary and outright insulting to me because I challenge the application of human cognition to God. I'm sorry you feel this way, but it doesn't change my opinion.
> 
> Now, you can bow up and make claims inferring I said things that I simply did not say (God's a liar) and you can be as rude and obnoxious about that as you please. I am not shaken. You can try to bolster your contrary opinion to mine with grandiose explanations and pontifications, that's your prerogative. What you CAN'T do is prove me wrong about God.
> 
> *Let me see if I have this right.  God, according to you, is perfect, yet He supposedly endowed us with a set of logical rules that necessarily lead us to believe things about Him that are false?*
> 
> Well of course... Why do you think Atheists believe things about God that are false? Why do radical Muslims think God is pleased with them flying planes of innocent people into buildings? Why doesn't every human being who ever lived, have the same universal understanding of God? The answer is simple, God is Perfect, he endowed us with a set of logical rules so that we might better understand the material physical universe we experience in reality as humans.
> 
> Trying to explain God with the "logical set of rules" you prescribe, is akin to trying to explain the Windows OS with a Word document. It simply isn't doable. God created Logic! This does not take away from your brilliant analysis regarding the Seven Things. Note that I am not sitting here denigrating and insulting you or calling your opinion bullshit. It just does not make sense to me that God is a "sentient being" with human emotions and cognition... that's all. I reject that assertion because the God I believe in doesn't need those things. God created those things.
Click to expand...


Yet another absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight.

God did not create logic!

The nature of logic is order and coherency.  The absence of logic is chaos and incoherency.  God is the very substance and the ground of logic.  The logic of existence is not contingent, but primary, and the subjective meanderings of a finite consciousness do not have primacy over the realities of the cosmological order, let alone have primacy over the mind of God.  And the notion that divine perfection would have one standard of logic for itself and another standard of logic for its creation that misleads, confuses and deceives is ludicrous.

And what is the objective standard I'm standing on?  The universal principle of identity that holds in all forms of logic and in science.  What are you standing on?  Nothing but your private opinion.

As for your absurd, paradoxically contradictory claim that the laws of human logic anthropomorphize God: you can say I reject your rationale out of hand all you want, but the only one here between you and I making an absolute assertion in this regard—presumably on the basis of _some_ form of logic!—in the face of an alternative that is hands down the more rational, the only one that is consistent with the objectively verifiable laws of organic reality (as opposed to your made-up, mysteriously inscrutable standard of logic) is you, not I. It's your position that arbitrarily strikes down the more rational alternative that cannot be logically ruled out in any event, not mine.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

the_human_being said:


> I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.
> 
> John 1.1 comes out to the Log e.  I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.
> 
> Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.



Mathematics is the universal language of God.


----------



## the_human_being

M.D. Rawlings said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.
> 
> John 1.1 comes out to the Log e.  I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.
> 
> Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics is the universal language of God.
Click to expand...


I'm an electrical engineer. These Bible codes nail the whole issue for me. Christ said His thoughts were higher than ours and these codes are so beautifully designed that they should once and for all put any question as to the authenticity of the Bible and of the existence of God to rest for any educated thinking man.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary.    I'm officially confused.  The post gives me a headache.



No need for headaches. Logical possibility is not logical necessity.  Just because an idea cannot be logically ruled out does not mean that it's logically necessary.

Something that is logically necessary is axiomatically true in organic logic and can justifiably be asserted as something that must be ultimately true, even if it's of a transcendental nature, because the denial of it throws the negative proposition into the sea of paradox, contradiction or incoherency.

Now if the logically necessary/axiomatic proposition if of a transcendental nature, it would be something that science cannot currently verify, and in constructive logic, it would be given a *valid, albeit, might or might not be true value* for analytic purposes.

Some transcendental propositions are just logically possible, so they  aren't assigned a value of *valid, but might or might not be true, *just a value of *might or might not be true,* because while they are not paradoxically contradictory or incoherent, there's no apparent necessity attached to them either.

Also, model logic formally deals with propositions of possibility and necessity directly.

*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.​
So let me give you some examples so you can see what is meant by JTB/K.

The Big Bang Theory is currently held to be JTB/K. So are the fundamentals of the theories of special and general relativity and quantum physics. Now, of course, we know that well-established scientific theories are "tentative facts" subject to revision or falsification, partially or entirely. But we give them a truth value in all forms of logic and grant them JTB/K as a matter of practicality until such time they are overturned because they have stood the test of time, mathematically and empirically, as verified over and over again, even if they don't hold up universally. We're just missing the unifying theory that will fill in the gaps.

Because they are universal, the theory that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are bioneurologically hardwired is currently held to be JTB/K.

The idea that this is ultimately true because they are grounded on a spiritually universal substance/entity is held to be logically possible in all forms of logic, a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. This idea does not conflict with the biological truth and is not inherently contradictory, but there is no objectively apparent reason to hold that it is a logical necessity. Hence, it is not held to be JTB/K and would only be given a *might or might not be true value* in all forms of logic, not a *valid, might or might not be true value*_.
_
Now here's a twist for you.  The _understanding _that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out is JTB/K.  That's a universal fact of human cognition, assigned a truth value in all forms of logic as well, including constructive logic, because the nature of that proposition is not transcendental at all.  It's a fact of human psychology.

However, the idea that God does in fact exist is different, isn't it?  Yet it's assigned a truth value in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a _valid, might or might not be true_ value in constructive logic.  So, is it an idea that is JTB/K?

The answer is _yes_!  For it is an axiom in organic and model logic that cannot be logically negated or scientifically falsified.

And that alone exposes the OP's ignorance of the formal standards of logic, as it falsifies his claim that there exists no valid proof for God's existence.

JTB/K is the controlling factor, which requires that its seal of approval be granted only to propositions, whether they be rational or empirical, that are *logically/theoretically necessary, *not merely *logically/hypothetically possible. 


1.* Well-established, empirical theories are held to be JTB/K, albeit, tentatively, and are assigned *truth* values in all forms of logic.

*2.* Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) and are not of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned *truth* values in all forms of logic.

*3.*  Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) but are of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned *truth* values in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a *valid, might or might not be true value *in constructive logic for analytic purposes.

From this we may also see that there are degrees of surety within the range of JTB/K, but the prize goes to those propositions that are logically/theoretically necessary.

But there remains a wrinkle for most all atheists and for some agnostics.

While all logicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know that under the formal conventions/standards of academia that the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin (what I have labeled _The Seven Things_, including *#6*, i.e., the TAG) and the underlying foundation (the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin) constitute JTB/K, and are either true or valid in all forms of logic*:*  atheist and agnostic logicians are going to stress the epistemological skepticism of constructive logic with regard to the transcendental aspects.

In the world of philosophical and scientific materialism, particularly from those who hold to the metaphysics of ontological naturalism, you're going to get to the verdict that the transcendental aspects of _The Seven Things_ are logically possible, but not logically necessary, which is bullshit. Also, they're going to blow right past the irreducible mind and just go with the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the of the infinite regression of origin for the sake of the cause-and-effect dynamics of science. Ditto, cranks like the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism or scientists like Hawking. Only the latter go a step further with regard to the transcendental aspects of _The Seven Things, _holding them to be highly improbable or just plain hooey.

Arrogant, idiot savants.

Their entire edifice for truth is the tentative dichotomy of scientific verification-falsification, the least sure category of JTB/K, which is in turn based on a metaphysical apriority that is not scientifically verifiable, coupled with a belief based on sheer faith that has never been observed to happen or is known to be possible*:* the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents and the physical laws of nature can produce empirical existents above the level of basic infrastructure.


Now look at what I told BreezeWood*:
*
Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.​
That's right. The only idea known to man to which spirituality adheres as a logical necessity is, not mankind or any other finite thing, but the idea of God. And because the idea of God cannot be logically ruled out or be negated without positively proving the logical necessity of God's existence in organic logic, it is an axiom that carries the weight of JTB/K.

For crying out loud! Behold just how crazy atheism is, something the greatest scientists of history (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck . . .) would have never imagined possible, i.e., that scientists of all people would sport so many atheists today. The universe screams God's existence, from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness to the staggering complexity, yet uniformly well-ordered composition and physical laws of the cosmos. Indeed, the ramifications of the special and general theories of relativity and the imperatives of quantum physics have never screamed it more loudly.

My point?

The materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, unlike the axiomatic positive proof for God's existence in the organic logic of human cognition, which one would reasonably expect God to put into our heads so that we may know that He is, _can_ be logically ruled out, negated and discarded.  The atheist's metaphysics cannot be assigned a truth value in any form of logic and does not carry the weight of JTB/K for obvious reasons!  Now, methodological naturalism holds these values and this status, but not ontological/metaphysical naturalism.  LOL!

Hocus Pocus.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

the_human_being said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.
> 
> John 1.1 comes out to the Log e.  I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.
> 
> Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics is the universal language of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an electrical engineer. These Bible codes nail the whole issue for me. Christ said His thoughts were higher than ours and these codes are so beautifully designed that they should once and for all put any question as to the authenticity of the Bible and of the existence of God to rest for any educated thinking man.
Click to expand...


I've studied some of them, but am not an authority.  Please, share more!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not being able to logically eliminate something makes it a logical necessity?
> 
> Umm, no. No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If TAG cause arguments amongst theists, then it probably is not a good argument for theists.(inductive statement)
> 
> yes, I deleted a prev post.  It contain too much junk
Click to expand...


The TAG is rock solid!  No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this.  In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again.  It cannot be negated.  It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought.  However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily.  Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought.  The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Note the attempt to overthrow:

Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki


Note the actuality of that attempt:

Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the  contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute  principle of identity.  Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.  Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply.  But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away.  They simply hold true every time we think or say them.  It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true.  We don't say, "That begs the question!"  LOL!  Such axioms are not of a secondary nature.  Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want.  That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.


----------



## amrchaos

Careful MD

You really don't know what God can or can not create.  God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.

...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...


See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!


----------



## Inevitable

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.

Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.

Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Careful MD
> 
> You really don't know what God can or can not create.  God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.
> 
> ...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...
> 
> 
> See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!



You're out of you're mind.  The logical proof of the  _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.   Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof.  The concept of _objectivity_ itself is premised on that proof.

Your argument is that we can't know for sure  that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true.  Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too.  That's your argument and that's all it is.  So there are no absolutes?  The logic of human consciousness is an illusion?  So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters?  Well, stop talking.  What are arguing for?  LOL!  So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars.  Tell the rocks that, the birds.  Talk to the hand.   The fact remains that the logical proofs hold.  There is no argument that can overthrow them. 


I'm not putting any restrictions on God.  It's amazing that  those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is _they_ who claim to have  absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness.  It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box. 

By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist.  God is not by definition a creature.  What is wrong with you people?  Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature.  Whaaaaa?  The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone?  There is no real third option.  Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog.  LOL! 

The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread. 

Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans.  LOL!        Now thank me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
Click to expand...


There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!

Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
Click to expand...

Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Yet another absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight.
> 
> God did not create logic!



That's humorous Rawlings. You accuse me of making an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight, then follow it with an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight! 

God did not create logic? Are you listening to yourself here? *GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!*


----------



## G.T.

Tag 







Hahahahahahahaa


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
Click to expand...

Actually, comedy and tragedy would describe your pointless rattling on with slogans and cliches'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

the_human_being said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amazing that the very first scripture in the Bible (Genesis 1.1) states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."  In Hebrew, this verse comes out to 3.14159 or the mathematical pi.
> 
> John 1.1 comes out to the Log e.  I find these codes throughout the scriptures and it proves to me that the Bible is composed of 66 Books written by 40+ different men over a period of some 1700 years yet it is obviously inspired and authored by a being outside the constraints of time and space.
> 
> Actually, I believe it is we who are prisoners of a created "virtual world" while possessing the immortal inner man who is being offered the awesome opportunity to one day break out of this sick, frail, and dying carbon-based body into a super-being of unlimited capabilities and total liberation from the constraints of time and space ourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematics is the universal language of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an electrical engineer. These Bible codes nail the whole issue for me. Christ said His thoughts were higher than ours and these codes are so beautifully designed that they should once and for all put any question as to the authenticity of the Bible and of the existence of God to rest for any educated thinking man.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of the arrogance and foolishness common to most theists.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, comedy and tragedy would describe your pointless rattling on with slogans and cliches'
Click to expand...


If you could prove God existed, there wouldbe no more religion. Only facts. 

That is my thought on it.


----------



## amrchaos

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful MD
> 
> You really don't know what God can or can not create.  God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.
> 
> ...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...
> 
> 
> See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you're mind.  The logical proof of the  _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.   Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof.  The concept of _objectivity_ itself is premised on that proof.
> 
> Your argument is that we can't know for sure  that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true.  Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too.  That's your argument and that's all it is.  So there are no absolutes?  The logic of human consciousness is an illusion?  So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters?  Well, stop talking.  What are arguing for?  LOL!  So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars.  Tell the rocks that, the birds.  Talk to the hand.   The fact remains that the logical proofs hold.  There is no argument that can overthrow them.
> 
> 
> I'm not putting any restrictions on God.  It's amazing that  those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is _they_ who claim to have  absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness.  It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist.  God is not by definition a creature.  What is wrong with you people?  Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature.  Whaaaaa?  The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone?  There is no real third option.  Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog.  LOL!
> 
> The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread.
> 
> Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans.  LOL!        Now thank me.
Click to expand...


a)Is God restricted under the laws of logic?

Or
b)Is God the laws of logic?

Or
c)Did God create the laws of logic?

To me, it seems like the God you are trying to prove falls under a).  Is that what you are suggesting M.D.  I hope so,at least I know that we are both on the same page about your _assumptions_ of God.  However I do need a firm confirmation from you.

Boss and emily has thrown a humongous hurdle into the discussion!! One in which I don't find it necessary to crawl over. But it seems like you do.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful MD
> 
> You really don't know what God can or can not create.  God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.
> 
> ...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...
> 
> 
> See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're out of you're mind.  The logical proof of the  _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin cannot be overthrown. It is not merely the foundational proof for the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.   Everything we do in logic and science is premised on that proof.  The concept of _objectivity_ itself is premised on that proof.
> 
> Your argument is that we can't know for sure  that the laws of logic universally hold, so none of this might be real or true.  Well, heck, my dog might just be cat too.  That's your argument and that's all it is.  So there are no absolutes?  The logic of human consciousness is an illusion?  So nothing you say, according to your logic, matters?  Well, stop talking.  What are arguing for?  LOL!  So go sing it the trees. See if they turn into stars.  Tell the rocks that, the birds.  Talk to the hand.   The fact remains that the logical proofs hold.  There is no argument that can overthrow them.
> 
> 
> I'm not putting any restrictions on God.  It's amazing that  those who keep arguing from the subjective perspective fail to recognize that in every instance it is _they_ who claim to have  absolute knowledge about God that invariably contradicts the laws of thought (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) and reduces the idea of God to something less than the only objectively universal standard of unparalleled greatness.  It is they who limit God, jam Him into a box.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator of all other things that exist.  God is not by definition a creature.  What is wrong with you people?  Logically, if He's not the Creator, then He's a creature.  Whaaaaa?  The law of the excluded middle or third, anyone?  There is no real third option.  Semantics do not make the rose that is a rose become a dog.  LOL!
> 
> The nonsense against the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has been refuted every which way and Sunday on this thread.
> 
> Bald declarations to the contrary are not arguments, but slogans.  LOL!        Now thank me.
Click to expand...

"By definition", it is merely your opinion that your conception of partisan gods are the creators of all things that exist. 

Not surprisingly, you presume to speak with absolute authority on matters that require acceptance of magic and supernaturalism and are utterly absent verification. 

In that sense, your claims to gawds are no different than the rantings of someone totally out of touch with reality, LOL!


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible....



Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent. 

The position that _ANYTHING_ exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Careful MD
> 
> You really don't know what God can or can not create.  God may exist outside of the laws of logic and God did create logic.
> 
> ...yet it is our feeble humans that tries to place restrictions on God...
> 
> 
> See how I like to throw you back into those waters despite the proof you laid out? Ha Ha TAG is getting Tagged team from all sides!!



God's a toaster.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent.
> 
> The position that _ANYTHING_ exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.
Click to expand...

Right. It's only "logical" that your particular invention of magical, supernatural entities are the creators of everything.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
Click to expand...


The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there are none or that the traditional arguments fail.


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold on a minute.... MY logic is, God created everything, including logic itself. If God did NOT create logic, and logic does exist, then God is not omnipotent.
> 
> The position that _ANYTHING_ exists that God did not create, is what is without logic.
Click to expand...


In other words--your notion of God falls up under 3).  Emily's quote about God falls here as well

M.D. is not trying to establish that God, his God seems to fall up under 1.  I hope it falls up under 1 because 3 makes any argument about those god highly subjective and inconclusive.

Hell, I don't even know what I am arguing about!! I have to take an agnostic stand for god 3):I don't know


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the first thing but the other thing I don't get is that if something can't logically eliminated that makes it logically necessarily, but you keep saying that some things that can't be eliminated are not logically necessary.    I'm officially confused.  The post gives me a headache.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need for headaches. Logical possibility is not logical necessity.  Just because an idea cannot be logically ruled out does not mean that it's logically necessary.
> 
> Something that is logically necessary is axiomatically true in organic logic and can justifiably be asserted as something that must be ultimately true, even if it's of a transcendental nature, because the denial of it throws the negative proposition into the sea of paradox, contradiction or incoherency.
> 
> Now if the logically necessary/axiomatic proposition if of a transcendental nature, it would be something that science cannot currently verify, and in constructive logic, it would be given a *valid, albeit, might or might not be true value* for analytic purposes.
> 
> Some transcendental propositions are just logically possible, so they  aren't assigned a value of *valid, but might or might not be true, *just a value of *might or might not be true,* because while they are not paradoxically contradictory or incoherent, there's no apparent necessity attached to them either.
> 
> Also, model logic formally deals with propositions of possibility and necessity directly.
> 
> *Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.​
> So let me give you some examples so you can see what is meant by JTB/K.
> 
> The Big Bang Theory is currently held to be JTB/K. So are the fundamentals of the theories of special and general relativity and quantum physics. Now, of course, we know that well-established scientific theories are "tentative facts" subject to revision or falsification, partially or entirely. But we give them a truth value in all forms of logic and grant them JTB/K as a matter of practicality until such time they are overturned because they have stood the test of time, mathematically and empirically, as verified over and over again, even if they don't hold up universally. We're just missing the unifying theory that will fill in the gaps.
> 
> Because they are universal, the theory that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are bioneurologically hardwired is currently held to be JTB/K.
> 
> The idea that this is ultimately true because they are grounded on a spiritually universal substance/entity is held to be logically possible in all forms of logic, a possibility that cannot be logically ruled out. This idea does not conflict with the biological truth and is not inherently contradictory, but there is no objectively apparent reason to hold that it is a logical necessity. Hence, it is not held to be JTB/K and would only be given a *might or might not be true value* in all forms of logic, not a *valid, might or might not be true value*_.
> _
> Now here's a twist for you.  The _understanding _that the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out is JTB/K.  That's a universal fact of human cognition, assigned a truth value in all forms of logic as well, including constructive logic, because the nature of that proposition is not transcendental at all.  It's a fact of human psychology.
> 
> However, the idea that God does in fact exist is different, isn't it?  Yet it's assigned a truth value in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a _valid, might or might not be true_ value in constructive logic.  So, is it an idea that is JTB/K?
> 
> The answer is _yes_!  For it is an axiom in organic and model logic that cannot be logically negated or scientifically falsified.
> 
> And that alone exposes the OP's ignorance of the formal standards of logic, as it falsifies his claim that there exists no valid proof for God's existence.
> 
> JTB/K is the controlling factor, which requires that its seal of approval be granted only to propositions, whether they be rational or empirical, that are *logically/theoretically necessary, *not merely *logically/hypothetically possible.
> 
> 
> 1.* Well-established, empirical theories are held to be JTB/K, albeit, tentatively, and are assigned *truth* values in all forms of logic.
> 
> *2.* Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) and are not of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned *truth* values in all forms of logic.
> 
> *3.*  Rational cogitations/propositions that are axiomatic (logically necessary) but are of a transcendental nature are held to be JTB/K and are assigned *truth* values in organic/classical logic and in model logic, and a *valid, might or might not be true value *in constructive logic for analytic purposes.
> 
> From this we may also see that there are degrees of surety within the range of JTB/K, but the prize goes to those propositions that are logically/theoretically necessary.
> 
> But there remains a wrinkle for most all atheists and for some agnostics.
> 
> While all logicians (whether they be theists, atheists or agnostics) know that under the formal conventions/standards of academia that the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin (what I have labeled _The Seven Things_, including *#6*, i.e., the TAG) and the underlying foundation (the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin) constitute JTB/K, and are either true or valid in all forms of logic*:*  atheist and agnostic logicians are going to stress the epistemological skepticism of constructive logic with regard to the transcendental aspects.
> 
> In the world of philosophical and scientific materialism, particularly from those who hold to the metaphysics of ontological naturalism, you're going to get to the verdict that the transcendental aspects of _The Seven Things_ are logically possible, but not logically necessary, which is bullshit. Also, they're going to blow right past the irreducible mind and just go with the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the of the infinite regression of origin for the sake of the cause-and-effect dynamics of science. Ditto, cranks like the so-called Four Horseman of Atheism or scientists like Hawking. Only the latter go a step further with regard to the transcendental aspects of _The Seven Things, _holding them to be highly improbable or just plain hooey.
> 
> Arrogant, idiot savants.
> 
> Their entire edifice for truth is the tentative dichotomy of scientific verification-falsification, the least sure category of JTB/K, which is in turn based on a metaphysical apriority that is not scientifically verifiable, coupled with a belief based on sheer faith that has never been observed to happen or is known to be possible*:* the self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents and the physical laws of nature can produce empirical existents above the level of basic infrastructure.
> 
> 
> Now look at what I told BreezeWood*:
> *
> Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even TST assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.​
> That's right. The only idea known to man to which spirituality adheres as a logical necessity is, not mankind or any other finite thing, but the idea of God. And because the idea of God cannot be logically ruled out or be negated without positively proving the logical necessity of God's existence in organic logic, it is an axiom that carries the weight of JTB/K.
> 
> For crying out loud! Behold just how crazy atheism is, something the greatest scientists of history (Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck . . .) would have never imagined possible, i.e., that scientists of all people would sport so many atheists today. The universe screams God's existence, from the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness to the staggering complexity, yet uniformly well-ordered composition and physical laws of the cosmos. Indeed, the ramifications of the special and general theories of relativity and the imperatives of quantum physics have never screamed it more loudly.
> 
> My point?
> 
> The materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, unlike the axiomatic positive proof for God's existence in the organic logic of human cognition, which one would reasonably expect God to put into our heads so that we may know that He is, _can_ be logically ruled out, negated and discarded.  The atheist's metaphysics cannot be assigned a truth value in any form of logic and does not carry the weight of JTB/K for obvious reasons!  Now, methodological naturalism holds these values and this status, but not ontological/metaphysical naturalism.  LOL!
> 
> Hocus Pocus.
Click to expand...


Okay.  I got it now.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
Click to expand...


Are we talking about any God?
(Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)

Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?

Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
Click to expand...

Umm. No, actually. The fact is, there are no valid arguments for any of the gawds.

What's comical is to see Boss and Rawling arguing over their competing and contradictory conceptions of gawds like a pair of schoolgirls arguing over whose breasts are bigger.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
Click to expand...


The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Umm. No, actually. The fact is, there are no valid arguments for any of the gawds.
> 
> What's comical is to see Boss and Rawling arguing over their competing and contradictory conceptions of gawds like a pair of schoolgirls arguing over whose breasts are bigger.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. It's convenient to insist that your gawds are an "uncaused caused". What a shame for you that such pointlessness is not taken seriously in grown-up conversation.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm. No, actually. The fact is, there are no valid arguments for any of the gawds.
> 
> What's comical is to see Boss and Rawling arguing over their competing and contradictory conceptions of gawds like a pair of schoolgirls arguing over whose breasts are bigger.
Click to expand...


When your argument is shot down in flames, resort to spam.

Typical.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
Click to expand...


You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.

For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
Is this God a living being?(subjective)
Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
Is it Omniscience?(subjective)

and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.

MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.


----------



## Justin Davis

Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on. 

First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first:  "These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be *necessities and/or possibilities* to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."

I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am.  How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created?  All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself.  Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his.  That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought.  It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right.  But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question.  Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.  


Now here's my question.   You said "However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified."  But then you also said that "you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds."  There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
Click to expand...



And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?


----------



## the_human_being

One's own body is proof of intelligent design. The DNA contains a DIGITAL code unique to each individual and is proof that we could not possibly have originated from a rock or cesspool of soup. I have a brother. I am not my brother. He is a unique individual as am I.

This digital code is why organ transplants are most easily achieved when the organ to be transplanted is obtained from a blood relative of the recipient and why the body rejects the organs of another.

The information stored inside a single cell would fill the volumes of many sets of encyclopedias. Yes indeed, we are knit together in our mother's womb by an intelligent designer and are a testament to His handiwork.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?
Click to expand...



I think it was already established that God is God(see MD's definition of
God as the first Cause-which I allowed!)

However, the proof implies that one is trying to establish that the Creator is sentient in the sense as described in the Bible!!

We have yet to even address whether or not God has a conscience(you are a bit ahead here).  We are still trying to figure out if God is sentient by the argument M.D. posed.

I have already stated that claiming the First Cause is sentient(in terms of how the Bible describes it) may not be the case.  Also the method MD tries to establish it is questionable at the least.

Understand, it is the one who poses the argument that must demonstrate that God has any characteristics.  I am the one that says "Just repeat the definition of God in #3 and out leave any assumptions of characteristics".


----------



## the_human_being

How did Christ enter the locked room?  Following His resurrection, a gathering of followers had assembled themselves together within a locked room. Christ appeared inside that locked room without entering through an opened door or window. Impossible the unbeliever exclaims.

Modern science has proven the existence of dimensions in time and space. They have concluded that this world we are confined to is a three dimensional world. Someone outside this three dimensional world of ours (in a forth dimension) could move freely into and out of a room without a door or window at will. This is called hyperspace travel. This is the science upon which the popular "Beam me up, Scotty", of Star Trek fame was based.

Here's another little interest fact:

Two astronaut brothers and twins gathered at Cape Kennedy for a voyage one brother would undertake to our nearest star, some 4 1/2 light years away. The brother blasted off and was gone for 18 months. His rocket was traveling at 1/2 the speed of light. It took him 9 years to go and 9 years to return.

When the twin returned to Cape Kennedy his brother met him there. The twin who had just returned from his 18 month travels was now two years and five months younger than his twin brother who had remained on earth confined by time and space.


----------



## amrchaos

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?
Click to expand...


"There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."

Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
You can't using your terminology for logic.

Do you finally understand the statement MD gave?  He is not talking about God,  He is talking about a *concept* of God!!

It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why  premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.
> 
> First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first:  "These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be *necessities and/or possibilities* to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."
> 
> I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am.  How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created?  All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself.  Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his.  That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought.  It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right.  But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question.  Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.
> 
> 
> Now here's my question.   You said "However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified."  But then you also said that "you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds."  There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.



*Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."*

It should read *necessities *only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . _*logical necessities*_ to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."

As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that.  But it looks like it can be after all.

Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you _do_ understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof *(#6* of _The Seven Things_) that God exists in organic logic*: *divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that *God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up*.

It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!

Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.

Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.

It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.

From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!

*Note: * the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.

Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.

Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.

*A: A = A*. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.

Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.

If not, why not?

_Crickets chirping_

If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.

*So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?*

Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? _Yes_ and _No_. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?

No.

The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.

Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."
> 
> Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
> You can't using your terminology for logic.
> 
> Do you finally understand the statement MD gave?  He is not talking about God,  He is talking about a *concept* of God!!
> 
> It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why  premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!
Click to expand...


Once again,* #1* and *#2* are premised on the qualification that we accept these things to be actual.  The solipsist can change the _we_ of *#1* to _I_ and change _the cosmological  order exists!_ of *#2* to _the impression of it that exists in my mind_ to suit himself.  Either way, the rest follow.  For most, solipsism is weird, so I go with what most people get and merely invite the solipsist to revise *#1* and* #2* to his liking and come along, for after that it is purely a matter the divine concept that exists universally in our minds due to the organic (or rational) laws of human thought.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was already established that God is God(see MD's definition of
> God as the first Cause-which I allowed!)
> 
> However, the proof implies that one is trying to establish that the Creator is sentient in the sense as described in the Bible!!
> 
> We have yet to even address whether or not God has a conscience(you are a bit ahead here).  We are still trying to figure out if God is sentient by the argument M.D. posed.
> 
> I have already stated that claiming the First Cause is sentient(in terms of how the Bible describes it) may not be the case.  Also the method MD tries to establish it is questionable at the least.
> 
> Understand, it is the one who poses the argument that must demonstrate that God has any characteristics.  I am the one that says "Just repeat the definition of God in #3 and out leave any assumptions of characteristics".
Click to expand...



God is necessarily sentient.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight.
> 
> God did not create logic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's humorous Rawlings. You accuse me of making an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight, then follow it with an absolute statement without any independently or demonstrably discernible justification anywhere in sight!
> 
> God did not create logic? Are you listening to yourself here? *GOD CREATED EVERYTHING!*
Click to expand...


Are you listening to yourself? 

God did not create everything!  That's absurd.  I never wrote any such crazy thing.  God did  not  create Himself or any aspect of Himself.  God created everything _else_ that exists apart from Himself!  Logic was not created.  God is the universal Principle of Identity, the comprehensive expression of the universal laws of thought/logic. Logic has always existed because God has always existed.  He is the very substance and the ground of logic.  It's His logic that we have.  It's His logic that was endowed to us. 

That is a logical necessity, self-evident from *#3*, *#4* and affirmed by *#6*.  You just haven't thought it through.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first useful thing I learned, the hard way, about the cosmological argument is that it's based on infinite regression.  All the arguments are, all of human understanding is.  God means the only person or things that existed before anything else existed, the cause of everything else that exist, the Creator.  It's silly to pretend you don't understand that.  Anything less than that is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just did what I told MD he must do!!--leave out what the characteristics of the First Cause(defined to be God by MD) may or may not have.
> 
> For instance, is this God sentient?(subjective)
> Is this God a living being?(subjective)
> Is this God Omnibenevolent?(subjective)
> Is it Omipotent?(subjective)
> Is it Omniscience?(subjective)
> 
> and finally, is it reasonable to conclude that this is the God of the OT? Could it be something else(if it exist) ?  Does it has these features and still exist under the laws of logic.
> 
> MD argues it is and it is the God he believes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm the guy with the G.E.D.  Your questions all add up to is God God?  Yes.  God is God.  Can any part of known consciousness be logically ruled out for God.  No.  Anymore questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "There are Pink Unicorns dancing in a cherry tree."
> 
> Tell me, can you rule the above concept from out of your head?
> You can't using your terminology for logic.
> 
> Do you finally understand the statement MD gave?  He is not talking about God,  He is talking about a *concept* of God!!
> 
> It is important to understand what the Solipsist is doing, and why  premise 1 need to change to "I exist"!!
Click to expand...


I understand that he is talking about a concept.  The concept of God is Creator.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.
> 
> First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first:  "These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be *necessities and/or possibilities* to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."
> 
> I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am.  How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created?  All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself.  Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his.  That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought.  It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right.  But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question.  Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.
> 
> 
> Now here's my question.   You said "However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified."  But then you also said that "you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds."  There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."*
> 
> It should read *necessities *only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . _*logical necessities*_ to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."
> 
> As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that.  But it looks like it can be after all.
> 
> Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you _do_ understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof *(#6* of _The Seven Things_) that God exists in organic logic*: *divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that *God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up*.
> 
> It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!
> 
> Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.
> 
> Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> *Note: * the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.
> 
> Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.
> 
> Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.
> 
> *A: A = A*. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.
> 
> Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.
> 
> *So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?*
> 
> Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? _Yes_ and _No_. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?
> 
> No.
> 
> The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.
> 
> Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."
Click to expand...


Wow!   Okay, got that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I've got that part down, but I still have a question that I'm not clear on.
> 
> First, now that I got the basics, it looks like you wrote something wrong and that's part of what threw me at first:  "These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent Seven Things premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be *necessities and/or possibilities* to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."
> 
> I know that very few others are really thinking about this stuff from the things they keep saying and asking you, but I am.  How can any part of the origin uncreated consciousness or knowledge be created?  All original consciousness and the knowledge that goes with it is God himself.  Every other consciousness has to be a smaller copy of his.  That has to be right logically from the basic facts of human thought.  It's has to be or nothing else we say about God or we can say about anything else can be right.  But you said the bold part wrong, it must just be a writing error because everything else lines up except maybe my question.  Please tell me I'm right or else I'm confused again.
> 
> 
> Now here's my question.   You said "However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified."  But then you also said that "you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds."  There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes. It's an error in expression. Good eye. I shouldn't have written "necessities and/or possibilities" in the same context of justified true belief/knowledge."*
> 
> It should read *necessities *only. Better yet, it should read: ". . . _*logical necessities*_ to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge."
> 
> As for your other question, let me come back to that in another post. Rest assured, there's no contradiction, but there is a wrinkle on the parameters of that issue regarding something I haven’t thought enough about. I think it can be objectively asserted with absolute certainty on the basis of organic logic. Others have, but I'm not so sure about that.  But it looks like it can be after all.
> 
> Excellent! You've got it. The reason you spotted my error in expression is because you _do_ understand. The foundation for this understanding is the apprehension of the axiom within the axiom of the transcendental proof *(#6* of _The Seven Things_) that God exists in organic logic*: *divine consciousness is the eternally self-subsistent ground for all other existents! It is readily self-evident, logically, that *God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up*.
> 
> It is absurd to say that God created Himself or any aspect of Himself. Neither He nor any aspect of Him is a creature!
> 
> Did God create omniscience? No, of course not. He is omniscient.
> 
> Did God create knowledge? No, of course not. He has all knowledge, including logic.
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> *Note: * the latter part of that sentence shifts over to God's perspective, not of time, for He is timeless, but over to His perspective of existence, and we apprehend the essence of His omniscience in this regard with no sweat.
> 
> Folks! Stop telling yourselves that we can't adequately apprehend what we need to know about God. Of course we can, easily! God made it so. Comprehending the totality of God is a different matter.
> 
> Did God create the universal principle of identity, the comprehensive expression of the laws of logic (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle), the metaphysical foundation of knowledge? No, of course not. He _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.
> 
> *A: A = A*. God is God. God does not become God. These things are essentially Who and What He is.
> 
> Does God have all knowledge, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, or not? Logically, of course He does.
> 
> If not, why not?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> If we're talking about an entity that does not have all knowledge, once again, including the knowledge about the mental impressions and emotions of sentient consciousness, we're not talking about God, but a creature.
> 
> *So what do I mean that God did not create any aspect of consciousness whatsoever, from sentience on up?*
> 
> Did God not create existents with finite minds? Yes. In so doing did God create something that did not exist "before" His eternal existence? _Yes_ and _No_. Yes. He created beings who like Himself have consciousness, but is any aspect of the consciousness that finite beings have something that never existed "before"?
> 
> No.
> 
> The minds of finite creatures are finite expressions/reproductions of what has always existed in God's mind.
> 
> Everything that exists, exists in God's mind! "God never closes His 'eyes'; God never 'looks' away."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!   Okay, got that.
Click to expand...


Good.  Now I need to repost a few things with your correction and invite Boss and Amrchaos to reread them carefully before I go on.  Their missing the essence of something that is self-evident and cannot be denied. Then I address you other question, which is a good one, really.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss and Amrchaos:

Reread the posts that follow.  They are important.  They're telling you things that are logically necessary.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sentience I*

Actually, the connotation I'm alluding to is the philosophical construct of sentience*:* a Being that like us has interior, subjective experiences. Bear in mind, the unabridged, metaphysical definition comes to the fore*:* "In modern Western philosophy, _sentience_ is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as 'qualia')"; "_sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, 'qualia'."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Well, God would have to have self-awareness to begin with, or He would be something less than the sentience of human beings. Sentience, of course, is _not_ the same thing as self-awareness; rather, it's arguably the foundation of self-awareness in humans, the most fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

The notion arises when persons think about *#3* or *#4*.

What does it mean to say that God would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness?

The very highest possibility for the idea of God would be a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that humans have and then some. God would have to be greater than the sentience and the subsequent self-awareness of human beings. The nature of a finite being's self-awareness in the face of God is that of a creature, in our case, a rather ingenious creature, a creative creature. How much more powerfully creative is the consciousness of God?

Answer: Unparalleled.

So when I write that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, thus, non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely unparalleled, absolute perfection, I'm necessarily talking about a Being Who from the foundation of self-awareness on up is unsurpassed in greatness*:* a fully conscious Being having all the powers of cognition that human beings have infinitely magnified. For no creature can be greater than the Creator. For a finite being to subjectively presuppose that God be anything less than that is to beg the question.

*But note something very important: nowhere in The Seven Things do we find the term sentience.*

Why wouldn't God have interiorly subjective impressions or feelings? Why presuppose that the Creator of lesser beings which have these things wouldn't also have them first? This possibility cannot be logically ruled out, no more than the possibility of God's existence can be logically ruled out or the possibility of God's unparalleled greatness can be logically ruled out.

Sentience doesn't impinge on the issue of perfection at all. Perfection and the possession of emotions are not mutually exclusive!

Whaaaaaa?

Also note that there's never anything assumed about God as such in _The Seven Things_. The objectively apparent cogitations of logical necessity or possibility regarding _the idea of God _in our minds simply come to the fore, due to the imperatives of the universally apparent laws of organic thought.

Hence, if we're going to be consistently objective, then we must not preclude any kind of cognitive attributes or powers that conscious beings are known to have, which, in this case (sentience) would necessarily be, logically, of the most excellent nature. The presumptuous position is to imagine, without justification, that God could not have certain kinds of cognitive characteristics just because humans have them to a lesser degree. In other words, the open-minded position is not to imagine that humans are anthropomorphizing God. Non sequitur. That begs the question and, perhaps, in an arguably arrogant way if we are in fact finite expressions of Him, according to His will and good pleasure.

Clearly the latter is logically possible, thus, cannot be logically ruled out.

As for those who unwittingly presuppose God's existence as they assert absolutes about what He couldn't be like in terms of attributes or powers of cognition that are well within the range of logical necessity or possibility*:* welcome to _The Seven Things_ Club.

Oops.

It looks like even them solipsists can't refrain from showing their hands in Freudian solips when it comes to the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sentience II*

Sentience doesn't have to be argued in _The Seven Things_. Philosophically, sentience is the foundation of self-awareness for humans. The entirety of consciousness necessarily follows. As for how _sentience_ would apply to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_, you keep trying to beg the question, from top to bottom, and I'm telling you that it can't be logically done without presupposing God's existence—including the entirety of His consciousness from top to bottom! From the foundation of self-awareness to the infinite degree of greatness regarding the idea of God*:* none of these things can be logically ruled out! That and only that idea of God is objectively unassailable. Any notion less than the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution begs the question.

But by all means keep presupposing God's existence with those Freudian solips of yours when you, as one with absolute authority, as if from on . . . "higher," share your intimate knowledge about God's attributes and powers of cognition that cannot be logically ruled out by the rest of us mere mortals. Welcome to _The Seven Things_ Club. Confession is good for the soul.

See that most revealing *Post #3918. *Some people just aren't thinking things through as they unwittingly reveal that they are aware of the fact that the objective facts of human cognition universally hold regarding the problems of existence and origin.

You have the foundation of self-awareness in your mind*:* sentience!

Even the solipsist has a subjective, sentient impression of a universe that presents itself as something existing beyond the confines of his mind. Whether he believes it has any concrete reality as such is irrelevant to the fact of his experience of that sentient impression.

With these sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions indisputably comes self-awareness and the awareness that you are a finite mind that cannot account for your own origin sans an eternally existing, inanimate materiality or a self-aware immateriality akin to your own, albeit, one that would have to be infinity greater than your consciousness, and the _reductio ad absurdum _of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin tell you that this idea of a divine Creator cannot be logically ruled out.

*No one escapes The Seven Things. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sentience III*


*BreezeWood*, You're still confused.

Your post demonstrates that you're still imposing your personal, subjective worldview, which is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable to anyone else, on _The Seven Things_ (_TST_). Hence, you continue to imagine that _TST_ contain or assert things that aren't there.
Illusions.

The theory that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired comes to the fore when we contemplate the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

So even the understanding that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired is not literally expressed in _TST_. It need not be. It logically follows from them and is held to be a fact of human biology and psychology due to a mountain of cross-cultural evidence, and this obvious fact of human nature does not preclude the possibility that the ultimate ground for the universal laws of human thought is spiritual. On the contrary, the ramifications of _TST_ hold that they must be bottomed on a spiritual reality, logically, which is driven home by *#6* of _TST_! However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified.

It's really quite amazing to see all the things that necessarily follow, logically, from the foundation of the objectively axiomatic _Seven Things_ of human cognition due to the imperatives of the laws of thought, isn't it?

Just the same, some of these ideas, which do in fact qualify as justified true beliefs/knowledge because they are incontrovertible axioms in organic logic, cannot be scientifically verified. Hence, in constructive logic, due to its rule of _direct evidentiary, inhabited proof_, they are assigned _valid_, albeit, _might or might not be true values_, while science itself asserts no opinion about them one way or the other.

Hence, the bioneurological systems of terrestrial life known to exist have nothing to do with the nature of the idea of God or with the nature of divine consciousness relative to the objectively highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3918)*.

If you believe that "[f]lora is an example of consciousness without a neurologically based biology possessing awareness _that can not be denied_ and similarly demonstrates the same attribute as humanity of an existence separate from 'self', and an aspiration for life and immortality", that's fine. (By God! That's actually a coherent expression of a complex idea from you that I can follow. Congratulations, BreezeWood! Welcome to the English language.) _TST_ do not preclude this possibility at all! Another Illusion.

Notwithstanding, you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds. Not even _TST_ assert that spiritual consciousness can be axiomatically assigned to any other existent but _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_.

There's a revelation to think about. _TST_ contain no assumptions whatsoever, beyond the assumptions that we, you or I, exist and have sentient sensations, impressions or perceptions that other things apart from ourselves exist. Period! End of thought.

Those who do not believe these two things are real can go antirealist themselves, for even the solipsist acknowledges that much, despite *Amrchaos' *earlier confusion when he forgot that the premise of solipsism is that the interior, sentient impressions of other existents apart from the self, ranging from metaphysical solipsism to methodological solipsism, are held to be things that _do not or might not_ exist in their own right apart from the self. In other words, even the solipsist holds that the cosmological order exists at the very least as a sentient impression.

Fine. As I wrote earlier, the solipsist does not deny the actuality of his own existence as a finite being and, therefore, cannot account for his existence without appealing to something beyond himself. Go ahead, let the solipsist strike *#2 *from _TST_. The other five of _TST_ still necessarily (i.e, axiomatically) follow from what is for him the only objective foundation, namely, his existence!

Hence, _TST_ entail the universally apparent, rational and/or empirical necessities that cannot be denied to exist and elicit ideas about other things that either cannot be denied to exist or cannot be logically ruled out to exist, and nothing more.

People! Stop reading things or imagining things into the _TST_ that aren't there!

Illusory cogitations.

These are your subjective conjectures that (unlike the objectively apparent _Seven Things_ premised on the universal, organic laws of human thought) cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be necessities to anyone else on the basis of anything that would arguably constitute justified true belief/knowledge.

*Justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K)*, depending on the nature of the proposition, is the controlling factor! Well-established empirical facts/theories are held to be JTB/K. _Rational_ facts of human cognition that are mere logical possibilities are *not* held to be JTB/K. Only the rational facts of human cognition that are logical necessities (i.e., inherently axiomatic or valid cogitations) are held to be JTB/K.

Indeed, *Boss'* assertion that all beings would necessarily be physical is wrong. For any given *A: A = A*. Any given being is what it is. Any given existent is what it is. Logically, we know that a being can be physical or spiritual (material or immaterial) or a combination thereof.

Boss knows this. He just forgot and interposed his personal idea of God in the place of the objective, logical standard. In other words, if that's his idea of God, okay, but the possibilities that God exists, that God is sentient and is also a self-ware conscious Being of unparalleled greatness cannot be logically ruled out (*Post #3918).

No one escapes The Seven Things.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sentience IV*

Sentience, in and of itself, is not self-awareness, metaphysically; rather, it's the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings and the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings only! Ultimately, God's consciousness, including His sentience, is the foundation of all other things that exist, including our consciousness. Non-technical definitions sometimes throw in the term _aware_, but this does not pertain to self-awareness, but to the awareness (more at the _experience_) of subjective impressions or feelings.

For humans, these subjective impressions include the experiential sensations/perceptions elicited by exterior phenomena.

Of course the idea of God necessarily asserts that God would be self-aware and universally other-aware of everything that exists without any gaps in His knowledge. God doesn't _become_ aware, and His interior sentience would be purely mental impressions and emotions. Humans *become* aware. God would be eternally aware. 

You're making a distinction between divine awareness and knowledge that makes no difference. They are one and the same thing!

Further, you're confounding an abridged definition of sentience that only applies to finite beings. The unabridged philosophical definition of metaphysics is the only one that matters universally.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience*

I already shared this.

Pay particular attention to the following*:*

In the philosophy of consciousness, _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, 'qualia'.[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts 'about' something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining _consciousness_, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.​
The universal essence of sentience is interiorly subjective experiences of mental impressions and emotions.

You've put me in a position where I find myself agreeing with the atheists against you, as you're not making any sense here, except in *Amrchaos'* case, as he thinks the possibility of divine sentience doesn't necessarily adhere to the idea of God in terms of first principles, which is patently false.

The possibility that God would be fully sentient cannot be logically ruled out. It's arguably a logical necessity for a fully conscious being of personhood, mortal or divine, to have emotions. In fact, I'd like someone on this thread explain to me how an omniscient God would not necessarily have emotions.

Think about that.

_The Seven Things_ demonstrate that one cannot rationally rule out the possibility that we are finite expressions of God's consciousness. There's nothing in the laws of organic human thought that precludes this possibility, and of course divine sentience wouldn't apply to divinity in the exact same way that applies to humans. Your argument that the objective facts of human cognition (for there's no humans as such projecting) anthropomorphize God via the logical possibility/necessity that God has sentient impressions and feelings is bogus.

However, an all-knowing God would be able to experience precisely what we experience (the mental sensations, perceptions and emotions) via the contents of our minds, would He not? He would necessarily know and understand everything we're thinking or feeling. Ah! So it looks like He must have emotions, logically, in order to know what emotions are and how they are experienced/felt!

Finally, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the expressions of God's sentience in the Bible.

First, the Bible most certainly does assert that God is sentient, Boss. That cannot be denied. You are mistaken.

Second, the authors of the Bible don't mean that God literally hears, sees, smells, tastes or feels things in the sense that humans do as if he had physical ears, eyes, a nose, a tongue or a dermis. They're speaking metaphorically. They knew that the actual means of God's sentience and the higher cogitations thereof would have to be intellectual in nature, an operation of His divine omniscience, not literal, sensory transmissions or sensory data; and neither Jews nor Christians hold that the biblical construct of divine consciousness is an anthropomorphism. Nonsense! The Bible holds that we were created in God's image, that our consciousness is what it is because He made us in His likeness. We are finite expressions of His consciousness.

* To the atheists on this thread:* go on contradictorily presupposing God's existence as you necessarily do when you declare to know something about an existing God that the rest of us mere mortals cannot logically rule out!

Keep doing it. I dare you. I double dare you.

LOL!

* No one escapes The Seven Things.*


----------



## amrchaos

Hey MD

I'm tired of this argument.  I am going to leave it at 

1. Your argument is Inductive, not deductive as you claim

2.  The axiom you want is "I exist", We exist does involve induction(or taken intuitively true)

3.Statement 2) is predicated upon the science it is based on.  Its plausibilty is open from attacks from Skepticism.  It is the 2nd inductive statement.

4)I don't find your arguments for point 3 plausible.  I do allow you to define the First Cause as God, but I disagree with your methods in trying to establish that it is sentient.  


Also, with the introduction of others suggestions, there is a need for clarity of terms as well.  Both Boss and emily has made points about  God that is not the same I thought you and I were using.  

There is more problems I have with point 3 (such as it is highly subjectively, as well as inductive.  some Use of terms that can lead to confusion.  ) but I think it is fair to leave it at that.


Good luck in convincing others, M.D.  

But I have some basic issues on the first 3 points alone.  I haven't read your other points as of yet, but  the problems of #3 are just too exhausting for me.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sentience IV*
> 
> Sentience, in and of itself, is not self-awareness, metaphysically; rather, it's the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings and the foundation of self-awareness for finite beings only! Ultimately, God's consciousness, including His sentience, is the foundation of all other things that exist, including our consciousness. Non-technical definitions sometimes throw in the term _aware_, but this does not pertain to self-awareness, but to the awareness (more at the _experience_) of subjective impressions or feelings.
> 
> For humans, these subjective impressions include the experiential sensations/perceptions elicited by exterior phenomena.
> 
> Of course the idea of God necessarily asserts that God would be self-aware and universally other-aware of everything that exists without any gaps in His knowledge. God doesn't _become_ aware, and His interior sentience would be purely mental impressions and emotions. Humans *become* aware. God would be eternally aware.
> 
> You're making a distinction between divine awareness and knowledge that makes no difference. They are one and the same thing!
> 
> Further, you're confounding an abridged definition of sentience that only applies to finite beings. The unabridged philosophical definition of metaphysics is the only one that matters universally.
> 
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience*
> 
> I already shared this.
> 
> Pay particular attention to the following*:*
> 
> In the philosophy of consciousness, _sentience_ can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, 'qualia'.[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts 'about' something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining _consciousness_, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.​
> The universal essence of sentience is interiorly subjective experiences of mental impressions and emotions.
> 
> You've put me in a position where I find myself agreeing with the atheists against you, as you're not making any sense here, except in *Amrchaos'* case, as he thinks the possibility of divine sentience doesn't necessarily adhere to the idea of God in terms of first principles, which is patently false.
> 
> The possibility that God would be fully sentient cannot be logically ruled out. It's arguably a logical necessity for a fully conscious being of personhood, mortal or divine, to have emotions. In fact, I'd like someone on this thread explain to me how an omniscient God would not necessarily have emotions.
> 
> Think about that.
> 
> _The Seven Things_ demonstrate that one cannot rationally rule out the possibility that we are finite expressions of God's consciousness. There's nothing in the laws of organic human thought that precludes this possibility, and of course divine sentience wouldn't apply to divinity in the exact same way that applies to humans. Your argument that the objective facts of human cognition (for there's no humans as such projecting) anthropomorphize God via the logical possibility/necessity that God has sentient impressions and feelings is bogus.
> 
> However, an all-knowing God would be able to experience precisely what we experience (the mental sensations, perceptions and emotions) via the contents of our minds, would He not? He would necessarily know and understand everything we're thinking or feeling. Ah! So it looks like He must have emotions, logically, in order to know what emotions are and how they are experienced/felt!
> 
> Finally, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the expressions of God's sentience in the Bible.
> 
> First, the Bible most certainly does assert that God is sentient, Boss. That cannot be denied. You are mistaken.
> 
> Second, the authors of the Bible don't mean that God literally hears, sees, smells, tastes or feels things in the sense that humans do as if he had physical ears, eyes, a nose, a tongue or a dermis. They're speaking metaphorically. They knew that the actual means of God's sentience and the higher cogitations thereof would have to be intellectual in nature, an operation of His divine omniscience, not literal, sensory transmissions or sensory data; and neither Jews nor Christians hold that the biblical construct of divine consciousness is an anthropomorphism. Nonsense! The Bible holds that we were created in God's image, that our consciousness is what it is because He made us in His likeness. We are finite expressions of His consciousness.
> 
> * To the atheists on this thread:* go on contradictorily presupposing God's existence as you necessarily do when you declare to know something about an existing God that the rest of us mere mortals cannot logically rule out!
> 
> Keep doing it. I dare you. I double dare you.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> * No one escapes The Seven Things.*



Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

*The Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

1.* We exist!

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## G.T.




----------



## BreezeWood

is there a chance tst will confirm their christianity ... ?

stay tuned.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Now here's my question. You said "However, unlike the apparent fact that the laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired, the logical axiom that they are bottomed on a spiritual reality cannot be scientifically verified." But then you also said that "you cannot objectively demonstrate, either rationally or empirically, that such a discrete and/or an all-encompassing consciousness adheres to any known existent . . . but to _the universal idea of God and the potential object thereof_ that exists in our minds." There still seems to be a contradiction somehow.



Right. I understand. You're asking me a slightly different question about this than the one you asked me yesterday.

No *aspect* of consciousness was ever created*:* not sentience, not logic, not knowledge or anything else that belongs to the mind _proper_.

(A biblical aside for Jews and Christians only, a matter that is not immediately relevant to the OP and one that I do not claim to prove via the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin*:* the only thing in terms of consciousness ever created by creatures is *evil*_, _which came into existence as a result their disobedience, starting with the fallen angels and then mankind. They chose as an operation of their free will to rebel against God's word, to deny the truth of God's testimony. Everything that exists, exists in God's mind, including the understanding of what evil is. Evil does not adhere to God's mind in the same sense that it adheres to our minds as a matter of our very nature due to our disobedience. God is all-knowledge, so He simply knows what evil is.)

Everything that exists, exists in God's mind from eternity. God is all-knowledge. No aspect of consciousness _proper_ was ever created by God. The aspects of consciousness _proper_ have always existed in God's mind. All aspects of consciousness _proper_ are the very essences of God's mind. We are not creatures who anthropomorphize God. God theologized us. Our finite minds and the aspects of consciousness _proper _thereof are finite expressions/reproductions with free will of God's mind/consciousness. This is necessarily true and self-evident from *#3*, *#4* and especially from *#6* of _The Seven Things_. The logical necessity of this has already been proven on this thread by me, but it will become even more abundantly obvious in the posts that follow.

Hence, your question based on the first part of this post not quoted here is why does this axiom in organic logic not objectively demonstrate that the spiritual consciousness of God directly adheres to His creation as an all-encompassing reality. Well, the problem with that idea, objectively speaking, is that it suggests that everything in nature ultimately consists of a spiritual essence and not just living things. That doesn't necessarily follow at all as this axiom only pertains to God's discrete spiritual substance for certain, logically, and asserts for certain, logically, that God's spiritual essence encompass all of creation as a sustaining immanence, that the cosmological order is contingent on God’s existence.

Now, this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that God's spiritual substance  directly adheres to the cosmological order or that creatures within the cosmological order are not spiritual beings in their own right. It's just that these latter potentialities do not appear to immediately or necessarily follow from this axiom. There's a gap, at least as far as pantheism goes.  Hence, they remain mere logical possibilities.

Here's the issues on the periphery.  Does our moral sense logically prove that we are spiritual beings in our own right, not just intelligent animals aware of God's existence?  And do the axioms of *#6* logically prove that the principle of identity universally holds throughout creation in terms of a synchronized logic and physical laws?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

By the way, Justin, I just realized that in post #3910 I wrote _parameter _when I meant _periphery_. LOL! Sorry for the confusion, too late to edit.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> is there a chance tst will confirm their christianity ... ?
> 
> stay tuned.
> 
> .



Don't worry about it.  You don't want to think it out for yourself, objectively, anyway.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
> if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
> Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
> any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just *imagined* God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with *#4*.
> 
> So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently *imagine* God to be what He is, isn't it?
> 
> We can and do understand what He is, don't we?
> 
> The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?
> 
> Yeah! That's right.
> 
> And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can _*comprehend*_ the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously _*comprehend*_ the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.
> 
> Note that the term *comprehend,* not merely the term *apprehend*, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term *apprehend* come to the fore? We *apprehend* the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never *comprehend* them.
> 
> There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things.  There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator.  Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving _God the Creator_?  Ridiculous.  Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put  into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar.  What is _your_ motive?  Is it monetary?
> 
> Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
Click to expand...


Dear MD:
I think it is safe to say we agree more than we disagree.
If you are saying I am "imagining" God to be more than just "Creator",
this does not have to conflict with you "envisioning" God to be Creator as a central definition to build your proof around.

MD I am more concerned that we reconcile with those like
Boss and BreezeWood who need a little more issues to be resolved
in order to feel we are close enough on the same page.

I think Boss is more willing to see that we are talking about the same God,
but BreezeWood takes special exception to the way the Christian God is taught or symbolized.

I suggest we ask Boss help to work with BreezeWood,
and find out how to get on the same page with other Theists.

Just pushing and pushing your approach is not going to work for some people.
Let's find out what does work, and your proof can be shared with more people
if we can overcome whatever it is that causes believers
like BreezeWood to think this concept of God is faulty, false or detracting from the true Almighty 
in some ways that should be corrected.

If we can get on the same page, this can give us insights how
to work with others who would otherwise understand if it weren't for those barriers
causing misunderstanding and rejection.

As Boss said, if we are believers, we should certainly support each other
in building and improving on our understanding of God/the Almighty.

If we get divided over resolvable issues, how can we expect to
reach out and help others to resolve issues preventing greater unity and understanding of God/the Almighty?

Let's build up and see what we can accomplish as a Team!

This will help you understand what it takes to be a Team Leader
if we are going to promote greater outreach to a broader and broader audience.

Start local and let it grow and multiply globally
to build the Kingdom of God on earth encompassing and embracing
every tribe and nation represented on the planet.

As you said, as God is not a liar, then establishing the Kingdom of God is done in 
the spirit of Truth through Christ Jesus or love of justice by conscience,
fulfilling both the natural laws of man and universal laws of God in perfect harmony.

Thank you M.D. and I hope to be of greatest support to you
in building the teams around this to reach and include more and more people.
But we have to build on a stable foundation of unity in truth, and resolve any issues causing unnecessary division.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human  logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their  rational conceptualizations and  expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true!  Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion  necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict  everything the actual standard divulges, based on the  doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
> if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
> Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
> any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just *imagined* God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with *#4*.
> 
> So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently *imagine* God to be what He is, isn't it?
> 
> We can and do understand what He is, don't we?
> 
> The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?
> 
> Yeah! That's right.
> 
> And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can _*comprehend*_ the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously _*comprehend*_ the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.
> 
> Note that the term *comprehend,* not merely the term *apprehend*, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term *apprehend* come to the fore? We *apprehend* the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never *comprehend* them.
> 
> There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things.  There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator.  Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving _God the Creator_?  Ridiculous.  Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put  into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar.  What is _your_ motive?  Is it monetary?
> 
> Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear MD:
> I think it is safe to say we agree more than we disagree.
> If you are saying I am "imagining" God to be more than just "Creator",
> this does not have to conflict with you "envisioning" God to be Creator as a central definition to build your proof around.
> 
> MD I am more concerned that we reconcile with those like
> Boss and BreezeWood who need a little more issues to be resolved
> in order to feel we are close enough on the same page.
> 
> I think Boss is more willing to see that we are talking about the same God,
> but BreezeWood takes special exception to the way the Christian God is taught or symbolized.
> 
> I suggest we ask Boss help to work with BreezeWood,
> and find out how to get on the same page with other Theists.
> 
> Just pushing and pushing your approach is not going to work for some people.
> Let's find out what does work, and your proof can be shared with more people
> if we can overcome whatever it is that causes believers
> like BreezeWood to think this concept of God is faulty, false or detracting from the true Almighty
> in some ways that should be corrected.
> 
> If we can get on the same page, this can give us insights how
> to work with others who would otherwise understand if it weren't for those barriers
> causing misunderstanding and rejection.
> 
> As Boss said, if we are believers, we should certainly support each other
> in building and improving on our understanding of God/the Almighty.
> 
> If we get divided over resolvable issues, how can we expect to
> reach out and help others to resolve issues preventing greater unity and understanding of God/the Almighty?
> 
> Let's build up and see what we can accomplish as a Team!
> 
> This will help you understand what it takes to be a Team Leader
> if we are going to promote greater outreach to a broader and broader audience.
> 
> Start local and let it grow and multiply globally
> to build the Kingdom of God on earth encompassing and embracing
> every tribe and nation represented on the planet.
> 
> As you said, as God is not a liar, then establishing the Kingdom of God is done in
> the spirit of Truth through Christ Jesus or love of justice by conscience,
> fulfilling both the natural laws of man and universal laws of God in perfect harmony.
> 
> Thank you M.D. and I hope to be of greatest support to you
> in building the teams around this to reach and include more and more people.
> But we have to build on a stable foundation of unity in truth, and resolve any issues causing unnecessary division.
Click to expand...



There's nothing in _The Seven Things _(_TST_) that asserts the God is just the Creator, and I never argued that's all He is.  On the contrary, _TST_ demonstrate that God would necessarily be much more than just the Creator.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
> if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
> Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
> any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just *imagined* God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with *#4*.
> 
> So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently *imagine* God to be what He is, isn't it?
> 
> We can and do understand what He is, don't we?
> 
> The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?
> 
> Yeah! That's right.
> 
> And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can _*comprehend*_ the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously _*comprehend*_ the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.
> 
> Note that the term *comprehend,* not merely the term *apprehend*, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term *apprehend* come to the fore? We *apprehend* the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never *comprehend* them.
> 
> There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things.  There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator.  Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving _God the Creator_?  Ridiculous.  Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put  into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar.  What is _your_ motive?  Is it monetary?
> 
> Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear MD:
> I think it is safe to say we agree more than we disagree.
> If you are saying I am "imagining" God to be more than just "Creator",
> this does not have to conflict with you "envisioning" God to be Creator as a central definition to build your proof around.
> 
> MD I am more concerned that we reconcile with those like
> Boss and BreezeWood who need a little more issues to be resolved
> in order to feel we are close enough on the same page.
> 
> I think Boss is more willing to see that we are talking about the same God,
> but BreezeWood takes special exception to the way the Christian God is taught or symbolized.
> 
> I suggest we ask Boss help to work with BreezeWood,
> and find out how to get on the same page with other Theists.
> 
> Just pushing and pushing your approach is not going to work for some people.
> Let's find out what does work, and your proof can be shared with more people
> if we can overcome whatever it is that causes believers
> like BreezeWood to think this concept of God is faulty, false or detracting from the true Almighty
> in some ways that should be corrected.
> 
> If we can get on the same page, this can give us insights how
> to work with others who would otherwise understand if it weren't for those barriers
> causing misunderstanding and rejection.
> 
> As Boss said, if we are believers, we should certainly support each other
> in building and improving on our understanding of God/the Almighty.
> 
> If we get divided over resolvable issues, how can we expect to
> reach out and help others to resolve issues preventing greater unity and understanding of God/the Almighty?
> 
> Let's build up and see what we can accomplish as a Team!
> 
> This will help you understand what it takes to be a Team Leader
> if we are going to promote greater outreach to a broader and broader audience.
> 
> Start local and let it grow and multiply globally
> to build the Kingdom of God on earth encompassing and embracing
> every tribe and nation represented on the planet.
> 
> As you said, as God is not a liar, then establishing the Kingdom of God is done in
> the spirit of Truth through Christ Jesus or love of justice by conscience,
> fulfilling both the natural laws of man and universal laws of God in perfect harmony.
> 
> Thank you M.D. and I hope to be of greatest support to you
> in building the teams around this to reach and include more and more people.
> But we have to build on a stable foundation of unity in truth, and resolve any issues causing unnecessary division.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in _The Seven Things _(_TST_) that asserts the God is just the Creator, and I never argued that's all He is.  On the contrary, _TST_ demonstrate that God would necessarily be much more than just the Creator.
Click to expand...

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.

Check!

LOL!


----------



## Justin Davis

*


*


Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a retired Lutheran Pastor best put it,
> if you can imagine God as a thing, God is probably not that thing.
> Because God represents something infinite and beyond man,
> any "thing" that we can imagine associated with God is not sufficient, and God is always greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just *imagined* God to be something, something infinitely great, in accordance with *#4*.
> 
> So it is false to say that we can't accurately and confidently *imagine* God to be what He is, isn't it?
> 
> We can and do understand what He is, don't we?
> 
> The fact that we cannot comprehend the totality of Him is just another fact that goes along with, not contradictorily so but consistently so, with that logical fact of His greatness, right?
> 
> Yeah! That's right.
> 
> And the only logical, non-paradoxical, position in accordance with the laws of thought is that our finite minds must have been designed to understand infinity, conceptually and mathematically, a fact of human cognition recognized by you and Boss, in order they we can _*comprehend*_ the fact of His infinite greatness as we simultaneously _*comprehend*_ the fact that we could never fathom the depths or the heights of Him.
> 
> Note that the term *comprehend,* not merely the term *apprehend*, absolutely applies to these two facts of human cognition! When does the term *apprehend* come to the fore? We *apprehend* the infinite depths and heights of Him, but we will never *comprehend* them.
> 
> There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever to abandon the laws of organic thought, human linguistics, insofar as they hold, or the mathematics of the creation and embrace the chaos of incoherency and contradiction. There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that God is not the very unifying substance and the ground of these things.  There is no rationally sound justification whatsoever for the notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness anthropomorphize God; rather, the only rationally coherent conclusion is that God theologized us, that we are finite expressions of His consciousness, and it is absurdly arbitrary to rule that possibility out especially when that is the only coherent possibility that cannot be logically ruled out at all.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> By definition, God is the Creator.  Why are you still trying to form a consensus around something that cannot be logically ruled out, let alone logically asserted without positively proving _God the Creator_?  Ridiculous.  Once again, by the logic that He would have had to put  into our heads if the idea of God is true, by definition, God is perfect. He is not a liar.  What is _your_ motive?  Is it monetary?
> 
> Moreover, it is absurd to necessarily hold that God would at least have the sentience of mental impressions as an operation of omniscience, yet hold that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would not be personhood, which suggests emotional content as well. In any event, none of these possibilities can be logically ruled out.
> 
> God is perfect. He is not a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear MD:
> I think it is safe to say we agree more than we disagree.
> If you are saying I am "imagining" God to be more than just "Creator",
> this does not have to conflict with you "envisioning" God to be Creator as a central definition to build your proof around.
> 
> MD I am more concerned that we reconcile with those like
> Boss and BreezeWood who need a little more issues to be resolved
> in order to feel we are close enough on the same page.
> 
> I think Boss is more willing to see that we are talking about the same God,
> but BreezeWood takes special exception to the way the Christian God is taught or symbolized.
> 
> I suggest we ask Boss help to work with BreezeWood,
> and find out how to get on the same page with other Theists.
> 
> Just pushing and pushing your approach is not going to work for some people.
> Let's find out what does work, and your proof can be shared with more people
> if we can overcome whatever it is that causes believers
> like BreezeWood to think this concept of God is faulty, false or detracting from the true Almighty
> in some ways that should be corrected.
> 
> If we can get on the same page, this can give us insights how
> to work with others who would otherwise understand if it weren't for those barriers
> causing misunderstanding and rejection.
> 
> As Boss said, if we are believers, we should certainly support each other
> in building and improving on our understanding of God/the Almighty.
> 
> If we get divided over resolvable issues, how can we expect to
> reach out and help others to resolve issues preventing greater unity and understanding of God/the Almighty?
> 
> Let's build up and see what we can accomplish as a Team!
> 
> This will help you understand what it takes to be a Team Leader
> if we are going to promote greater outreach to a broader and broader audience.
> 
> Start local and let it grow and multiply globally
> to build the Kingdom of God on earth encompassing and embracing
> every tribe and nation represented on the planet.
> 
> As you said, as God is not a liar, then establishing the Kingdom of God is done in
> the spirit of Truth through Christ Jesus or love of justice by conscience,
> fulfilling both the natural laws of man and universal laws of God in perfect harmony.
> 
> Thank you M.D. and I hope to be of greatest support to you
> in building the teams around this to reach and include more and more people.
> But we have to build on a stable foundation of unity in truth, and resolve any issues causing unnecessary division.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in _The Seven Things _(_TST_) that asserts the God is just the Creator, and I never argued that's all He is.  On the contrary, _TST_ demonstrate that God would necessarily be much more than just the Creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> Check!
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...



Sure they have. 

KoolAid drinker.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots ™

1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

*That's weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things ™
1.* We exist!
*2.* The cosmological order exists!
*3.* The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*5.* Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
*6.* It is not logically possible to say or think that *God (the Creator) doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See *Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.*)!
*7*. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> Check!
> 
> LOL!



*One of the 1009th Goofy Things Said by Hollie ™*

Now back to reality. . . .

Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> Check!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One of the 1009th Goofy Things Said by Hollie ™*
> 
> Now back to reality. . . .
> 
> Also, *The Seven Things* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10087516/**.*
Click to expand...



Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

*The Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

1.* We exist!

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hey MD
> 
> I'm tired of this argument.  I am going to leave it at
> 
> 1. Your argument is Inductive, not deductive as you claim
> 
> 2.  The axiom you want is "I exist", We exist does involve induction(or taken intuitively true)
> 
> 3.Statement 2) is predicated upon the science it is based on.  Its plausibilty is open from attacks from Skepticism.  It is the 2nd inductive statement.
> 
> 4)I don't find your arguments for point 3 plausible.  I do allow you to define the First Cause as God, but I disagree with your methods in trying to establish that it is sentient.
> 
> 
> Also, with the introduction of others suggestions, there is a need for clarity of terms as well.  Both Boss and emily has made points about  God that is not the same I thought you and I were using.
> 
> There is more problems I have with point 3 (such as it is highly subjectively, as well as inductive.  some Use of terms that can lead to confusion.  ) but I think it is fair to leave it at that.
> 
> 
> Good luck in convincing others, M.D.
> 
> But I have some basic issues on the first 3 points alone.  I haven't read your other points as of yet, but  the problems of #3 are just too exhausting for me.



Oh, hush.  Every one of your arguments were file thirteened.  The only real interesting thing in this regard is why you go on denying the obvious facts.



Right.  I never wrote these things which utterly destroy your nonsense:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10095217/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10095378/


Or wrote these things which render your mountain out of "no hills at all" moot*:*

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

The other versions are failures, attempts to overthrow the objective realities of the real seven . . . as, of course, they assume *#1* and *#2* and then attempt to do what can't be done, i.e., negate the other five of the real McCoy.


. . . Once again,* #1* and *#2* are premised on the qualification that we accept these things to be actual. The solipsist can change the _we_ of *#1* to _I_ and change _the cosmological order exists!_ of *#2* to _the impression of it that exists in my mind_ to suit himself. Either way, the rest follow. For most, solipsism is weird, so I go with what most people get and merely invite the solipsist to revise *#1* and* #2* to his liking and come along, for after that it is purely a matter the divine concept that exists universally in our minds due to the organic (or rational) laws of human thought.


. . . *amrchoas* seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure. Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up. LOL! And of course _his_ misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction is goes to two things: *(1)* his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world standard for logic and science and *(2) *his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.

I see clearly what his cognitive problems are. Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically, not in the reactionary terms of _his_ worldview, but, objectively, on the terms of _their_ premise?

No!

So because you guys never put into evidence what the actuality is regarding the nature of these things . . . on their own terms, not as filtered through your personal biases, it's not clear that you even know what it is you're arguing against in the first place.​

*You forgot to thank me for this post:   **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10117248/*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> I'm tired of this argument.  I am going to leave it at
> 
> 1. Your argument is Inductive, not deductive as you claim
> 
> 2.  The axiom you want is "I exist", We exist does involve induction(or taken intuitively true)
> 
> 3.Statement 2) is predicated upon the science it is based on.  Its plausibilty is open from attacks from Skepticism.  It is the 2nd inductive statement.
> 
> 4)I don't find your arguments for point 3 plausible.  I do allow you to define the First Cause as God, but I disagree with your methods in trying to establish that it is sentient.
> 
> 
> Also, with the introduction of others suggestions, there is a need for clarity of terms as well.  Both Boss and emily has made points about  God that is not the same I thought you and I were using.
> 
> There is more problems I have with point 3 (such as it is highly subjectively, as well as inductive.  some Use of terms that can lead to confusion.  ) but I think it is fair to leave it at that.
> 
> 
> Good luck in convincing others, M.D.
> 
> But I have some basic issues on the first 3 points alone.  I haven't read your other points as of yet, but  the problems of #3 are just too exhausting for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, hush.  Every one of your arguments were file thirteened.  The only real interesting thing in this regard is why you go on denying the obvious facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  I never wrote these things which utterly destroy your nonsense:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10095217/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10095378/
> 
> 
> Or wrote these things which render your mountain out of "no hills at all" moot*:*
> 
> I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.
> 
> The other versions are failures, attempts to overthrow the objective realities of the real seven . . . as, of course, they assume *#1* and *#2* and then attempt to do what can't be done, i.e., negate the other five of the real McCoy.
> 
> 
> . . . Once again,* #1* and *#2* are premised on the qualification that we accept these things to be actual. The solipsist can change the _we_ of *#1* to _I_ and change _the cosmological order exists!_ of *#2* to _the impression of it that exists in my mind_ to suit himself. Either way, the rest follow. For most, solipsism is weird, so I go with what most people get and merely invite the solipsist to revise *#1* and* #2* to his liking and come along, for after that it is purely a matter the divine concept that exists universally in our minds due to the organic (or rational) laws of human thought.
> 
> 
> . . . *amrchoas* seems to be incapable of objectivity too, stupidly imaging, for example, based on nothing at all, that I, of all people, don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and which of the two is arguably/routinely more sure. Never mind that I already established my knowledge regarding these things way early in this thread, long before he showed up. LOL! And of course _his_ misunderstanding of what the pertinent distinction is goes to two things: *(1)* his inability to objectively back out of his paradigm and allow that his philosophical bias is NOT the formal, real-world standard for logic and science and *(2) *his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy.
> 
> I see clearly what his cognitive problems are. Has he backed out of either one of these things long enough to competently state what The Seven Things are actually premised on metaphysically and logically, not in the reactionary terms of _his_ worldview, but, objectively, on the terms of _their_ premise?
> 
> No!
> 
> So because you guys never put into evidence what the actuality is regarding the nature of these things . . . on their own terms, not as filtered through your personal biases, it's not clear that you even know what it is you're arguing against in the first place.​
> 
> *You forgot to thank me for this post:   **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10117248/*
Click to expand...


Yet another, confused and desperate attempt by the religious zealot to salvage his long ago refuted nonsense.

Check!

LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie will never be free of . . .

*The Seven Things ™* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*

Or be free of . . .

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots ™: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/**.*

They will follow her forever and ever. . . .

Embrace the truth.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*G.T. Begs the Big Lie*

*Also See Posts #3944, #3377, #3504 and #3368.*

There is no argument that can negate the TAG, and philosophers and theologians have known this for centuries in the cannon of letters. Moreover, no logician in peer-reviewed academia denies this cognitive fact of organic logic or holds that axiomatic presuppositions of necessary enabling conditions, like 2 + 2 = 4, beg the question, not even on the grounds of epistemological skepticism or under the conventions of constructive logic, which merely suspend presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions, the law of the excluded middle or double negation elimination for analytic purposes.

*[Edit: it just occurred to me that some might be confused by the statement that in constructive logic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are suspended, yet analyzed in constructive logic. Actually, all such axioms are still held to be valid in constructive logic and most of them can be assigned a truth value because most of them are either mathematical in nature and/or are tautologies that pertain to material existents. Hence, these can be empirically supported. Hence, most of them are not suspended as axioms. Axioms that pertain to transcendental potentialities, however, are suspended as axioms, though still held to be valid and can be analyzed, albeit, only on the bases that they hold logically, but may or may not be true ultimately.

Bear in mind that constructive logic is the logic of science . . . mostly, but because it is still in the realm of logic, not science as such, it still proves or negates. So we are still permitted to analyze a broader number of propositions for the purpose of producing credible scientific hypotheses for science in constructive logic, while science is always limited to the dynamics of verification and falsification.

Though I did in fact make this distinction emphatically clear in other posts, I neglected to do so here. Sorry for the confusion.]*

Finally, axiomatic presuppositionals of necessary enabling conditions are routinely asserted and analyzed in formal proofs by academia in classical, constructive and model logic. They are used in computer simulations to prove out possibility and necessity, for linguistic, mathematical and scientific ends, to generate rationally practical hypotheses or guesses to amplify our power of intuition and save time.

They do not beg the question! They are intuitively true, axiomatically or tautologically! They are organic axioms, maxims, the stuff on which well-founded postulates and theorems are bottomed.

Neither the major premise of the Transcendental Argument nor it's conclusion can be negated. EVER!

*Your begging the question nonsense, which is the weakest objection of all, was refuted here:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 207 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 260 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Your attempts to refute the proof directly were refuted here:
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 233 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.

And:

Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## Justin Davis

I'd say that raps it all, but you still got me thinking about those things on the "periphery".


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I'd say that raps it all, but you still got me thinking about those things on the "periphery".



Good. Let me know what you come up with. They're tough questions.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence (See Post #3945)*
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:*
*Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 104 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum**Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 113 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

*Related*: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: See Post #3944*

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*

Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry



Note the attempt to overthrow:

Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki



Note the actuality of that attempt:

Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry



What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.
Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.
*

*


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *the only thing in terms of consciousness ever created by creatures is evil*_, _which came into existence as a result their disobedience, starting with the fallen angels and then mankind. They chose as an operation of their free will to rebel against God's word, to deny the truth of God's testimony. Everything that exists, exists in God's mind, including the understanding of what evil is. *Evil does not adhere to God's mind in the same sense that it adheres to our minds as a matter of our very nature due to our disobedience.* God is all-knowledge, so He simply knows what evil is.)



*the only thing in terms of consciousness ever created by creatures is evil ... Evil does not adhere to God's mind in the same sense that it adheres to our minds as a matter of our very nature due to our disobedience.*


an obviously patented fallacy, "disobedience" as a justification for Evil - try again rawlings, the origin of Evil.

.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: See Post #3944*
> 
> The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.
> 
> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*
> 
> Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> 
> 
> Note the attempt to overthrow:
> 
> Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> Note the actuality of that attempt:
> 
> Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> 
> 
> What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.
> Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!
> 
> The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.
> 
> In other words, 2 + 2 = 4 presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make 2 + 2 = 4 go away.
> *
> *


This is all the same nonsensical special pleading you cut and pasted before.

TAG is a laughable joke.


----------



## G.T.

TAG begs the question, because 'god created knowledge' is not an axiom, its an unproven belief. CHECK.

TAG has not been peer reviewed by 'academia.' CHECK.

TAG is so embarrassingly simple minded, that simple minds as smart as they're convinced that they are - cannot understand their dogma gone wrong in the most egregious of ways. There are even tons of THEOLOGIANS who reject TAG's stupidity. CHECK.

TAG has lost in every online debate its ever been in, but idiotic presuppers cannot understand this BECAUSE they're presuppers. They cannot separate their BELIEF from actual logical axiom (universally accepted). This is why when MD says its been 'universally accepted in classical logic' he is bald faced snake oil lying, because one who doesn't start with god (agnostics/atheists) necessarily don't find god to be axiomatic for fucking OBVIOUS reasons to anyone but a child or a zealot. CHECK.


LAST, & most important point that presuppers have to employ their intellectual dishonesty in order to avoid, is that in order for MPTAG to BE axiomatic, all other possibilities EXCEPT god have to be RULED OUT FIRST, in an ABSOLUTE SENSE. This little kid bit blinds them, thoroughly, as it exposes how really frail as fuck and unsound the 'TAG' is as an argument. CHECK mate.



Instead of going blow for blow, the presupper will dip duck dodge as he(singular, Justin=MD, MD=Justin) has been doing all along and simply copy pasting his poorly written pseudo intellectual word soups. A snake oil selling coward charlatan.


----------



## G.T.

Another thing a presupper has to avoid, is that laws of logic simply describe what is ----- they're not literally brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind (misnomer).

Let's do one, Kay?

A = A, A does not equal not A.

This concept is only true because WHAT ITS DESCRIBING (non concept) is.

Meaning if A represents an apple, an apple is physically an apple and cannot NOT be an apple. Physically. In reality. The concept which describes this (a=a) is simply JUST THAT, a description of physical reality, NOT something that literally exists itself but just describes what does exist(the apple). It is the apple not physically being able to be anything else and not a descriptive concept that makes this actuality true....... No transcendent mind necessary for the apple to be an apple and not NOT an apple, only a sentient mind needed to describe that which already exists.

The 'laws of logic' do not hold because of a transcendent mind, they hold because they're simply the nature of reality - this is an explanation that also cannot be ruled out thus TAG is, again, not axiomatic.

And we can do this all day.


----------



## G.T.

TAG = transcendental argument for gollum from lord of the rings


----------



## G.T.

So easy, even a kid can do it.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!



Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell. 

God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING! 

*everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*

God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about. 

The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots ™
> 
> 1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.
> 
> *2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> *4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.
> 
> *5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.
> 
> *6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.
> 
> *7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.
> 
> *Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> *That's weird.*



I.E. "Whether or not God exists"
most Theists are associated with Genocidal Assjerks
and so all Theists are punished and rejected because of that "guilt by association"
regardless of the actions or views of the actual theist being targeted for the faults
committed collectively by other people.

Instead of seeing the Religious Abusers as the exception and corruption of the practice,
the CONSISTENT true followers who are NOT abusive are "conveniently" marginalized as "exceptions" to justify haranguing and harassing all other Christians and Theists --
in much the same manner as such "religionists" are criticized for doing in the first place!

This is equally a CIRCULAR reaction:
to attack, condemn, and judge Theists for their beliefs, while opponents claim to be AGAINST such religious bias and condemnation of people for their beliefs simply by association!

Sadly ironic, but true and still happening....

M.D. and Hollie: If we can get past the wall building and stone throwing,
maybe we can talk about the content and principles. But not with
sticks and stones flying back and forth.  When we're done with the
monkey stage of discovering we can use tools as weapons to wage
tribal warfare, let's try using tools to build something constructive and beneficial instead.
Instead of acting like tools!

I hope to see this discussion evolve into something worthy
of the intelligent minds seeking truth and justice in this place....


----------



## emilynghiem

*The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots

1.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" *-- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.*

Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.

*2.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" *-- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....*

*3.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- *if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.*

*4.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity" -- *just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!

So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?*

*5.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- *if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!*

*6.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." *==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!*

*7.* "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." *And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'.  If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.*

*Conclusions: *
A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
*B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting, 
are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!*

*Weird? That's just human.
To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> So easy, even a kid can do it.



So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: *all other possibilities disproven.*

You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.

Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.

1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!

M.D. this is why YOU come across as
these things that you project onto other people.

If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.

Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.

It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
you should make sure to practice what you preach!

Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
Click to expand...

Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."

He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism
*

The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.

If I were to write _gods_ or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?

Yes.  Of course they would.

And If not, why not? 

We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!

_Knock Knock_  Anybody home?

If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.

The highest conceivable standard allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals or as a pantheistic whole.

As I wrote elsewhere*:*

You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* _from nothing, nothing comes_, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you are beg the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is *(1) *conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is *(2) *conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​
That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, *even classical, polytheistic philosophers:* for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.

In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, _not_ to beg the question.

Duh!

A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.

Duh!

The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.

Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.


----------



## G.T.

This dumb ass still does not understand what an axiom is?

Well, that's rhetorical. 


As you were.


----------



## G.T.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Logical is a tool used to describe "what is." 

"What is" has no proven origin. 

No proven origin means that it cannot be _*ASSERTED IN LOGIC* (premises must each be *absolute* in order to form a sound argument)_ t*hat something "created" everything, or knowledge. *

Since *no origin is proven*, since no origin *is universally accepted*, "god created everything" *is not an axiom*. 

Since "*god created everything*" cannot be asserted as an axiom because to BE axiomatic, a*ll other possibilities for existence NECESSARILY must be ruled out, and ruled out ABSOLUTELY, *it remains a belief and belief only, not an axiomatic truth statement. 

TAG begs the question. Those who use TAG are simpletons, in terms of intellectual maturity. 

It's snake oil for charlatans.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
Click to expand...




G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: *all other possibilities disproven.*
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
Click to expand...

Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments. 

He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: *all other possibilities disproven.*
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
Click to expand...

I particularly enjoyed the blogger who pointed out that m.d. is not much more than a whining baby who resorts to temper tantrum  and name calling and somehow 'forgets' to respond to points which directly refute him.....such as 'god creating knowledge' cannot be axiomatic because a: knowledge isn't proven to be a creatION, and B: failure to rule out all other possibilities. 

Presuppers are quite daft.


----------



## amrchaos

Hey MD

It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!

Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.

Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?  

OK


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK



No, he is not a troll.

Just very stubborn and thinks his pile of poop doesn't stink
while everyone else is buried in BS according to him.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: *all other possibilities disproven.*
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
Click to expand...


He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
discuss the points either.

But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.

If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!

If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?

He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.

So I think he's got other issues going on.

He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.

So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism
> *
> 
> The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I were to write _gods_ or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?
> 
> Yes.  Of course they would.
> 
> And If not, why not?
> 
> We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!
> 
> _Knock Knock_  Anybody home?
> 
> If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.
> 
> The highest conceivable standard allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals or as a pantheistic whole.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* _from nothing, nothing comes_, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you are beg the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is *(1) *conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is *(2) *conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, *even classical, polytheistic philosophers:* for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.
> 
> In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, _not_ to beg the question.
> 
> Duh!
> 
> A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.
> 
> Duh!
> 
> The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.
> 
> Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.



Here babycakes.
While you are acting like a defensive pit bull barking and marking your territory,
here's a bone I'll throw your way to chew on:

*Search Results*

*Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_*proof*
Wikipedia

Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the ... From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God.
‎History of Gödel's proof - ‎Outline of Gödel's proof - ‎See also - ‎Notes


*Is There Mathematical Proof of God? - Christianity - About.com*
christianity.about.com › ... › Inspirational Bible Devotions by Topic

Mathematical Proof of God - Jupiterimages / Getty images ... Through his spiritual struggle in the months following his father's death, Jack discovered something ...                                                                                                                       
*Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Spiegel Online*
SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten › English Site › Germany › Science
Der Spiegel

Oct 23, 2013 - Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel kept his proof of God's existence a ... Now two scientists say they have proven it mathematically using a computer. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
*Scientists Prove God Exists? Austrian Researchers Use ...*
Christian News The Christian Post › world
The Christian Post

Oct 31, 2013 - Two scientists have declared they have proved the existence of  God using nothing more than advanced mathematics and a computer.                                                                                                                                           
*Two Germans with a MacBook prove that God exists « Why ...*
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../two-germa...
Why Evolution is True

Nov 1, 2013 - Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct — at least on a mathematical level — by way of higher ...                                                                                                                           
*God Exists, Says Math: Modal Logic and Software Prove ...*
God Exists Says Math Modal Logic and Software Prove G del s Logic*god*el-right-*god*.../38801

Oct 31, 2013 - Modern software and math have verified Gödel's proofs of a being that ...'S', through a given point 'G' that is not on a different straight line 'L' ...
*Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - ABC News*
abcnews.go.com › Technology
ABC News

Oct 27, 2013 - But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the ... what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
*The Mathematical Proof of God's Existence - YouTube*
► 6:41► 6:41
The Mathematical Proof of God s Existence - YouTube
Aug 16, 2007 - Uploaded by Arthur Taylor
I wrote this proof in 2003, in an attempt to convince my collegemath ... God can satisfy the thirst for order and certainty,throughthe order of ...


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
Click to expand...

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.

He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.

I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.

Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.

Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.


Again, I'm not looking for god.
.I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.


----------



## amrchaos

Emily, I see where you coming from.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK



Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.

Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!

Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a _C_ so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!

(Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)

Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
Click to expand...


Well we did agree that the nature of origin/creator/God/Universe cannot be known but is faith based.

So we can't possibly be expecting to resolve something factual that is faith based.

The most we could be looking to do is to compare notes and try to iron out conflicts that we can.

GT just because M.D. is not fully aware of the various people's ROLES in the larger process
doesn't mean he isn't indirectly participating in it.

you dont have to be fully aware of the process for it to be moving forward,
and dragging you with it.

Thanks for being one of those willing to see and look at the bigger picture.
I think MD underestimates Boss, BreezeWood, Justin, you and others
willing to question points.

how else are we supposed to reach an understanding
if we do not actively seek to address the points where we are falling over each other or talking past each other?

Of course there is a process going on that is greater than the proof itself.

This TAG is more like the base of the rocket launcher just to get the rocket going.

We can discuss any part of the proof, or the issues we have with people or ideas
around it, and still make progress.  

Again, since the answers are going to come out differently for each person,
the point is NOT to come out with the "exact same answer" but to be able"
to work with and reconcile ALL the different answers and ways of looking at God.

I think MD will come around,
but it looks like people like you and me will have to be the "bigger person"
and continue to reach out first, if we are more objective about working with pepole 
despite the flaws we see.

If MD and Boss get so fed up frustrated or insulted that it gets in the way of
working out issues logistically, it will be up to the people who ARE willing to
let go and give more room, to straighten and clarify points while others huff and puff and run off.....


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a _C_ so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
Click to expand...

Actually you're a zealot with his head so far up his own ass that he signs certain posts he makes as though to add an extra umph - "Rawlings."

But underneath your bravado you're the actual dummy in the room. And trying to speak like philosophers of the sixteenth century is making you seem really desperate A: because a lot of the time you're literally not making any sense and B: people don't talk like that any more. Its 2014. It doesn't make you appear smarter as is your goal. The counter is true: it makes you look overtly fucking desperate. 

TAG is for suckers, and you're one. Raise your hand. Be proud.


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> Emily, I see where you coming from.



Great! I think we can work in some of what you brought up; all the pieces work together somehow.

If we can get Boss and BreezeWood to try to keep working things out with M.D.,
with what both of them have to offer also,
maybe we get past the negatives and find better ways to stay focused on the positive points.

Everyone here has something unique to offer that is otherwise missing.
Or we wouldn't be here. I think MD will come around more as he feels more of us
are really TRYING to work with him to resolve valid points we see are missing,
and we are not merely trying to undercut or undermine the good that can come from this.
it doesn't have to be a bad thing to bring problems out in the open. For some reason M.D. sees that critical response
as "negative" when actually it is POSITIVE and necessary to talk and work these things out.

Maybe that view will change as more people focus on the positive potential here.
if we help each other to share, maybe this onesided defensiveness will reduce or stop obstructing the process.

Thanks amrchaos

I don't think my Catholic theology logician friend is going to respond,
but maybe we can find something online that has already spoken to those points
and just recreate it ourselves with M.D.'s help to tie it to his TAG approach.
If he wants other people to calm down and listen to the raw points, he's going to have to do the same on his side.
and we'll start getting somewhere....


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily, I see where you coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great! I think we can work in some of what you brought up; all the pieces work together somehow.
> 
> If we can get Boss and BreezeWood to try to keep working things out with M.D.,
> with what both of them have to offer also,
> maybe we get past the negatives and find better ways to stay focused on the positive points.
> 
> Everyone here has something unique to offer that is otherwise missing.
> Or we wouldn't be here. I think MD will come around more as he feels more of us
> are really TRYING to work with him to resolve valid points we see are missing,
> and we are not merely trying to undercut or undermine the good that can come from this.
> it doesn't have to be a bad thing to bring problems out in the open. For some reason M.D. sees that critical response
> as "negative" when actually it is POSITIVE and necessary to talk and work these things out.
> 
> Maybe that view will change as more people focus on the positive potential here.
> if we help each other to share, maybe this onesided defensiveness will reduce or stop obstructing the process.
> 
> Thanks amrchaos
> 
> I don't think my Catholic theology logician friend is going to respond,
> but maybe we can find something online that has already spoken to those points
> and just recreate it ourselves with M.D.'s help to tie it to his TAG approach.
> If he wants other people to calm down and listen to the raw points, he's going to have to do the same on his side.
> and we'll start getting somewhere....
Click to expand...

The raw points have been listened to.

They are fallacies.

By definition.

I don't know why or how you continue to misunderstand.

Its not that he's being misread.

Its that TAG is an unsound argument. It begs the question, its circular reasoning that starts with a presupposition that what its proving is already assumed true in the opening premise of the argument.

You keep implying he simply needs to communicate better, or more cordial.

NO, the very argument (TAG) itself is a fallacy.

Good jeebus


----------



## G.T.

Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.

I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick


I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.

TAG is a logical fallacy.

You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise. 

So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."

No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.

And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
Click to expand...



But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).

If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it


M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
Click to expand...


Ha Ha, you are a riot!!

I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!

You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> 
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.

So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.


----------



## G.T.

I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.

Arm, tag is this argument:

1. God created all knowledge.
2. Knowledge exists. 
3. Therefore, god exists.

A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.

Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove. 

They call tag PROOF that god exists.

If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> 
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
Click to expand...


Hi Amrchaos:
For the sake of discussing things between just the people here, for starters, and as an example of the larger process
it would take to replicate this for "all people"

Why not take a simple roll call, and ask Boss, Breezewood, you and GT, etc.
to LIST the attributes or meanings of God we personally identify or associate with God::
both a positive list AND a negative list.

I gave my list of most commonly cited attributes: Love, truth, wisdom, life, forces of nature, creation/universe, 
universal laws or good will for all humanity.

I notice that some people like Hollie focus on the NEGATIVE associations with God.
So why not tally up a list of both groups of traits? And then try to align from there.

We can still tie this in with MD's TAG approach to showing consistency or inconsistency with definitions of God.
But avoid fighting over God = Almighty or what is the difference between Christian God and broader views.

I personally would say God must equal the source of ALL these aspects,
and that the negatives could be more consistently aligned with the Opposite of God/Christ.
May i suggest we start with the attributes, then try to agree how best to align them with consistent language without
conflicting with terms that other people use differently. Concepts/Principles first, and then allow the language to follow after...


----------



## G.T.

My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.

I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just google the blog name he posted earlier in this thread, attached to his blog: "michael david rawlings," aka "blue moon."
> 
> He has been handed his ass on this all over the internet. His last refuge is the TAG which is a humiliating argument for any adult to hold, but only if they know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
Click to expand...


Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.

From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
* some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
* some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
* and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.

So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.

it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.

MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowza! It seems the boy has a reputation around the blogosphere for promoting his fundamentalist views with the same contrived arguments.
> 
> He's the Internet version of the Jehovah's Witness groups who annoy you at home on the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
Click to expand...

Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument. 

God is everything
Everything exists
Therefore, god is real!

Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.
> 
> I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.



OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.

So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.

What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
Christian construct of God being rejected.

So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.

What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.
> 
> Arm, tag is this argument:
> 
> 1. God created all knowledge.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. Therefore, god exists.
> 
> A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.
> 
> Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.
> 
> They call tag PROOF that god exists.
> 
> If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly



Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG

It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions.  #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"

I'm talking about "7 things"


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.
> 
> I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
> which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.
> 
> So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
> And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.
> 
> What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
> Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
> Christian construct of God being rejected.
> 
> So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.
> 
> What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
> Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.
Click to expand...


What do I call reality? Reality.
What do I call the universe? The universe.
What do I call existence? Existence.

God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god. 

It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is more capable of discussion and resolution than fundamentalists who just cite the Bible and won't
> discuss the points either.
> 
> But he doesn't see the motivation for trying to work with people on broader terms,
> and then doesn't get why people don't want to "stretch" to meet him halfway and work with him on HIS terms.
> Got news for you, relationships are a two-way investment.
> 
> If you want people to listen and work with you and what you bring to the table,
> ya gotta reciprocate and show willingness to work with others, and where they are coming from!
> 
> If M.D. doesn't care if he makes sense to others, or if they listen or get it or not,
> why does he expect people to have any motivation to work with him?
> 
> He says he understands the problems with fundamentalists
> and I *DO* give him and Justin credit for explaining that God represents
> greater than just Creator and source of knowledge.
> 
> So I think he's got other issues going on.
> 
> He rejects atheists prima facie, as he expects atheists to reject him for his arguments.
> 
> So you get exactly what you give, what you expect, and what you paint others to be.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
Click to expand...


Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.

For example, I can throw out the idea that
human nature is body/mind/spirit
or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality

and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.

Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.

And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality 
and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
motivating or inspiring it for us.

And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.

So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.
> 
> Arm, tag is this argument:
> 
> 1. God created all knowledge.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. Therefore, god exists.
> 
> A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.
> 
> Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.
> 
> They call tag PROOF that god exists.
> 
> If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG
> 
> It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions.  #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"
Click to expand...

Dude......TAG is what this WHOLE thread has been about, and MDs seven things are his attempt to magically make premise #1(above) an axiom.

That's the reason the seven even came up, they branched off of him asserting the TAG as an absolute PROOF of the existence of God 

Its why any rational person couldn't and shouldn't ever take him seriously.

TAG is short for the "transcendental argument for god."

Its the three premises I listed above. Its been debunked as a poorly formed argument for ages, but a presuppositional apologetic does not accept that its bad form because they wrong assert that premise #1 is an axiom.

The definition of axiom is a "universally accepted, self evident truth."

If god was universally accepted, this thread doesn't even exist.

The hubris of TAG proponents is kind of disgusting.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.
> 
> I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
> which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.
> 
> So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
> And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.
> 
> What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
> Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
> Christian construct of God being rejected.
> 
> So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.
> 
> What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
> Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I call reality? Reality.
> What do I call the universe? The universe.
> What do I call existence? Existence.
> 
> God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.
> 
> It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.
Click to expand...


Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
That's good enough.

What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?

Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism. 

So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the conversation.
> 
> He's not here to come to an understanding. He's here to promote the failed TAG argument.
> 
> I'm not here "looking for god" I'm just curious as to whether or not anyone has the hubris to think they can PROVE god.
> 
> Tag is child's play. Its borderline retarded.
> 
> Were not looking to understand each other, we're looking to get the other to maybe see where they're borderline retarded.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not looking for god.
> .I'm looking for answers to origins. God is simply one theory, one of the weakest thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did the instructor take pity on you with _C_. LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
Click to expand...

I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:

I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.
> 
> Arm, tag is this argument:
> 
> 1. God created all knowledge.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. Therefore, god exists.
> 
> A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.
> 
> Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.
> 
> They call tag PROOF that god exists.
> 
> If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG
> 
> It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions.  #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude......TAG is what this WHOLE thread has been about, and MDs seven things are his attempt to magically make premise #1(above) an axiom.
> 
> That's the reason the seven even came up, they branched off of him asserting the TAG as an absolute PROOF of the existence of God
> 
> Its why any rational person couldn't and shouldn't ever take him seriously.
> 
> TAG is short for the "transcendental argument for god."
> 
> Its the three premises I listed above. Its been debunked as a poorly formed argument for ages, but a presuppositional apologetic does not accept that its bad form because they wrong assert that premise #1 is an axiom.
> 
> The definition of axiom is a "universally accepted, self evident truth."
> If god was universally accepted, this thread doesn't even exist.
> The hubris of TAG proponents is kind of disgusting.
Click to expand...


OK GT what about starting a proof this way, with a self-asserting statement and then working backward
to resolve any objections or conflicts that come up in response to it:

What if the opening statement is
"the meaning of Christ Jesus is Restorative Justice."
and the Bible represents the collective process of all humanity
coming to peace by receiving universal justice that brings healing to all relations.

And any statement to the contrary is due to other conflicts that if resolved
will also lead to reconciliation on the above stated premise.

sublemma: the key to resolution is forgiveness; where people's ability to forgive
conflicts and differences correlates with agreement on restorative justice,
and people's inability to forgive correlated with failure to reach fuller agreement.



			
				secular statement on the meaning of the Bible said:
			
		

> To explain the story of humanity summarized in the Bible, it helps to distinguish the difference between the Old and New Testaments, which determines if the rest will make sense at all, or even needs to be read.
> 
> In short, the Old Testament records the tragic history of living by the "letter of the law" and retributive justice, causing death and genocidal destruction by greed, while the New Testament paints a positive future for humanity, with renewed love of life and relationships by restorative justice, living by the "spirit of the law" for lasting peace.
> 
> The key difference between these paths is divine forgiveness, which breaks the cycle of retribution inherited from previous generations. Without forgiveness, suffering repeats, projected forward. However, by receiving forgiveness and correction, where Jesus represents the spiritual process of embracing equal justice, humanity finds liberation from past strife by establishing universal truth, justice, and peace on earth. Thus, human nature is destined to reach maturity in mind, body, and spirit, collectively symbolized by the Holy Trinity.
> 
> Salvation in Jesus represents restorative justice with mercy, bringing healing grace to end conflicts. Reconciling local laws among individuals with universal laws on a global scale fulfills both in perfect harmony or marriage between people, as the bride or church, united with the authority of law or state.
> 
> The story of sacrifice and redemption represents the spiritual process each individual experiences to grow in life -- through trials, failures, and recovery -- which drives humanity to reach spiritual understanding, wholeness, and peace.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.
> 
> I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
> which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.
> 
> So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
> And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.
> 
> What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
> Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
> Christian construct of God being rejected.
> 
> So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.
> 
> What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
> Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I call reality? Reality.
> What do I call the universe? The universe.
> What do I call existence? Existence.
> 
> God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.
> 
> It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
> That's good enough.
> 
> What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?
> 
> Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
> that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism.
> 
> So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
> and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
> common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
> of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.

We can talk about that some other time.

This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.

The lofty goal you have of uniting humanity is nice, it really is......but this is a thread concerning the existence of god. Not abstract god meaning ANYTHING you want it to mean, because the discussion then becomes necessarily meaningless 

This thread is about whether or not a divine, self aware being created everything.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that hinges on your notions of what God is.  I think I need to find a complete list of those characteristics(and where it can be found in the Bible/example of).
> 
> If we talk about God in terms of say that Minister Emily quoted earlier then we have no notion of what we are talking about. We can't really conceive it
> Ha Ha, you are a riot!!
> 
> I warned you there were troubling "Solipsistic" arguments in #1 which blew up into full fledged "Skepticism" in 2 and "Yougottabekiddingme-ism" in #3!!
> 
> You know, I should read your 4, but why--where are you trying to take us?  And _How_?
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
Click to expand...


OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.

Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!

The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.

Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
Like duh!


----------



## RKMBrown

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


IOW you define god as that which cannot exist.

I on the other hand, define god as everything that exists.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition of god: a human created folk hero used to appease the sentient mind of the hardships of facing death and also used as a means for social control via dogma.
> 
> I cannot prove or disprove that said definition is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK and what would you call the REAL THING or set of laws that REALLY exists that explain these things truthfully
> which this "fake God" is being used to represent as a substitute.
> 
> So I'm saying the REAL truth is what you are using in place of God in MD's proof.
> And you are saying the fake Christian religious construct of God is not the ultimate source of truth or knowledge.
> 
> What do you call the objective self-existent knowledge that is out there?
> Just give it a name, like BreezeWood says there is an Almighty that is greater than this
> Christian construct of God being rejected.
> 
> So BW uses Almighty to mean the REAL God.
> 
> What do you use? Does not have to be a theistic or personfied symbolic reference.
> Some people just call it the Absolute, or Supreme/Collective truth, Universal reality or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do I call reality? Reality.
> What do I call the universe? The universe.
> What do I call existence? Existence.
> 
> God doesn't even apply, everything is already defined in and of itself. Calling it 'god' is a futile attempt to STRETCH or move the goalposts intellectually in order to justify belief in god.
> 
> It's not rational to do that, its partaking in a rather frivolous activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, we can just stick with Universe and what you call the greater reality or collective existence in Life out there.
> That's good enough.
> 
> What the real issue is: how do we define how to work individually, in relationships and collectively?
> 
> Now if you can spell out basically what you believe about truth, peace and justice,
> that should align with what is taught in religions minus the symbolism.
> 
> So if we can do that, we can translate what God and Jesus mean into secular terms
> and talk about the exact same concepts principles and process. We can align
> common sense terms with the "collective symbolism" for "all humanity going through a universal process"
> of realizing spiritual peace and justice on a global scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.
> 
> We can talk about that some other time.
> 
> This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.
> 
> The lofty goal you have of uniting humanity is nice, it really is......but this is a thread concerning the existence of god. Not abstract god meaning ANYTHING you want it to mean, because the discussion then becomes necessarily meaningless
> 
> This thread is about whether or not a divine, self aware being created everything.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I am talking about the process that proves itself,
that it is possible to form a CONSENSUS on God.

Just like we AGREE that gravity works, or that people dream dreams at night.
We can all reach AGREEMENT of what we mean or don't mean by God.

So that is the closest we can come to proving it, but showing
we can agree what we're talking about.

I'm trying to explain to MD that with the same effort and process
it takes to reach agreement on TAG, you can go ahead and resolve
what is the truth about spiritual healing, and the process of forgiveness
in bringing peace to all relationships on the planet for world peace.

Anything faith-based is going to require the same process of
forgiving and letting go of differences if we are gong to get past them
and focus on something we agree is more beneficial to common goals.

So by the time we get to that understanding OF COURSE we are
going to agree to focus on solving real problems. If it takes the same 
amount of energy and work to do, why not focus on something real?


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. You can have any definition of god that you want to - he still doesn't become axiomatic because he is not universally agreed upon nor proven.
> 
> So no matter what your ontology is, TAG is a BAD BAD argument. It begs the question. All day every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
Click to expand...

MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.

Everything is not proven to BE a creation. 

What are you missing here?

It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.

Stop wasting my time please 

I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.

Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Another thing a presupper has to avoid, is that laws of logic simply describe what is ----- they're not literally brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind (misnomer).
> 
> Let's do one, Kay?
> 
> A = A, A does not equal not A.
> 
> This concept is only true because WHAT ITS DESCRIBING (non concept) is.
> 
> Meaning if A represents an apple, an apple is physically an apple and cannot NOT be an apple. Physically. In reality. The concept which describes this (a=a) is simply JUST THAT, a description of physical reality, NOT something that literally exists itself but just describes what does exist(the apple). It is the apple not physically being able to be anything else and not a descriptive concept that makes this actuality true....... No transcendent mind necessary for the apple to be an apple and not NOT an apple, only a sentient mind needed to describe that which already exists.
> 
> The 'laws of logic' do not hold because of a transcendent mind, they hold because they're simply the nature of reality - this is an explanation that also cannot be ruled out thus TAG is, again, not axiomatic.
> 
> And we can do this all day.



The TAG doesn't argue that they are "brought into existence by a 'transcendent'  mind", so does this mean that you agree with the TAG or do you just like arguing with straw men because the real argument makes your head hurt?   

It's A:  A = A, liar.  The law of identity is in our minds first.  It sounds like you're arguing materialism.   What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.
> 
> Everything is not proven to BE a creation.
> 
> What are you missing here?
> 
> It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Stop wasting my time please
> 
> I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.
> 
> Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.
Click to expand...


Both MD and Justin both said God does not have to be limited to just Creator.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing a presupper has to avoid, is that laws of logic simply describe what is ----- they're not literally brought into existence by a 'transcendent' mind (misnomer).
> 
> Let's do one, Kay?
> 
> A = A, A does not equal not A.
> 
> This concept is only true because WHAT ITS DESCRIBING (non concept) is.
> 
> Meaning if A represents an apple, an apple is physically an apple and cannot NOT be an apple. Physically. In reality. The concept which describes this (a=a) is simply JUST THAT, a description of physical reality, NOT something that literally exists itself but just describes what does exist(the apple). It is the apple not physically being able to be anything else and not a descriptive concept that makes this actuality true....... No transcendent mind necessary for the apple to be an apple and not NOT an apple, only a sentient mind needed to describe that which already exists.
> 
> The 'laws of logic' do not hold because of a transcendent mind, they hold because they're simply the nature of reality - this is an explanation that also cannot be ruled out thus TAG is, again, not axiomatic.
> 
> And we can do this all day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TAG doesn't argue that they are "brought into existence by a 'transcendent'  mind", so does this mean that you agree with the TAG or do you just like arguing with straw men because the real argument makes your head hurt?
> 
> It's A:  A = A, liar.  The law of identity is in our minds first.  It sounds like you're arguing materialism.   What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?
Click to expand...

The law is in our minds.

What the law represents exists in reality. Dumbfuck.

You're best to just take a step aside little dweeb.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.
> 
> Everything is not proven to BE a creation.
> 
> What are you missing here?
> 
> It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Stop wasting my time please
> 
> I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.
> 
> Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both MD and Justin both said God does not have to be limited to just Creator.
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter. 

The creator part in and of itself sort of has to be PROVEN in order for them to say "WE PROVED IT."

and TAG is a childish attempt at that. Wicked childish.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.
> 
> I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick
> 
> 
> I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.
> 
> TAG is a logical fallacy.
> 
> You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise.
> 
> So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."
> No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.
> 
> And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .



It is still serving as a the base ground
around which to organize ideas to explain and correct points that come up.

So it is still part of the greater process of resolving these issues.
It's a matter of whether we use it successfully or not.

I believe it can still lead to effective points being made
and appreciate your contributions to that end. So it still has value and purpose
toward resolving things in teh spirit of truth to be consistent and to get all the kinks out, thanks!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily I know you have good intentions and all, but you're wasting a lot of time making posts that are a complete misread of whats going in.
> 
> I'm not ignoring md's points because he's a dick
> 
> 
> I'm seeing and reading his points quite clearly.
> 
> TAG is a logical fallacy.
> 
> You cannot.prove god.by asserting god in the premise.
> 
> So when you say things like 'maybe tag fits in somewhere...."
> No, it doesn't. You're wasting time be even saying something like that.
> 
> And last point: tag is not md's. Its been around and debunked as a fallacy but by fundies for.centurie .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is still serving as a the base ground
> around which to organize ideas to explain and correct points that come up.
> 
> So it is still part of the greater process of resolving these issues.
> It's a matter of whether we use it successfully or not.
> 
> I believe it can still lead to effective points being made
> and appreciate your contributions to that end. So it still has value and purpose
> toward resolving things in teh spirit of truth to be consistent and to get all the kinks out, thanks!
Click to expand...

Maybe tag is your guys base ground, but for me quick sand doesn't make too good a foundation


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not perfectly axiomatic, but a general pattern could be demonstrated.
> 
> From all the systems I've looked at, I keep seeing similar patterns of
> * some basic level of the "individual" physical experience
> * some abstract "collective" or spiritual level of all truth/knowledge/humanity/existence as a whole
> * and some principles of "conscience, laws, justice, relationships," etc. joining these two levels as one in harmony,
> and explaining the relationship between them either through spiritual, natural or civil laws.
> 
> So if people lay out their standard principles they believe in about life or relations or values,
> these tend to 'align' along parallel patterns.
> 
> it doesn't have to be perfect to show complementary relations.
> 
> MD approach focused on TAG can be applied to any number of areas and still follow
> a similar process or pattern of resolving like terms for parallel concepts across different people's value systems.
> 
> 
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.
> 
> Everything is not proven to BE a creation.
> 
> What are you missing here?
> 
> It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Stop wasting my time please
> 
> I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.
> 
> Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.
Click to expand...


That's not right.  He defined God as "a sentient Being of unparalleled greatness" who is the Creator, which would mean a divinity that has all the features of consciousness that we have, only infinite in their magnitude. From where I'm standing it sure looks like you like to argue against straw men a lot because the real arguments hurt your head or maybe its the orifice of your butt that keeps getting hurt.     Liars are cowards.  What a sorry excuse of a man you are.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> What's your empirical proof for that, Einstein?



OK Justin, now let us be fair

Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that
God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.

And M.D. also stated up front, very clearly, that the reason he works with logical arguments and definitions,
is that SCIENCE cannot prove or disprove but only verify/falsify.

GT and others want scientific proof or they find this logic stuff to be USELESS since it was self-defined to begin with.

What I offer is to show patterns by demonstrating how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
so there is enough empirical demonstration to show a PATTERN to the PROCESS.

The process can be replicated so Science can Demonstrate, falsify and verify
while writing out the explanation of the pattern and stages of the process can
help with the logistic/global language that MD wants to establish, though he is set on TAG
and I focus on spiritual healing and forgiveness as the key to demonstrating universality.


----------



## amrchaos

The more I think about what GT is saying and the more I recall post I read, I think I wasted a whole bunch of time for nothing

Wait--I learned what TAG is--and how their proponents argue and behave. I won't do that again.


----------



## G.T.

Is that post really supposed to say something? Justin?

Take a shot at this tough guy:

Is something an axiom if its not universally accepted and other possibilities are not ruled out?

Think hard little dweeb, and try not to tag in MD if ya can. Pun intended.


Or.......like always.......dip duck dodge.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> The more I think about what GT is saying and the more I recall post I read, I think I wasted a whole bunch of time for nothing
> 
> Wait--I learned what TAG is--and how their proponents argue and behave. I won't do that again.


Its so patently absurd that frankly, I dont know why I do it either.

I think maybe my hatred of cowardice.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Is that post really supposed to say something? Justin?
> 
> Take a shot at this tough guy:
> 
> Is something an axiom if its not universally accepted and other possibilities are not ruled out?
> 
> Think hard little dweeb, and try not to tag in MD if ya can. Pun intended.
> 
> 
> Or.......like always.......dip duck dodge.


In order to answer in the affirmative, you must be ignorant of what axiom means.

In order to answer in the negative, you agree that TAG is unsound as a proof.

Gluck ducking this for everyone to see, Justin. Your feet have been called to the fire. Dance.


----------



## G.T.

Reality = prescriptive.
Logic = descriptive (of reality).
God = hypothesis.

Any questions?


----------



## amrchaos

Hold it Emily,

I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.

Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories. 


No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!) 

Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.

In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if arm chaos knows what tag is.
> 
> Arm, tag is this argument:
> 
> 1. God created all knowledge.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. Therefore, god exists.
> 
> A logical proof requires each premise to be absolutely true.
> 
> Premise #1 itself is unproven. Knowledge's origin is unknown, and its ALSO unknown if knowledge even HAS an origin and isn't eternal. So premise #1 is not axiomatic or universally accepted, it simply begs the question by presupposing what its trying to prove.
> 
> They call tag PROOF that god exists.
> 
> If you find that a sound argument, I'm not going to disparage you or anything because you haven't me........but it is rather silly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is my first time seeing TAG
> 
> It is really slick if you go through it fast. You end up accepting a whole bunch of questionable notions.  #3 made me re-examine 1 and ask the question "Is it an inductive argument?"
> 
> I'm talking about "7 things"
Click to expand...


I know it's true, and I'm not dumb.  It's an axiom that has stood the test of time.  If you what you say about it was true it wouldn't be an issue.  It wouldn't be in the Bible.  Kant wouldn't have argued it.  It wouldn't be argued by anyone.  Just how stupid are you?  Rawlings has exposed every one of the stupid things that retard said in that video for what they are so that makes you a retard who can't think his way out of a wet paper bag.  Since you think you can just lie at will and insinuate that people of common sense are stupid, I'll treat you with the same contempt.  You're a smart alec punk and a sissy anyway with no common sense.  Take you're sillypsism and slip it.  Scientific skepticism is good but who with common sense gives two cents to sillypsism in the real world?   And you have been almost totally wrong about everything you've said. About the physics, and the math and logic in inductive and deductive arguments.  I think Rawlings is wrong.  I don't think you picked up on the  error in my post  earlier that he fixed. You mostly didn't know what you were talking about that's all.  Besides I don't need you to tell me anything about those types of reasoning that I didn't already know.  I just said something wrong, I didn't think wrong.  You sort of smell like QW to me.


----------



## G.T.

Is that post anything besides a substance less appeal to heroes?

Justin, you don't have to BOAST about how you don't think for yourself dude. Its kind of pathetic, and TAG is fucking stupid 

But I guess dogma isn't dogma if it doesn't work on the gullible .
.....





(By the way, nice dodge).


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.
> 
> We can talk about that some other time.
> 
> This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.



No, the thread is about whether or not there is a sound syllogistic *argument* for existence of God. The question as to whether anyone can *prove* God to another individual who doesn't believe in God is answered. *No. 
*
Now, Rawlings has presented a pretty valid syllogistic argument for existence of God, in my opinion. Whether he has "proven" to you that God exists, is something you can judge for yourself. No one can ever "prove" something to you that you are not willing to believe. This is what gets me about Atheists... they hang out in these threads as if to say, hey... knock this chip off my shoulder! I've had it surgically bolted to my shoulder blade, but go ahead and try to knock it off... double dog dare you to try! No one can ever make you believe that which you don't want to believe. There isn't even anything you would consider proof or evidence, because the thing it proves or is evidence for is something you don't believe exists. 
*
*


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread isn't about humanity coming together for some greater purpose.
> 
> We can talk about that some other time.
> 
> This thread is about whether or not anyone can prove god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about whether or not there is a sound syllogistic *argument* for existence of God. The question as to whether anyone can *prove* God to another individual who doesn't believe in God is answered. *No.
> *
> Now, Rawlings has presented a pretty valid syllogistic argument for existence of God, in my opinion. Whether he has "proven" to you that God exists, is something you can judge for yourself. No one can ever "prove" something to you that you are not willing to believe. This is what gets me about Atheists... they hang out in these threads as if to say, hey... knock this chip off my shoulder! I've had it surgically bolted to my shoulder blade, but go ahead and try to knock it off... double dog dare you to try! No one can ever make you believe that which you don't want to believe. There isn't even anything you would consider proof or evidence, because the thing it proves or is evidence for is something you don't believe exists.
Click to expand...

No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.

Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom. 

'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.


Fuck off.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a _C_ so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
Click to expand...



 Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos.  What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created?  The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.  What an idiot.  The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created.   Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,


----------



## amrchaos

I am kind of confused here

Is Justin attacking me, or GT?

If it is me, why?  Who have I insulted?


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.



So you believe that logic is something beyond the power of God to create? 

Interesting.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.
> 
> Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom.
> 
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.
> 
> 
> Fuck off.



Sorry, that is YOUR opinion, and I disagree. The premise was, "Does God exist?" The conclusion was, "God does exist!" 

And, if only you could present some of these "other possibilities" for existence so we could rule them out, that would be nice. So far, you've not really presented anything. All I ever get from Atheists are "just because" arguments, which don't offer any explanation for existence. So we can't "rule out" a non-explanation.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rawlings presented a flawed argument.
> 
> Its premise presupposed its conclusion, which is only sound as a tautology, or an axiom.
> 
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be an axiom until all other possibilities for existence are ruled out and ALSO its universally accepted.
> 
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that is YOUR opinion, and I disagree. The premise was, "Does God exist?" The conclusion was, "God does exist!"
> 
> And, if only you could present some of these "other possibilities" for existence so we could rule them out, that would be nice. So far, you've not really presented anything. All I ever get from Atheists are "just because" arguments, which don't offer any explanation for existence. So we can't "rule out" a non-explanation.
Click to expand...

What the religiously addled don't seem to understand is that the presumptive and pointless TAG can similarly be used to "prove" all the gawds and any other silly,  pointless conception of human invention.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a _C_ so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos.  What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created?  The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.  What an idiot.  The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created.   Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,
Click to expand...



Well, I don't want to get too personal with this, but I'm not giving any more serious thought to the posts of that dingbat until he starts acknowledging that his drivel has already been addressed.  How many times does it take? 

I think he's got a real thing for solipsism.  There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish. 

I already told him I qualified _The Seven Things_ from the beginning with regard to these kinds of philosophical objections and why *#1* and *#2 *are expressed as empirical facts.  Right.  As if most people do not regard them to be empirical facts, as if there's anything stopping this dingbat from intellectually modifying them in his mind, as if such a modification makes any difference to the central construct and the ramifications thereof, as if they  were not primarily of an _a priori_ nature or as if every damn thing that _is_ strictly empirical or inductive in nature had to pass muster with him, when the only legitimately pragmatic, universal standard for logic and science and for people of common sense is justified true belief/knowledge.

This punk is calling me a troll?!

So let him make *#1* and *#2* _I_ and _a purely rational impression_, for crying out loud!  Whose holding a gun to his head?  So where did this _I _he keeps going on about come from?  A trash can?  His toilet bowl?  His dog's last bowel movement?  Oh, wait!  No!  Those things would be empirical, and of course all syllogisms are necessarily instances of inductive reasoning if there's something empirical in them. 

Not. 

Maybe God slipped him a mickey or maybe he slipped a mickey to himself.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe that logic is something beyond the power of God to create?
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...

As you have created a version of gawds who placate your fears and superstitions,  you can have them create whatever you wish. 


Interesting.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.


----------



## amrchaos

All the false accusations and name calling--for what reason?

No, MD I did not call you a troll
I said you are running the risk of being called a troll.

That was due to many of the arguments you were initiating for no reason and the numerous long-winded posts you were making that pretty much was rude and insulting for other posters.

I did not call you a troll--
But you run the risk of being labelled a troll.

See the difference?  I thought I said it in a manner that was as neutral as possible.  

And about your argument--I told you the problems already.  I m not going back to that tiring exercise...Post it in one of those Catholic Forums I suggested and you will get a really spirited debate with them I'm sure.


----------



## G.T.

Presuppers have been in 3d all night. 

dip, duck and dodge.


----------



## emilynghiem

Yes


amrchaos said:


> Hold it Emily,
> 
> I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.
> 
> Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories.
> 
> 
> No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)
> 
> Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.
> 
> In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.



Yes thats why I offered to set up scientific studies on spiritual healing
To isolate one area that empirical process can apply to.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there are none or that the traditional arguments fail.
Click to expand...

He isn't. If there was proof of God there would be no faith there would be no religion. There would just be facts.


----------



## emilynghiem

Th


Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily - in order for it to be an absolute proof of god, it NEEDS to be perfectly axiomatic and not a logical fallacy. Its a viciously circular argument.
> 
> God is everything
> Everything exists
> Therefore, god is real!
> 
> Its entirely childish and using a definition in order to magically poof something into existence. Logic doesn't work like that, it serves no purpose whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.
> 
> Everything is not proven to BE a creation.
> 
> What are you missing here?
> 
> It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Stop wasting my time please
> 
> I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.
> 
> Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not right.  He defined God as "a sentient Being of unparalleled greatness" who is the Creator, which would mean a divinity that has all the features of consciousness that we have, only infinite in their magnitude. From where I'm standing it sure looks like you like to argue against straw men a lot because the real arguments hurt your head or maybe its the orifice of your butt that keeps getting hurt.     Liars are cowards.  What a sorry excuse of a man you are.
Click to expand...

Thats great Justin. Maybe you can act as a go between where points like this get missed that could be bridged. 

As for GT look at the three points terms for laying out the default source position instead of calling this God. Why cant we align along
Those points, arent they close enough in value to be equivalent parallels.


----------



## Inevitable

amrchaos said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
Click to expand...

First you have to define what God is. And people don't really agree on what God is, or what constitutes a god in general.

Because you are an atheist I am sure you know this. 

Any proof of gods is based on the inversion of science. People who find "proof" start with a conclusion verses a hypothesis. They set out to prove god verses seeking to answer questions.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold it Emily,
> 
> I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.
> 
> Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories.
> 
> 
> No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)
> 
> Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.
> 
> In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes thats why I offered to set up scientific studies on spiritual healing
> To isolate one area that empirical process can apply to.
Click to expand...



Well--have you heard of the radio show *Coast to Coast*?

The host--*George Noory*--tends to interview people that investigates things from the supernatural, spiritual, and other topics(warning--some of them are really bizarre)

He has talked about prayer and even conducted mass group prayers with his listeners. I think he has written a book dealing with similiar topic.

Of course, I am referring you to a radio host, which might not be a good start.  However he does tend  to cover spiritual topics from time to time.

Maybe you should check his web page and see if something like what you are looking for is there. Its a good chance he has talked to someone that has done what you re suggesting.


----------



## Brucethethinker

M.D. Rawlings said:


> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.


If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator?  I do believe you're getting close.


----------



## G.T.

Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns. 

it leaves the discussion at the starting line.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.



It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely. 

Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.


----------



## Boss

Brucethethinker said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> 
> 
> If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator?  I do believe you're getting close.
Click to expand...


The Creator is non-material... doesn't require creation. When we speak of 'creation' it is in the context of things within our reality of existence in a material universe or concepts pertaining to those material things. God is not a material thing. This is why I reject the notion that God is a "sentient being."


----------



## BreezeWood

> because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect.




all living beings by crossing the void as Columbus crossed the Atlantic in search of the beyond and finding its substance will attain the least perfection necessary for Admittance to the Everlasting - and Judgement for allowance by the Almighty ...








by reaching the pinnacle of knowledge is itself the answered goal to attain perfection. -

there is no judgement for those that are less than perfect -  whether their belief is true or not, sad but true.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Reality = prescriptive.
> Logic = descriptive (of reality).
> God = hypothesis.
> 
> Any questions?



LOL!

The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things.  You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions  of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.  Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only!  And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that  Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a  fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.

In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.

Oh, wait!  Any questions?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality = prescriptive.
> Logic = descriptive (of reality).
> God = hypothesis.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things.  You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions  of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.
> 
> The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.  Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only!  And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.
> 
> And I find it hilarious that  Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.
> 
> I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:
> 
> The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
> organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
> Further, the idea of God in and of itself is an  fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only--in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct--for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.
> 
> In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.
> 
> Oh, wait!  Any questions?
Click to expand...

Sure,

do you know how fucking stupid this response was?

Logic is not prescriptive. Logic is descriptive. But good luck with he rest of your dumbfuckery. 

Logic does not literally dictate that a=a, it describes that an apple is an apple, the apple being the apple is whats prescriptive. 


Of course a presupper NECESSARILY doesn't understand this distinction. Did you think I didnt already KNOW?

THATS WHY I TYPED IT.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.
> 
> it leaves the discussion at the starting line.



But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable. 

My personal argument for God is not that _"anyone can define God as whatever"_ but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it _spiritual_ because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection _"blessings"_ because we developed that word too.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.
> 
> it leaves the discussion at the starting line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable.
> 
> My personal argument for God is not that _"anyone can define God as whatever"_ but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it _spiritual_ because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection _"blessings"_ because we developed that word too.
Click to expand...

You're defining god as "undefinable"



derp a derp derp derp

also, we are not aware of something greater than us - - - - - some are simply convinced of such with no demonstrable evidence. 

so sorry. you can call it "they wont accept the evidence" all you want, but sorry guy, that's weak as fuck.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leaving it to "anyone can define god as whatever" is akin to calling the sky "unicorn" instead of sky, going outside, looking up - - - and there, you see unicorns.
> 
> it leaves the discussion at the starting line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what you don't seem to understand is, that's exactly what Atheists do. They "define God as whatever" and then reject the notion. They look up and don't see the God they defined, so God becomes unreal and unbelievable.
> 
> My personal argument for God is not that _"anyone can define God as whatever"_ but that God can't truly be defined by infallible humans, we lack the ability to do this. (Analogy: Monkeys trying to explain nuclear fission.) We are aware of something greater than self, we call it _spiritual_ because we created that word for it. We call the benefits of our spiritual connection _"blessings"_ because we developed that word too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're defining god as "undefinable"
> 
> derp a derp derp derp
> 
> also, we are not aware of something greater than us - - - - - some are simply convinced of such with no demonstrable evidence.
> 
> so sorry. you can call it "they wont accept the evidence" all you want, but sorry guy, that's weak as fuck.
Click to expand...


We most certainly ARE aware of something greater than self and always have been. In fact, we even created a word to describe the phenomenon in humans which occurs as a direct result of this awareness... _*inspiration.*_ 

I only define God as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent spiritual energy or force greater than self. I don't apply any human attributes. I believe it is futile for humans to attempt to define God further. I understand why we do it, we long for understanding of something we're intrinsically aware of. 

And I don't know about weak or strong, but it's a fact that you cannot accept evidence for something you don't believe exists in your mind. You have prejudiced your thinking process and objectivity by closing your mind to the possibility of something, so no amount of evidence will suffice, and will not even be acknowledged as evidence. 

To demonstrate, let's conduct a little experiment here. I am going to state that I do not believe you exist, you're not real, I don't believe in you. Can you prove here on the Internet to me, that you do indeed exist? Okay, before you begin, let me go ahead and tell you that I am already prepared to reject any evidence you present for your existence. So... no need to link me to a facebook page or post a picture of your driver's license or birth certificate, because I'll reject those as "anecdotal" and not evidence. Go ahead... Prove to me you exist?


----------



## Brucethethinker

M.D. Rawlings said:


> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.


If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator?  I do believe you're getting close.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> The Creator is non-material... doesn't require creation. When we speak of 'creation' it is in the context of things within our reality of existence in a material universe or concepts pertaining to those material things. God is not a material thing. This is why I reject the notion that God is a "sentient being."


So, are you retracting your statement "_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists."?  Did god only create "material" things?  You really should have your arguments thought out before posting them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality = prescriptive.
> Logic = descriptive (of reality).
> God = hypothesis.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things.  You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions  of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.
> 
> The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.  Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only!  And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.
> 
> And I find it hilarious that  Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.
> 
> I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:
> 
> The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
> organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
> Further, the idea of God in and of itself is an  fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only--in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct--for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.
> 
> In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.
> 
> Oh, wait!  Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure,
> 
> do you know how fucking stupid this response was?
> 
> Logic is not prescriptive. Logic is descriptive. But good luck with he rest of your dumbfuckery.
> 
> Logic does not literally dictate that a=a, it describes that an apple is an apple, the apple being the apple is whats prescriptive.
> 
> 
> Of course a presupper NECESSARILY doesn't understand this distinction. Did you think I didnt already KNOW?
> 
> THATS WHY I TYPED IT.
Click to expand...


It's _*nature*_ is prescriptive/normative, dummy.  It's inherent properties of delineation direct our minds in the processes of defining, describing and also, for that matter, apprehending the pertinent inferences or extrapolations about things at both _*the prescriptive*_ and _*the descriptive*_ levels of apprehension, dummy. 

If you knew what you were talking about (shades of Amrchaos with his nonsensical conflation of the deductive-inductive and the rational-empirical dichotomies),  you wouldn't have bumped your head, i.e., missed the pertinent distinction regarding logic's _nature and inherent properties_, and the _cognitive activities_  to which it is applied.

The nature of the natural/physical laws is descriptive. 

The nature of the laws of human thought is  prescriptive.

Both describe; albeit, logic describes how reason _should_ work, how it _should_ be applied and how its delineations _should _direct our minds to define and describe other things.  Logic is essentially something that we do automatically due to its inherent properties of delineation when we contemplate or investigate things.


Essay Is-Ought Explained - RationalWiki

The Nature of Logic

Normative - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## G.T.

My.origina  statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## Boss

Brucethethinker said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> 
> 
> If nothing can exist without being created by the creator, then what created the creator?  I do believe you're getting close.
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Creator is non-material... doesn't require creation. When we speak of 'creation' it is in the context of things within our reality of existence in a material universe or concepts pertaining to those material things. God is not a material thing. This is why I reject the notion that God is a "sentient being."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are you retracting your statement "_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists."?  Did god only create "material" things?  You really should have your arguments thought out before posting them.
Click to expand...


You seem to be attributing MY post to Rawlings. The second quote you posted in MINE, not his. 

I have addressed both points. God is not material, so there is no necessity for God to be created. God created everything. Nothing created God.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> All the false accusations and name calling--for what reason?
> 
> No, MD I did not call you a troll
> I said you are running the risk of being called a troll.
> 
> That was due to many of the arguments you were initiating for no reason and the numerous long-winded posts you were making that pretty much was rude and insulting for other posters.
> 
> I did not call you a troll--
> But you run the risk of being labelled a troll.
> 
> See the difference?  I thought I said it in a manner that was as neutral as possible.
> 
> And about your argument--I told you the problems already.  I m not going back to that tiring exercise...Post it in one of those Catholic Forums I suggested and you will get a really spirited debate with them I'm sure.



Shut up, troll.  You didn't _argue_ any problems about the OBJECTIVE facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  You  continue to make bald declarations, you space cadet, on the basis of solipsism that are not relevant to the presuppositions of this OP and the qualification upon which _The Seven Things_ are premised.  This has been explained to you already, at least four times.  You have never acknowledge these things directly; hence, you have not demonstrated any factual or logical  problems regarding _The Seven Things_.  You are a liar, for we are well past the point of any possible misunderstanding.  Or are you telling us that you're dumber than dirt?  I know precisely the kind of games atheists play on this forum. Half of you guys are sociopaths. 

There are posts on this thread that have addressed your concerns.  Now either start acknowledging them or insult for insult will be all you get from me, punk.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> My.origina  statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.



*Sociopath.  The facts backed by citations right in front of you.  *

It's _*nature*_ is prescriptive/normative. It's inherent properties of delineation direct our minds in the processes of defining, describing and also, for that matter, apprehending the pertinent inferences or extrapolations about things at both _*the prescriptive*_ and _*the descriptive*_ levels of apprehension. 

If you knew what you were talking about (shades of Amrchaos with his nonsensical conflation of the deductive-inductive and the rational-empirical dichotomies), you wouldn't have bumped your head, i.e., missed the pertinent distinction regarding logic's _nature and inherent properties_, and the _cognitive activities_ to which it is applied.

The nature of the natural/physical laws is descriptive. 

The nature of the laws of human thought is prescriptive.

Both describe; albeit, logic describes how reason _should_ work, how it _should_ be applied and how its delineations _should _direct our minds to define and describe other things. Logic is essentially something that we do automatically due to its inherent properties of delineation when we contemplate or investigate things.


Essay Is-Ought Explained - RationalWiki

The Nature of Logic

Normative - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## G.T.

Being a robot is a human attribute?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> My.origina  statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.




*Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.*


The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.

In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.

Oh, wait! Any questions?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Being a robot is a human attribute?




The laws of logic are prescriptive. That is to say, the laws of logic tell us how we ought to think. However, if atheism is true, we can only have descriptive laws. When I say descriptive, I mean to say that whatever is descriptive merely describes something. In contrast prescriptive things tell us how we ought to do something or think about something. The skeptic philosopher, David Hume, has pointed out that you can't get an "ought" from an "is." This means that you cannot get a prescriptive value from a descriptive value.  In a universe where God does not exist, how would we get any prescriptive values? Certainly, we can't justify prescriptive values by merely describing them. They must be grounded in something. Perhaps the atheist may argue that the laws of logic are a description of how people think. This would make communication unintelligible, for if the laws of logic are descriptive, than anyone can be justified in not accepting them, because they have no binding value.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

More on the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive (normative) thought  . . . in ethics:

Descriptive ethics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## G.T.

The laws of logic are a conceptual means to describe reality.

You're the dummy.


----------



## amrchaos

OK

I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The laws of logic are *a conceptual means to describe reality*.
> You're the dummy.



*Sweet!  GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part I:  See Post #3945.
*
Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.

Regarding the emboldened portion of your post*:*  as I already explained, _yes_ and _no_, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things _*directly*_ and other things _*indirectly*_, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make!  The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the *materialistic* atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG.  It's nothing new to me.  It's old news.

Logic is the *prescriptive* means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation.  Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is _a priori_ prescriptive.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are _a posteriori_ descriptive as they describe how nature works.   

Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature!  Logic is immaterial!  

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit. *

With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we _a priori_ establish the normative standards of *(1)* thought and *(2)* inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, *directly*, then we *should* (*ought!*) objectively apply these standards to _*what*_ (*is!*) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they *apparently are:* _ergo_, we _*indirectly*_ infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, _*directly*_, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit. 
*
Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the _*oughts*_ of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.

LOL!

Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that *would be* universally *descriptive in nature* at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a  Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.

LOL!

Oops.  Is that what you're thinking?  Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier?  LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.



Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?

I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?

And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II:  See Post #3945.*

*GT*, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic _according to_ "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily *prescriptive/normative in nature*, they do _*not*_ directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

*Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah."  Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.
*
(Oh, I'm sorry, *Amrchaos*, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)

*Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.
*
However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy*:* the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments _from ignorance/beg the question_.

(Oh, by the way, *Amrchaos*, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)


But:

We do not impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because the latter _*are*_ the logical necessities of *formal logic* that do not go away regardless of what labels morons slap on them*;* we only apply the fallacies of *informal logic* to* (1)* the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as if they were *(2)* logical necessities of human cognition (you know, because they're _not_ actually the latter at all, but the former, i.e., the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility).

If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic*, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic* would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like *2 + 2 = 4*.​
IDIOTS!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My.origina  statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.*
> 
> 
> The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.
> 
> The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.
> 
> And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.
> 
> I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:
> 
> The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
> organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
> Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.
> 
> In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.
> 
> Oh, wait! Any questions?
Click to expand...

Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers


M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II*
> 
> *GT*, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic _according to_ "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily *prescriptive/normative in nature*, they do _*not*_ directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!
> 
> *Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.
> 
> And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah."  Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.
> *
> (Oh, I'm sorry, *Amrchaos*, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)
> 
> *Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.
> *
> However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy*:* the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments _from ignorance/beg the question_.
> 
> (Oh, by the way, *Amrchaos*, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)
> 
> But:
> 
> *(1) *We do not impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because they _are_ the logical necessities of *formal logic* that do not go away regardless of what label morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of *informal logic* to the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as the logical necessities of the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter but the former, i.e., the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility). If it were reasonable to impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic*, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, there would be no primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic.*​
> IDIOTS!


Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers



Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!

Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!




Hollie said:


> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.



LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Th
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok well let's start with the patterns that it does have to explain and align with in order to be universal for all ppl across the board. If we can see a common pattern, then we can try to work out the axiomatic part that would follow from that.
> 
> For example, I can throw out the idea that
> human nature is body/mind/spirit
> or individual physical / psychological conscience / collective humanity or spirituality
> 
> and that all religious or even secular laws seek to quantify this relationship
> between the individual will/interest and the collective good for society/humanity.
> 
> Then some people may feel that the laws exist naturally by God/Creation/Universe/Life whatever,
> and that man's laws ATTEMPT to define this and are INSPIRED by the preexisting laws we didn't make up,
> even though man made up the LANGUAGE for these laws or terms.
> 
> And some people may feel that human nature is up to man
> and we write these laws to make up our own society and reality
> and are responsible for establishing peace and justice on our own, and not by relying on some higher force
> motivating or inspiring it for us.
> 
> And we can still align both ways, even though people disagree on the source of wehre these "laws" come from.
> Some believe they come from God and we are just writing down and following the laws as best we can.
> Others say there is no determined fate, good or justice, and it is up to man to make laws work for use as best we can.
> 
> So even if we can NEVER prove where the laws are coming from, from God or man,
> Can't we still agree how to work with our given laws and try to agree point by point,
> case by case, on what will bring peace and justice and restore sustainable order as best we can manage?
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you something for certain, and perhaps save you some time:
> 
> I will never....Neva Eva Eva Eva Eva.......take a grown up adult seriously, who thinks that TAG represents a sound argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so what would have to be acknowledged to show how this works within its own constructs.
> 
> Such as saying if 2 is defined to be * * and 4 is defined to be * * * *
> then of course 2+2=4 and anything else is going to run into contradictions!
> 
> The fastest way I know to resolve an argument with someone like MD
> is to find a way to AGREE with them on how they are right.
> 
> Don't you agree that if you define God to be something that exists,
> then any statement that God doesn't exist is going to contradict what you just defined God to be at the start?
> Like duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MD has defined god as a sentient creator of everything.
> 
> Everything is not proven to BE a creation.
> 
> What are you missing here?
> 
> It seems in your attempt to be a pacifist, the arguments presented are going in one ear and out the other.
> 
> Stop wasting my time please
> 
> I don't wish to reconcile TAG for him.
> 
> Its a falacial argument. That's the bare bones. The rest is just grandstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not right.  He defined God as "a sentient Being of unparalleled greatness" who is the Creator, which would mean a divinity that has all the features of consciousness that we have, only infinite in their magnitude. From where I'm standing it sure looks like you like to argue against straw men a lot because the real arguments hurt your head or maybe its the orifice of your butt that keeps getting hurt.     Liars are cowards.  What a sorry excuse of a man you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats great Justin. Maybe you can act as a go between where points like this get missed that could be bridged.
> 
> As for GT look at the three points terms for laying out the default source position instead of calling this God. Why cant we align along
> Those points, arent they close enough in value to be equivalent parallels.
Click to expand...


Emily, I don't see how I can bridge the gap with people who keep arguing against straw men.  The only left is to laugh at them.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My.origina  statement was absolutely sound charlatan. Its you who doesn't know what he is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sociopath. If you're going to argue that the nature of logic is descriptive than state your materialistic bias clearly for all to see.*
> 
> 
> The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive, dummy, and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. You don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy correlates with the Is-Ought dichotomy as ultimately premised on the subject-object dichotomy. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the rational-empirical dichotomy if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.
> 
> The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.
> 
> And I find it hilarious that Amrchaos is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that he nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.
> 
> I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:
> 
> The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable
> organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
> Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility in the latter.
> 
> In science it is neither a hypothesis or a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent, dummy.
> 
> Oh, wait! Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sweet! GT puts himself down for The Seven Things again, Part II*
> 
> *GT*, Do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic _according to_ "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily *prescriptive/normative in nature*, they do _*not*_ directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!
> 
> *Hence, he concludes that they are not necessarily universal truths and do not necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.
> 
> And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah."  Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.
> *
> (Oh, I'm sorry, *Amrchaos*, am I insulting people again? Yeah. Well maybe, just maybe, I'm fed with damn fools calling me an idiot or a liar.)
> 
> *Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.
> *
> However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy*:* the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments _from ignorance/beg the question_.
> 
> (Oh, by the way, *Amrchaos*, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)
> 
> But:
> 
> *(1) *We do not impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because they _are_ the logical necessities of *formal logic* that do not go away regardless of what label morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of *informal logic* to the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as the logical necessities of the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition (you know, because they're not actually the latter but the former, i.e., the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility). If it were reasonable to impose the fallacies of *informal logic* on the primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic*, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, there would be no primary axioms/tautologies of *formal logic.*​
> IDIOTS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
Click to expand...




So Rawlings is right about everything, right?


----------



## BreezeWood

.
their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.

what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism
> *
> 
> The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in model logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I were to write _gods_ or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?
> 
> Yes.  Of course they would.
> 
> And If not, why not?
> 
> We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!
> 
> _Knock Knock_  Anybody home?
> 
> If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.
> 
> The highest conceivable standard allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals or as a pantheistic whole.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* _from nothing, nothing comes_, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you are beg the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is *(1) *conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is *(2) *conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, *even classical, polytheistic philosophers:* for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.
> 
> In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, _not_ to beg the question.
> 
> Duh!
> 
> A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.
> 
> Duh!
> 
> The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.
> 
> Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here babycakes.
> While you are acting like a defensive pit bull barking and marking your territory,
> here's a bone I'll throw your way to chew on:
> 
> *Search Results*
> 
> *Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_*proof*
> Wikipedia
> 
> Gödel's ontological proof is a formal argument for God's existence by the ... From axioms 1 through 4, Gödel argued that in some possible world there exists God.
> ‎History of Gödel's proof - ‎Outline of Gödel's proof - ‎See also - ‎Notes
> 
> 
> *Is There Mathematical Proof of God? - Christianity - About.com*
> christianity.about.com › ... › Inspirational Bible Devotions by Topic
> 
> Mathematical Proof of God - Jupiterimages / Getty images ... Through his spiritual struggle in the months following his father's death, Jack discovered something ...
> *Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Spiegel Online*
> SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten › English Site › Germany › Science
> Der Spiegel
> 
> Oct 23, 2013 - Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel kept his proof of God's existence a ... Now two scientists say they have proven it mathematically using a computer. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
> *Scientists Prove God Exists? Austrian Researchers Use ...*
> Christian News The Christian Post › world
> The Christian Post
> 
> Oct 31, 2013 - Two scientists have declared they have proved the existence of  God using nothing more than advanced mathematics and a computer.
> *Two Germans with a MacBook prove that God exists « Why ...*
> whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/.../two-germa...
> Why Evolution is True
> 
> Nov 1, 2013 - Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct — at least on a mathematical level — by way of higher ...
> *God Exists, Says Math: Modal Logic and Software Prove ...*
> God Exists Says Math Modal Logic and Software Prove G del s Logic*god*el-right-*god*.../38801
> 
> Oct 31, 2013 - Modern software and math have verified Gödel's proofs of a being that ...'S', through a given point 'G' that is not on a different straight line 'L' ...
> *Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - ABC News*
> abcnews.go.com › Technology
> ABC News
> 
> Oct 27, 2013 - But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the ... what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology. ... The details of the mathematics involved in Gödel's ontological proof are ...
> *The Mathematical Proof of God's Existence - YouTube*
> View attachment 33922► 6:41► 6:41
> The Mathematical Proof of God s Existence - YouTube
> Aug 16, 2007 - Uploaded by Arthur Taylor
> I wrote this proof in 2003, in an attempt to convince my collegemath ... God can satisfy the thirst for order and certainty,throughthe order of ...
Click to expand...



Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I've argued these very things from the beginning. I even discussed all of these various proofs in the linguistics and mathematics of organic logic, in the linguistics and mathematics of model logic with computer simulations* in detail*. Logic and math prove God's existence. That's the whole point of *#3, #4* and* #6* of _The Seven Things_. All of the proofs you just listed are premised on the  transcendental or the  ontological proofs, the most powerful proofs for God's existence in that order. They are axioms. *#3, #4* and* #6 *are based on these proofs in linguistics and math!  The _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin couple with the Ontological Argument, which is what Gödel's mathematical proof is based on, prove *#3* and *#4*!  The other mathematical proofs based on the transcendental argument prove *#6*!

There are also proofs in the calculus of infinitesimals regarding the necessity of a multidimensional reality. The ramifications of the theories of special and general relativity, the ramifications of quantum physics scream God's existence. Let me tell you something: if Newton were alive today in the face of these things, which he dreamed would someday be possible, that would resoundingly demonstrate the necessity of God's existence, via what we know about mathematics and physics today, he'd be looking at the many atheist scientists of today as if they had lost their minds. We have more evidence for God's existence today with what we know from calculus and physics than ever before in history. It is sheer spiritual blindness. Atheism is utter insanity.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
Click to expand...

Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!

Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!

You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.


----------



## G.T.

Logic being descriptive =\= minds before nature.

Logic is a descriptive tool.

What logic describes is what's prescriptive. Not logic itself.


Tag is - again - NOT AN AXIOM UNTIL YOU CAN RULE OUT OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN THE ABSOLUTE SENSE.

the dunce is you Rawlings. You talk in circles and have no fucking clue what you're talking about. 

Now, lash out and copy paste some more while dip duck dodging that tag is not axiomatic because other possibilities are not rules out. Thick fuck.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> OK Justin, now let us be fair
> 
> Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
> because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.
> 
> GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that
> God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.
> 
> And M.D. also stated up front, very clearly, that the reason he works with logical arguments and definitions,
> is that SCIENCE cannot prove or disprove but only verify/falsify.
> 
> GT and others want scientific proof or they find this logic stuff to be USELESS since it was self-defined to begin with.
> 
> What I offer is to show patterns by demonstrating how spiritual healing works by forgiveness,
> so there is enough empirical demonstration to show a PATTERN to the PROCESS.
> 
> The process can be replicated so Science can Demonstrate, falsify and verify
> while writing out the explanation of the pattern and stages of the process can
> help with the logistic/global language that MD wants to establish, though he is set on TAG
> and I focus on spiritual healing and forgiveness as the key to demonstrating universality.




*Emily!*

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God.  Never!  Ever!  Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!  G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Gödel's incompleteness theorems* demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.  That's all.  In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! *Gödel's incompleteness theorems *do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all!  Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true _*within*_ there individual paradigms!  But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true *outside* the proofs of the various sets of natural number on the number line of infinity.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers _*within*_ there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities.  How could we?  We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!

G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Kurt G del s Ontological Argument

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE

*What in the world do you guys think you agree on?  Gödel has never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."* *Gödel proved God's existence in model logic!  The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself!  By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity.  We're not God.  LOL!*

Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism.  He is right.  It cannot be scientifically verified.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.


I had Justin on ignore for a bit but somehow my settings reversed. 

I think the best path to take at this point of Rawlings' obsessive copy paste meaninglessness while dodging direct refutations is the most logical choice. Pun intended.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
Click to expand...

Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> *[1]* Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation
> because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.
> 
> *[2]* GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.




Driving the point home!

*The first statement is confused.* The cosmological order and its constituents are the evidence for God's existence.  Period.  The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument.  The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin.  That proof is incontrovertible.

*The second statement is totally false and irresponsible.*   Godel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence.  *He never in his life ever asserted any such thing as you  claim.*  And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud!  The latter do not undermine it at all!  But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth.  But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence.  Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that understanding of things.

_Theoretically_, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was _theoretically_ possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.

We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
Click to expand...


That is a lie.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hold it Emily,
> 
> I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.
> 
> Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories.
> 
> 
> No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)
> 
> Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.
> 
> In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.




I told her this before.  You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
Click to expand...

You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
Click to expand...


I wish I had seen this post before I saw Hollie's.  Atheists are so funny and so close minded.  They're going to hyper ignore and attack mode because almost everything they've said is so lame.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .



I


M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
Click to expand...


Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.




Run, phony, run.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> The laws of logic are a conceptual means to describe reality.
> 
> You're the dummy.




Run, phony, run.  Run, liar, run.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold it Emily,
> 
> I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.
> 
> Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories.
> 
> 
> No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)
> 
> Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.
> 
> In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told her this before.  You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.
Click to expand...

Um, no, you trolling charlatan.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hold it Emily,
> 
> I have to warn you about using empirical evidence. What can be assumed from it and its value to an argument can vary from person to person.
> 
> Think bout it this way--there are currently several competing theories all based on basically the same evidence--our reality. Those several theories are not resolvable despite everyone looking at the same evidence.  In fact there are counter-theories that _claim_ to disprove other theories.
> 
> 
> No one is going to concede their position because it involves accepting something they doubt is true based upon the evidence. (Hey I just described the field of cosmology!!)
> 
> Others are disregarding evidence because they feel it is irrelevant, suspect or having explainations not related to the(or their) bigger picture.
> 
> In such a situation, simple talking to one another is not going to work.  What is needed is some kind of information that all can agree on and use to come to the same conclusion from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told her this before.  You can only move toward inductive probability, and I gave her the proper foundation to use.
Click to expand...

Um, no, you loathsome charlatan. 

We don't need your phony and contrived appeals to fear and ignorance you define as inductive probability to discern truth. Ultimately, it will be the process of science that will explore and discover. In all the instances where science appeared be stymied and the fundamentalist freaks like you insisted that fear and superstition was the answer, reason and rationality was the tool employed toward finding a purely _natural_ causation for existence. Not all the tools of science are in hand and scientific discoveries are on-going which is why no one is obligated to abdicate reason and rationality in favor of living in trembling fear of angry gawds.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one. You believe because you want to. Not because it is rational.
> 
> Being irrational creatures exempts us from having to rationally explain everything.
> 
> Belief in God doesn't really fill any rational need, it fills a spiritual one. The proof, billions of people participate in believing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have to define what God is. And people don't really agree on what God is, or what constitutes a god in general.
> 
> Because you are an atheist I am sure you know this.
> 
> Any proof of gods is based on the inversion of science. People who find "proof" start with a conclusion verses a hypothesis. They set out to prove god verses seeking to answer questions.
Click to expand...


That's not true. Are you going to ask why that's not true or keep arguing against the proofs for theism that are not based on hypotheses? You don't know what you're talking about. You're like the atheist Hollie who argues against atheists without even realizing that she's proving that the theist's arguments are true. Only you're the opposite Hollie, the theist Hollie who argues that the false arguments of atheists.
Let me ask you this question, even if it sounds silly. Do you believe that you exist?


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one, he says.  LOL!  Billions of people believing in God's existence for no reason at all, eh?   Psst.  The OP's ignorance of logic and science has been roundly falsified.  The evidentiary, logical, rational, mathematical proofs for God's existence are inside your mind and all round you.  It's no contest at all.  Atheism and the claims of atheists are utter madness, blindness raised to the infinite power.  But most amazing of all is theists believing the OP's claims are true.  Beam me up, Scotty!  LOL!
> 
> Man is both comedy and tragedy at once.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us don't need proof to believe. Faith it's enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic is whether or not there are valid proofs for God's existence.  The answer is that there are.  The OP is wrong to say there is none or that the traditional arguments fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are we talking about any God?
> (Defining the first cause as God in the cosmological argument provides an argument--however...)
> 
> Or are we talking about a God under a specific definition?
> 
> Hint: We atheist are talking about  God of a specific definition!! And it may not be your notion of God!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you have to define what God is. And people don't really agree on what God is, or what constitutes a god in general.
> 
> Because you are an atheist I am sure you know this.
> 
> Any proof of gods is based on the inversion of science. People who find "proof" start with a conclusion verses a hypothesis. They set out to prove god verses seeking to answer questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true. Are you going to ask why that's not true or keep arguing against the proofs for theism that are not based on hypotheses? You don't know what you're talking about. You're like the atheist Hollie who argues against atheists without even realizing that she's proving that the theist's arguments are true. Only you're the opposite Hollie, the theist Hollie who argues that the false arguments of atheists.
> Let me ask you this question, even if it sounds silly. Do you believe that you exist?
Click to expand...

How creepy. The goofy Pom Pom waver has become my personal stalker.


----------



## G.T.

Trying to determine if Justin is dumber than a shoe or smarter than a can opener.

Foik


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> So easy, even a kid can do it.



Yeah.  You and your kid in that video just got your butts handed to you again.    You never learn.


----------



## G.T.

Shoe it is.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Shoe it is.


Gotta' be.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
Click to expand...



Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.   

Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
> for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.
> 
> 1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
> 2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!
> 
> M.D. this is why YOU come across as
> these things that you project onto other people.
> 
> If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.
> 
> Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
> Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
> Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.
> 
> It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
> you should make sure to practice what you preach!
> 
> Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!





emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
Click to expand...


You're a hypocrite, Emily, and I see your true nature. So go ahead suck ass with the lying atheists. Tell us what you're really all about.

*Gödel did not say what you claim, did he? That's not true, is it?*

You believed GT's lies. You are naive, Emily. You have been duped, Emily. You're are a silly person, Emily., Your heard mentality material, Emily.

*Are you gong to recant your statement about Gödel, Emily. Are going to apologize to the members of this board for repeating GT's lie, Emily, helping him mislead, deceive, Emily?*


----------



## G.T.

This fool MD is a hoot. 

A self appointed authority of garglesplat.

MD Emily has more integrity in her hair clip then you so in your whole self obsessed absurd world view dude.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Emily, are you gong to recant the bullshit that you put into your mouth that came from the mouth of that idiot in the video and from GT about the Transcendental Argument. Or are you just gong to repeat whatever bullshit comes out GT's mouth or is spewed by that pathological liar, Emily?

Emily, shove your trash about the TAG where it belongs, you damn fool. I, Boss, Justin, Where Are My Keys, Abba and several others know that GT's arguments against the TAG are baloney.

Stop repeating lies, Emily.

Answer this question, Emily, how can the axioms/tautologies of formal logic be informal logical fallacies? The answer to that question tells you why nothing that laymen atheists like GT and the dimwit in the video are telling could possibly be true.


*Are you going to recant the lie repeated about Gödel, Emily?*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, ok so I challenge you on both these attacks on people
> for pointing out limits to the TAG approach.
> 
> 1. First you said that I am full of BS, when I can prove what I said is 100% applicable.
> 2. Now you are assuming GT is a simpleton for pointing out limits which actually takes being clear headed!
> 
> M.D. this is why YOU come across as
> these things that you project onto other people.
> 
> If you can't see that, then you are too full of your own self to see yourself objectively.
> 
> Empty your cup first, that you may be filled.
> Remove the beam from your own eye, that you may see more clearly to help a neighbor remove a splinter.
> Love and forgive others, as you would have forgiven unto you.
> 
> It's basic that if you want to share wisdom and truth with others,
> you should make sure to practice what you preach!
> 
> Can we get that down first, and M.D. I think the other points will follow in turn!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So easy, even a kid can do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stupid that only a simpleton would imagine that he could refute or negate the irrefutable:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 395 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That rebuttal begs the question, and also lacks the fundamentally necessary aspect which would make it axiomatic: all other possibilities disproven.
> 
> You dipped, ducked, and dodged this again - coward.
> 
> Michael David Rawlings has been lambasted all over the internetz, and will also be lambasted here for being an intellectual coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's his intellect that is the problem, but perhaps the male ego
> in being defensive of his turf.  This reminds me of dogs who bark louder or
> smear their pee pee around their territory, challenging any other male who comes near.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a hypocrite, Emily, and I see your true nature. So go ahead suck ass with the lying atheists. Tell us what you're really all about.
> 
> *Gödel did not say what you claim, did he? That's not true, is it?*
> 
> You believed GT's lies. You are naive, Emily. You have been duped, Emily. You're are a silly person, Emily., Your heard mentality material, Emily.
> 
> *Are you gong to recant your statement about Gödel, Emily. Are going to apologize to the members of this board for repeating GT's lie, Emily, helping him mislead, deceive, Emily?*
Click to expand...

That would be _herd_, not _heard_ mentality, you pompous moron.

And yes, your nonsensical TAG argument is a laughable joke that only a brain-dead fundie would hope to defend.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> *The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" *-- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
> yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.*
> 
> Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
> the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
> so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.
> 
> *2.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" *-- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....*
> 
> *3.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- *if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.*
> 
> *4.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity" -- *just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!
> 
> So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?*
> 
> *5.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- *if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!*
> 
> *6.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." *==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!*
> 
> *7.* "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." *And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'.  If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.*
> 
> *Conclusions: *
> A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> *B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
> are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!*
> 
> *Weird? That's just human.
> To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
> both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!*



*Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap,  religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks. 

Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?

Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?*


----------



## G.T.

Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.

Md Rawlings does not know what axiom means.

Md Rawlings cannot logically disprove all other theories aside from 'god' for existence 

Md Rawlings is a blowhard. The lies are in your soul, if you have one. Jackass.


----------



## G.T.

I'm gonna start a new meme. 

Rawlingsisms. 

Rawlings: when the lights are on, but nobody's home.

Rawlings: when ego centric lies transcend good faith discussion.


Rawlings: when word salad is only enough calories for a brain diet.


Rawlings: cuz, uh, the necessary conditions for cognitive logistic diplomatic structures of the mind that developmentally mature minds masturbate to in a cosmological fashion dictates what everyone already knows! I'll mark you down for the thirteen necessary conditions for purely sophomoric wannabe 16th centural philosophic speak! DUH! WHAT THESE MORONS DONT KNOW OR LIE ABOUT IS THAT THE ONTOLOGY OF MY NIPPLES IS A WOMB! DUH!


----------



## G.T.

Rawlings: god made toilets. Toilets exist. Therefore god exists!!!!!! This has been peer reviewed in academia. Hold on I'll get you a peer reviewed paper on it, be right back!!

Rawlings: cuz...ugh...we exist so therefore duh obviously we were created by something cuz ugh...if we define ugh. Oh, fuck it. I'm a paradox : (




Rawlings: hey Justin stand up for a second I need to pee


----------



## G.T.

Rawlingsism #456: hey justin bebeh, I recommend a good read by Kant: the presupposition a list guide to dogma, for beginners.

I kant. I Kant. I really Kant.

Rawlings: Justin, babe, you were right about that one thing hon! Don't they see! Watch the atheists just attack now cuz they got nothing! Those moron dumbass liar clueless evil etc etc /hypocrisy


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .




It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
Click to expand...


*You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there!  Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:  * as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does.  *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:*  as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> Amrchaos, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.  LOL!
> 
> Oh, wait!  Don't do that after all!  She finally got something right.  Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> LOL!  What boy, you dimwit?  You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right!  LOL!  Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
Click to expand...

Oops.

Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude


----------



## G.T.

You posted on that blog. Need more?

But don't apologize, narcissist. Being proven wrong right out in the open for all to see is good enough for me, "blue moon"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument Big Time and down for The Seven Things again, Part I: See Post #3945.*

Even *Amrchaos*, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.

Regarding the emboldened portion of your post: as I already explained, _yes_ and _no_, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things _*directly*_ and other things _*indirectly*_, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the _materialistic_ atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.

Logic is the _*prescriptive*_ means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is _a priori_ prescriptive.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are _a posteriori_ *descriptive* as they describe how nature works. 

Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial! 

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit*. 

With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we _a priori_ establish the normative standards of *(1)* thought and *(2)* inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, _*directly*_, then we _*should*_ (_*ought!*_) objectively apply these standards to _*what*_ (_*is!*_) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they *apparently are*: _ergo_, we _*indirectly*_ infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, _*directly*_, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the _*oughts*_ of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.

LOL!

Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that _*would be*_ universally _*descriptive in nature*_ at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.

LOL!

Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier? LOL!


----------



## G.T.

Copy.paste. robot.

No one cares.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
Click to expand...


Yeah. That's the one I told you guys about, where I researched Objectivism.  Everybody who read my posts about that on this thread knows about that one because I told you guys about that one, liar.  Obviously, I'm not counting the one I told you guys about, liar.  You won't find any others, because there aren't any others.


That's an Objectivist site, dummy.  They're Randians.  I thought you leftists didn't like Rand.  LOL!

Remember when I shared these links about the pieces I wrote as a result of that research?  Part of my research was to draw these guys out.

Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason 

Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science


Now let's get back your other lies, the lies you told that gullible twit *Emily* who repeated your lies about Gödel and the TAG, arguments you know very well I exposed to be false and discredited.

*Emily is an irresponsible lie repeater.  She repeats lies because she doesn't verify things for herself, and apparently doesn't give a damn that she helps mislead others with her careless disregard for the company she keeps, the kind vermin she takes up with.*

*Look, everybody, Emily cannot be trusted with the responsibilities  of what she's trying to sell you here.*

*This is all about money isn't it, Emily?  Your pitches are all over the place.*

*In fact, I think Emily is Foxfyre.*

Now let's talk about your other lies, GT, that you tried to deceive Justin with, tried to mislead him with, regarding the nature of logic and the laws of physics:  the nature of the laws of logic is _not_ descriptive, but *prescriptive*; the laws of physics are *descriptive*, isn't that right, liar?

You just make things up, don't you liar?

Hey, Emily, you want to talk crap about me and the God's truths?  Is that it?


----------



## G.T.

Three pinnocchios.

"I only ever posted on my own blog liar."

"Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."


 pathetic.

This meltdown is epic.



Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?



(You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)


----------



## G.T.

Also, tag has been refuted nitwit.

You dip duck dodge every relevant counterpoint. Troll.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
Click to expand...

By the way, I recommend this read for anyone who doesnt already know what a big joke this guy is. Its every bit of awesome.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Three pinnocchios.
> 
> "I only ever posted on my own blog liar."
> 
> "Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."
> 
> 
> pathetic.
> 
> This meltdown is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?
> 
> 
> 
> (You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)



You are a lying.  He talked to you and me about that one on this thread.  That's how you found that one.  We already knew about that one.  Anyone here can find those posts.  Obviously, he wasn't that one.  I believe him.  Where are these other links?  Man, you are one sick dude.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three pinnocchios.
> 
> "I only ever posted on my own blog liar."
> 
> "Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."
> 
> 
> pathetic.
> 
> This meltdown is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?
> 
> 
> 
> (You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying.  He talked to you and me about that one on this thread.  That's how you found that one.  We already knew about that one.  Man, you are one sick dude.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he didn't pipsqueak.

I said he posted on the net besides his blog.


HE must a been the one who forgot.

Your hero is a massive pussy.

BTW - theres more. But I wanna see how.many time you can call me liar.before I post them and you and your hero are shamed as the frauds you are.

Go ahead.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Rawlingsism #456: hey justin bebeh, I recommend a good read by Kant: the presupposition a list guide to dogma, for beginners.
> 
> I kant. I Kant. I really Kant.
> 
> Rawlings: Justin, babe, you were right about that one thing hon! Don't they see! Watch the atheists just attack now cuz they got nothing! Those moron dumbass liar clueless evil etc etc /hypocrisy



So you don't really have an argument?


----------



## G.T.

Sure I do. 

You're too pussy to face it head on.

God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:

Knowledge is a creation.
All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.


Can ya Lil Justin?

No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales 


Carry on, cowards


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I didn't say that he didn't pipsqueak.
> 
> I said he posted on the net besides his blog.
> 
> 
> HE must a been the one who forgot.
> 
> Your hero is a massive pussy.
> 
> BTW - theres more. But I wanna see how.many time you can call me liar.before I post them and you and your hero are shamed as the frauds you are.
> 
> Go ahead.




That's right.  He did tell us about that one.  There's the truth because now you know your caught.  So, why would he count the one he told you about?  He knows that you and me know about that one.  You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs.  You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie.  How can Emily be so stupid?  Where are all those other links?  You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three pinnocchios.
> 
> "I only ever posted on my own blog liar."
> 
> "Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."
> 
> 
> pathetic.
> 
> This meltdown is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?
> 
> 
> 
> (You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying.  He talked to you and me about that one on this thread.  That's how you found that one.  We already knew about that one.  Man, you are one sick dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that he didn't pipsqueak.
> 
> I said he posted on the net besides his blog.
> 
> 
> HE must a been the one who forgot.
> 
> Your hero is a massive pussy.
> 
> BTW - theres more. But I wanna see how.many time you can call me liar.before I post them and you and your hero are shamed as the frauds you are.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would he count the one he told you about?  He knows that you and me know about that one.  You said that he had posted all lots of other blogs.  You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie.  How can Emily be so stupid?
Click to expand...

Umm....he is the one who challenged me that he ONLY ever posted on HIS OWN BLOG.

retard.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards



Where are the other links?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three pinnocchios.
> 
> "I only ever posted on my own blog liar."
> 
> "Oh, that other one doesn't count liar ."
> 
> 
> pathetic.
> 
> This meltdown is epic.
> 
> 
> 
> Want me to post more, or you want a chance to apologize first?
> 
> 
> 
> (You know there IS more, right dumb dumb?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a lying.  He talked to you and me about that one on this thread.  That's how you found that one.  We already knew about that one.  Man, you are one sick dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say that he didn't pipsqueak.
> 
> I said he posted on the net besides his blog.
> 
> 
> HE must a been the one who forgot.
> 
> Your hero is a massive pussy.
> 
> BTW - theres more. But I wanna see how.many time you can call me liar.before I post them and you and your hero are shamed as the frauds you are.
> 
> Go ahead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would he count the one he told you about?  He knows that you and me know about that one.  You said that he had posted all lots of other blogs.  You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie.  How can Emily be so stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm....he is the one who challenged me that he ONLY ever posted on HIS OWN BLOG.
> 
> retard.
Click to expand...


Where are the other links?


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The ranting of the religiously insane LOL!
> 
> Sorry dear, but your pointless rattling does not conceal your inability to rescue your thoroughly discredited attempts to promote your baseless claims, LOL!
> 
> You should consider trolling other web forums, LOL, where you're not already identified as a troll, LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
Click to expand...

I can't stop laughing at this article, it fucking oozes awesome


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the other links?
Click to expand...

Tell me they don't exist first so I can show everyone the sniveling little bitch that you are.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Umm....he is the one who challenged me that he ONLY ever posted on HIS OWN BLOG.
> 
> retard.



He told you and about that one.  Where are the other links?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't stop laughing at this article, it fucking oozes awesome
Click to expand...


He told you and about that one.  Where are the other links?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't stop laughing at this article, it fucking oozes awesome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told you and about that one.  Where are the other links?
Click to expand...

Its a great read where he gets teeth kicked in. Lol AWESOME.



Justin tell me that no more exist. Then I'll post them for you.

First tell me. Cmon tough nuts.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards


This post is awarded the presupper 3d.

Because the coward presupper necessarily dipped, ducked and dodged it and cannot refute it.


----------



## Justin Davis

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*

I know Rawlings doesn't lie.  Where are the other links?

*GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards
> 
> 
> 
> This post is awarded the presupper 3d.
> 
> Because the coward presupper necessarily dipped, ducked and dodged it and cannot refute it.
Click to expand...


Busted lying again.  Shut up, punk.  You're the liar and the coward.  Mr.  Straw Man.

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*

*GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> I know Rawlings doesn't lie.  Where are the other links?
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.


"why would he count that one"




You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.



Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards
> 
> 
> 
> This post is awarded the presupper 3d.
> 
> Because the coward presupper necessarily dipped, ducked and dodged it and cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Busted lying again.  Shut up, punk.  You're the liar and the coward.  Mr.  Straw Man.
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.
Click to expand...

Presupper in three d for everyone to see. Dipduckdodge the refutation of the childish tag.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Its a great read where he gets teeth kicked in. Lol AWESOME.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin tell me that no more exist. Then I'll post them for you.
> 
> First tell me. Cmon tough nuts.



That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, *why would he count the one he told you about?* *He knows that you and me know about that one*. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.

 I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?*


*GT is the missing links. I like that meme.*


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> I know Rawlings doesn't lie.  Where are the other links?
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.
> 
> 
> 
> "why would he count that one"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.
Click to expand...


That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, *why would he count the one he told you about?* *He knows that you and me know about that one*. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*

* I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?*


*GT is the missing links. I like that meme.*


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.
> 
> You're too pussy to face it head on.
> 
> God created knowledge can't be an axiom until your prove:
> 
> Knowledge is a creation.
> All other possibilities for origins are absolutely false.
> 
> 
> Can ya Lil Justin?
> 
> No, no you can't. Which is why you need to pretend you don't know what axiom means and continue your snake oil sales
> 
> 
> Carry on, cowards
> 
> 
> 
> This post is awarded the presupper 3d.
> 
> Because the coward presupper necessarily dipped, ducked and dodged it and cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Busted lying again.  Shut up, punk.  You're the liar and the coward.  Mr.  Straw Man.
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presupper in three d for everyone to see. Dipduckdodge the refutation of the childish tag.
Click to expand...



*GT is the missing links. *


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> I know Rawlings doesn't lie.  Where are the other links?
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.
> 
> 
> 
> "why would he count that one"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.
Click to expand...



*GT is the missing links. *


----------



## Justin Davis

That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*

I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?

*GT is the missing links.* I like that meme.


----------



## G.T.

Is it a mystery that you queens are the same woman do you think, justin?

Obsessive copy pasting the same terribly written and horribly childish posts is yet another trait you snake oil salesmen share.

Hold hands?


----------



## Justin Davis

Who is the missing links?

*GT is the missing links.*


----------



## Justin Davis

Who is the missing links?

*GT is the missing links.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out blue moon Michael David Justin Rawlings Davis is considered a troll in many parts of the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a genuine fraud who has a history of trolling blogs and spreading your own special brand of twisted, hateful, christian fundamentalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  Show us the links where I've posted on other blogs but my own.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Incinerating Presuppositionalism Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. That's the one I told you guys about, where I researched Objectivism.  Everybody who read my posts about that on this thread knows about that one because I told you guys about that one, liar.  Obviously, I'm not counting the one I told you guys about, liar.  You won't find any others, because there aren't any others.
> 
> 
> That's an Objectivist site, dummy.  They're Randians.  I thought you leftists didn't like Rand.  LOL!
> 
> Remember when I shared these links about the pieces I wrote as a result of that research?  Part of my research was to draw these guys out.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Objectivism The Uninspired Religion of Reason
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science
> 
> 
> Now let's get back your other lies, the lies you told that gullible twit *Emily* who repeated your lies about Gödel and the TAG, arguments you know very well I exposed to be false and discredited.
> 
> *Emily is an irresponsible lie repeater.  She repeats lies because she doesn't verify things for herself, and apparently doesn't give a damn that she helps mislead others with her careless disregard for the company she keeps, the kind vermin she takes up with.*
> 
> *Look, everybody, Emily cannot be trusted with the responsibilities  of what she's trying to sell you here.*
> 
> *This is all about money isn't it, Emily?  Your pitches are all over the place.*
> 
> *In fact, I think Emily is Foxfyre.*
> 
> Now let's talk about your other lies, GT, that you tried to deceive Justin with, tried to mislead him with, regarding the nature of logic and the laws of physics:  the nature of the laws of logic is _not_ descriptive, but *prescriptive*; the laws of physics are *descriptive*, isn't that right, liar?
> 
> You just make things up, don't you liar?
> 
> Hey, Emily, you want to talk crap about me and the God's truths?  Is that it?
Click to expand...

So, now you're reduced to furthering conspiracy theories?

Pathetic!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you tell the truth because now you know you're caught. So, why would he count the one he told you about? He knows that you and me know about that one. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> I know Rawlings doesn't lie.  Where are the other links?
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*  I like that meme.
> 
> 
> 
> "why would he count that one"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are like five year olds, I can't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> Justin: last chance. If you want more links - first deny they exist. Then I'll post them. Mmkay? Last call bud I don't have all night for you to weasel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right. He did tell us about that one. Now you're telling the truth because now you know you're caught. So, *why would he count the one he told you about?* *He knows that you and me know about that one*. * You said that he had posted on lots of other blogs*. You are one sick dude. Almost everything you post is a lie. How can Emily be so stupid? Where are all those other links? * You and that other liar Hollie said they were all over the Internet.*
> 
> * I know Rawlings doesn't lie. Where are the other links?*
> 
> 
> *GT is the missing links. I like that meme.*
Click to expand...

Flailing your Pom Poms is so cute.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and for _The Seven Things_ again, Part I: See Post #3945.

Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.

Regarding the emboldened portion of your post*:* as I already explained, _yes_ and _no_, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things *directly* and other things *indirectly*, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the *materialistic* atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.

Logic is the *prescriptive* means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is _a priori_ prescriptive.

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are _a posteriori_ descriptive as they describe how nature works.

Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!

*Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit. *

With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we _a priori_ establish the normative standards of *(1)* thought and *(2)* inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, *directly*, then we *should* (*ought!*) objectively apply these standards to *what* (*is!*) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they *apparently are:* _ergo_, we *indirectly* infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, *directly*, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.

* Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*

Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the *oughts *of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.
* 
*
Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that _*would be*_ universally _*descriptive in nature*_ at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.


Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and for _The Seven Things_ again, Part I: See Post #3945.
> 
> Even Amrchaos, our neighborhood solipsist, should be able to appreciate this one, in spite of the confusion of his conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy with the rational-empirical dichotomy and, consequently, is earlier misinterpretations of my posts.
> 
> Regarding the emboldened portion of your post*:* as I already explained, _yes_ and _no_, for they are the means by which we define and describe some things *directly* and other things *indirectly*, hence, not in the way in which your expression would suggest.
> 
> *Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*
> 
> This tells me you don't really understand the point that the guy in the video from whom you obviously got your notion, albeit, as mangled, is trying to make! The point the guy in the video is trying to make, which doesn't logically hold up, by the way, is a standard in the *materialistic* atheist's arsenal used to attack the TAG. It's nothing new to me. It's old news.
> 
> Logic is the *prescriptive* means by which we properly delineate the various properties and processes of existents in order to define and describe how they are, beginning with the normative standards of thought and inference/extrapolation. Hence, the fundamental nature of logic is _a priori_ prescriptive.
> 
> *Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*
> 
> The fundamental nature of the physical laws of nature are _a posteriori_ descriptive as they describe how nature works.
> 
> Logic, at the human level, does not directly describe the realities (properties and processes) of nature! Logic is immaterial!
> 
> *Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit. *
> 
> With the rational delineations of logic within our minds, we _a priori_ establish the normative standards of *(1)* thought and *(2)* inference/extrapolation for justified true belief/knowledge, *directly*, then we *should* (*ought!*) objectively apply these standards to *what* (*is!*) the apparent reality of the various properties and processes of the existents outside our minds, in order to define and describe how they *apparently are:* _ergo_, we *indirectly* infer/extrapolate the physical laws of nature which are what actually describes, *directly*, the properties and processes of nature . . . or so we believe based on the assumption that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliably synchronized with the apparent actualities of the properties and processes of the empirical world of being outside our minds.
> 
> * Human consciousness does not have primacy over existence, which is what your assertion would stupidly suggest, Roger Rabbit.*
> 
> Or are you suggesting that we are not bound to the *oughts *of logic's prescriptive/normative nature and the standards thereof and can just describe reality any damn way we please as if human consciousness had primacy over existence? No. I don't think that's what you really want to say about the laws of logic at the prescriptive level of human apprehension at all.
> *
> LOL!
> *
> Or maybe, just maybe, you're conscious of a the logic that _*would be*_ universally _*descriptive in nature*_ at a transcendent level of being above it all, you know, for a Mind Whose consciousness would have primacy over all of existence.
> *
> LOL!*
> 
> Oops. Is that what you're thinking? Did you make a Freudian solip like Mr. Solipsist did earlier? LOL!


This is the nonsense you have cut and pasted multiple times. 

How sad for you that you're reduced to just parroting the same slogans and cliches'


----------



## G.T.

As we notice justin dip duck dodges directly denying other links exist, after I offered to provide them once he does so.

I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed bitch to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Sweet! GT puts himself down for the Transcendental Argument again and for The Seven Things again, Part II: See Post #3945.*


GT, do you see the point the guy in the video is trying to make yet? Do you see the problem with the attempt to overthrow the TAG yet?

No, of course not.

The point the guy in the video is trying to make about the axioms of human cognition, in this case, the purported actualities of God's existence and/or the universality of logic _according to_ "the testimony" of the imperatives of organic logic, is that because logic and the axioms thereof are necessarily *prescriptive/normative in nature*, they do _not_ directly describe reality, YOU THICK-HEADED DUNCE!

Hence, he concludes that they are _not_ necessarily universal truths and do _not_ necessarily hold/apply universally as the TAG purports. Hence, the TAG allegedly fails.

And all the sheep, well, except for the super duper sheep among them, like GT, who don't really grasp the argument their HERO is making, go "bah bah bah." Oh, wait a minute! GT goes "bah bah bah." just the same.


Once again, your HERO's argument necessarily concedes the fact that these axioms at the very least do hold in organic logic.

However, his is an academic objection in nature premised on the informal standards of logical fallacy: the axioms are not logical necessities of justified true belief/knowledge as the TAG purports . . . . but only logical possibilities/hypotheticals . . . because, supposedly, they are arguments _from ignorance/beg the question_.

(Oh, by the way, Amrchaos, stop complaining about the length of some of my posts. It's easy to make mindless, bald declarations about things nitwits never think through. It's quite another thing to entangle falsehoods, especially when I have to spell things out, think for others, you know, since others prefer mindless, bald declarations to thinking things out for themselves.)


But:

We do not impose the fallacies of _informal logic_ on the primary axioms/tautologies of human cognition . . . because the latter _are_ the logical necessities of _formal logic_ that do not go away regardless of what labels morons slap on them; we only apply the fallacies of _informal logic_ to (1) the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility apparent to human cognition when they are fallaciously/mistakenly asserted as if they were (2) logical necessities of human cognition (you know, because they're _not_ actually the latter at all, but the former, i.e., the _secondary_ propositions of logical possibility).

If it were sensible to impose the fallacies of _informal logic_ on the primary axioms/tautologies of _formal logic_, as morons like GT and his HERO in the video would have it, all of the primary axioms/tautologies of _formal logic_ would be fallacies, including axioms that never go away like *2 + 2 = 4*.​
(And don’t give me any of QW’s barking madness that the principle of identity does not by necessity foundationally and, therefore, universally apply in all forms of logic, which is what he falsely and stupidly implied, including in constructive logic, which merely suspends, as an operation of the principle of identity, _the law of the excluded middle_ and _double negation elimination_ for analytic purposes.)

Ah! But what’s the real irony in all of this?

_Drum roll
_
GT—inadvertently, unwittingly, via a Freudian slip —apprehends that logic must ultimately apply to all of reality _descriptively_, albeit, _above_ the level of human cognition . . . otherwise our assumption that the physical laws of nature are reliably synchronized with organic logic renders everything we think we know about the empirical world beyond is . . . well, problematical to say the least.

Everything the delineations of the laws of organic logic compel us to believe is that there must ultimately be an all-encompassing Agent of Logic (for Whom the laws of logic are _not_ merely prescriptive, _but_ descriptive, as One Whose consciousness has primacy over all of existence) directing traffic from above the level of the cosmological order’s existence, the Agent of Logic Who makes sure that the logic He gave us, which is His own logic, lines up with the logic He gave to the physical laws of nature, which is also His own logic!

GT, stamp *#6 *of _The Sevens Things_ on your forehead. Hunt down the idiot in that video and stamp it on his too.

Any questions?


----------



## G.T.

Copy paste queen dodges again!

Axiom =\= non universally accepted 
Other possibilities not disproven means =\= axiom.

Dip duck dodge, dance suckkkkas!!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> As we notice justin dip duck dodges directly denying other links exist, after I offered to provide them once he does so.
> 
> I won't let my effort go in vein. First I need the mealy mouthed bitch to sack up and say they don't exist. We will see who the liar is. I'll be sigging it right after you eat crow too Lil guy.



Any questions?


----------



## G.T.

Another dodge. Pity you all don't have the balls.

Anyhoo, nother W for the Captain.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Who is the missing links?
> 
> *GT is the missing links.*



Justin, give it a rest, okay.  Let it go.  GT is a liar.  We know that.  Everyone whose had dealings with GT knows he's a liar.  Hoillie's pathological liar too, and now I know Emily to an utter nitwit. 

Hey, Emily, I got oceanfront property for sale in Arizona!  What do I hear for the first bid?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> I'm gonna start a new meme.
> 
> Rawlingsisms.
> 
> Rawlings: when the lights are on, but nobody's home.
> 
> Rawlings: when ego centric lies transcend good faith discussion.
> 
> 
> Rawlings: when word salad is only enough calories for a brain diet.
> 
> 
> Rawlings: cuz, uh, the necessary conditions for cognitive logistic diplomatic structures of the mind that developmentally mature minds masturbate to in a cosmological fashion dictates what everyone already knows! I'll mark you down for the thirteen necessary conditions for purely sophomoric wannabe 16th centural philosophic speak! DUH! WHAT THESE MORONS DONT KNOW OR LIE ABOUT IS THAT THE ONTOLOGY OF MY NIPPLES IS A WOMB! DUH!




GTLINKS.  There's your meme.


----------



## G.T.

Psychos, the two/one of you. Straight up psycho.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers



Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature: *as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:* as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

*Amrchaos*, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!




Hollie said:


> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.



LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.


----------



## G.T.

Fellow theists in this very thread who said at one point or another they were tired of md's shit:

Breezewood
Boss
Q.w.
Emily

Armchaos has you on ignore
Gt has you dodging the refutation of tag like you're paid to do it.

Holly enjoys poking you retards with a stick and giggling in your face when you copy paste obsessively in return.




Burn those bridges m.d. snake oil. Watch them all burn as you continue to reveal to everyone whom encounters you the gigantic scumbag of a human you are.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
Click to expand...


No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.

To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.

It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly! 

Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Fellow theists in this very thread who said at one point or another they were tired of md's shit:
> 
> Breezewood
> Boss
> Q.w.
> Emily
> 
> Armchaos has you on ignore
> Gt has you dodging the refutation of tag like you're paid to do it.
> 
> Holly enjoys poking you retards with a stick and giggling in your face when you copy paste obsessively in return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burn those bridges m.d. snake oil. Watch them all burn as you continue to reveal to everyone whom encounters you the gigantic scumbag of a human you are.



Yeah.  It's all snake oil.  It's always this or that, but it's never an argument that you punks make. 

Oh, so now QW wasn't lying to all of us? That's not what you said before.  We both know his computer argument was utter bullshit, crackpottery. That’s back when you were still making some sense. Ah! But then you went all stupid when the implications hit you, didn't you.

Pathetic.

What a balless coward you are.

The little girl ran from the truth and has been running ever since.

I don't heard think. Does is look like I give a damn what others think?

What a puss. Is that your default? Are you another lemming?

That's a rhetorical.  Of course you are.

Appeal to the authority of liars and hypocrites and morons who had their asses handed to them, eh?

Is that it, limpwrist?

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

What a womanish little dink you are. Can't stand on your own two feet with any real arguments, just lies and straw men . . . and if that doesn't work appeal to the authority of liars and morons who had their asses handed to them.

Pathetic.

You know damn well I drove QW's ass off this thread.  Put that lying hypocrite Foxfyre on the list too.

None of you punks have refuted anything I've argued.  It's always personal crap, but no real arguments, except for Boss.    Boss is not of that ilk.  Boss always makes real arguments from a sincere belief. Whether he's pissed at me or not.  I don't care.  He has my respect.  He makes real arguments. 

The rest of you are phonies, liars, know-nothings, closed-minded, fanatical twits. 

Real men don't give a damn. Boss is a real man. Justin's a real man.  WAMKeys is a real man.  And there were plenty others. 

You act like a woman. 

I notice that the likes of you and Hollie and Emily and Foxfyre and Amrchaos and that other idiot who went on about mountains out of "no hills at all": you all sucked ass with each other . . . not with arguments, but with little girl lies and gossip and bald declarations never backed by anything but more bald declarations that mysteriously never address the actual essence of my arguments . . . and, "Oh, isn't he an asshole?" LOL!

What a bunch suck asses.

The one thing I'll give QW despite the sneak that he is, at least he's his own sneak.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" *-- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
> yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.*
> 
> Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
> the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
> so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.
> 
> *2.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" *-- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....*
> 
> *3.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- *if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.*
> 
> *4.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity" -- *just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!
> 
> So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?*
> 
> *5.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- *if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!*
> 
> *6.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." *==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!*
> 
> *7.* "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." *And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'.  If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.*
> 
> *Conclusions: *
> A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> *B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
> are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!*
> 
> *Weird? That's just human.
> To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
> both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap,  religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks.
> 
> Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?
> 
> Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?*
Click to expand...


What lies are you talking about?

1. I said that your TAG approach works for those it works for.
And it doesn't work for those it doesn't work for.
That is true, you can see here,
the people who agree that it has validity already believe in a God of some form
and so we relate to what you are saying or trying to say.
The people who DO NOT relate to or agree/believe
do NOT relate to your TAG approach and have stated so clearly!

What is untrue about that?

2. It is common sense that people do not have infinite knowledge
and we could be wrong. that is not a lie, that is just a natural fact
that human perception and knowledge is finite.

What are you interpreting as lying?

Sorry if we are communicating so badly
that I come across as lying to you.

A. *Unlike liars who are trying to deny, suppress or manipulate the truth,
my only intent here is to RESOLVE conflicts so ALL people here
including you and me AGREE on what is true and consistent!

So this "lying" business is the exact OPPOSITE of my intent.*

B. I am willing to correct whatever came across wrong as lying
because anything false or inconsistent is the opposite of my intent.
Sorry this wasn't clear, to the point where you question
if not attack the integrity of my intent when I have done
nothing but DEFEND yours when others attacked you.
Now I question your integrity if you go so far as to question mine
when I did nothing but defend you. WTF?

C. M.D. Rawlings I think you must have forgiveness issues
to project this wildly off base as to accuse me of lying?

Usually only people who are "lying to themselves"
would EVER accuse me of such a thing. But I don't think
that applies toyou, I think your problem is you don't
trust or forgive people so you are projecting onto them as you just did to me.

My guess is you have just implicated yourself as being
in denial about something, I"m not sure what.

If you are not willing to resolve all issues, that is your projection,
your defensiveness because of some unresolved issue on your side of the fence.

I AM WILLING to resolve the points where you find fault with me.

Please clarify where I miscommunicated so badly as to
be attacked by you as "lying" and I am willing to correct my faults.

Sorry I cannot say that about you.
I saw that you made efforts to make amends with Boss when you went a big overboard,
but to accuse me of lying is WAY beyond that.

So I am puzzled where the [heck] that came from.
I really do not understand that, so please enlighten me by clarifying.

I would like to resolve the issues because I have absolutely
NOTHING to gain by lying here, but am trying to get to the truth
behind each person's position so we can reconcile given our differences that won't change.

The only way this process works is by complete TRANSPARENCY
so how the heck I came across as lying is completely baffling to me.

Please explain and I am glad to correct the errors that caused
this misperception and misunderstanding of my intent!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Copy.paste. robot.
> 
> No one cares.



The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter,  little girl. Grow up!  Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.



Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass  with you in high school too?  The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along?  You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon.  Were you a valley girl? LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> What lies are you talking about?



I'm talking about Gödel for starters.  Did I stutter?

This is what you wrote:  "GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!

G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*Gödel's incompleteness theorems* demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! *Gödel's incompleteness theorems *do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true *within* their  individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true *outside* the proofs of the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers *within* their individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!
G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Kurt G del s Ontological Argument
Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE

*What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel  never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."* *Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God. *

Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Emily writes*:

*[1]* Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

*[2]* GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.​
Dear Lord! Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle! He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and  for his mathematically revolutionary incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!

*The first statement is confused.* The cosmological order and its constituents _are_ the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.

*The second statement is totally false and irresponsible.* Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. *He never in his life asserted any such thing as you claim.* And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all! But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that.

_Theoretically_, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was _theoretically_ possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.

We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.

GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lies are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Gödel for starters.  Did I stutter?
> 
> This is what you wrote:  "GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."
> 
> Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.
> 
> You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!
> 
> G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gödel's incompleteness theorems* demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! *Gödel's incompleteness theorems *do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true *within* there individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true *outside* the proofs of the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.
> 
> The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers *within* there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!
> 
> 
> Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!
> G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Kurt G del s Ontological Argument
> Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> *What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel has never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."* *Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God. *
> 
> Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hi MD thanks for explaining.
A. It seems you are taking Godel literally while I was going with this more liberal interpretation applying to a larger context.

If you disagree with this interpretation we can drop it and just stick to the literal Godel to prevent conflict
and false accusations of my as lying which were completely unfounded. I am sorry you do not feel you owe any such apology, but expect other people to apologize to you if they were to do the same.

You do not seem to practice the tenets of Christianity but expect people to give you credit and respect
though  you show none of the same for others unless backed into it as you did for Boss. Very problematic
and I don't think it is fair at all to blame others for rejecting you when you come across as so false and unjust.

Here is the broader interpretation I was using it for:
*With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*
Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle

I happen to like how this writer explained this very briefly.

If you prefer YOUR way of saying it, you ALSO referred to
1. God as the source of knowledge
2. science cannot prove anything but is verifying or falsifying

So if you do not agree with using Godel to say these same things,
but only want YOUR way, that is fine. but that is not fair to accuse me of lying
when I am actually defending your points but trying to explain them in different ways or contexts.

B. Without Godel I can still make the same arguments:
Since humans are finite in our perception, knowledge, understanding
and language/ability to communicate
we can never fully express much less prove the whole of God.

We can represent God, and agree what we mean.

I don't need Godel to express that, and sorry if this offended you somehow.

I wish you would take the time to apologize when you offend people.
I had no intent of lying or saying anything offensive,
and you do this constantly, accusing me and also insulting other people here.

And you have yet to acknowledge or apologize.
What does that say about you, and how can you wonder
why people reject theists like you who come across as arrogant assholes?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter,  little girl. Grow up!  Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.
> 
> Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass  with you in high school too?  The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along?  You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon.  Were you a valley girl? LOL!



^^^^ WHAT THE FFFF IS THIS? ^^^

Are you trolling or what?

Why would you post such unfounded remarks out of nowhere trying to attack me personally
and expect to be taken seriously for your TAG arguments, really?

I take mediation and consensus building very seriously.

Why are you attacking me for this?
If you are a fellow Christian believer as you claim,
I rebuke you and ask that you and I resolve whatever issue you have from the past
you are projecting here on me.  This is unbelievable coming from a fellow believer.

Where did this come from and where do you expect it to lead?

Are you seeking to reconcile in the spirit of truth, or what are you trying
to accomplish by attacking me this way? M.D.? Are you there
or did someone else hijack your computer or your brain and fart this out?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Emily writes*:
> 
> *[1]* Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.
> 
> *[2]* GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.​
> Dear Lord! Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle! He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and  for his mathematically revolutionary incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!
> 
> *The first statement is confused.* The cosmological order and its constituents _are_ the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.
> 
> *The second statement is totally false and irresponsible.* Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. *He never in his life asserted any such thing as you claim.* And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all! But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God one way or the other, directly, except in the sense that the incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, rational proof for that.
> 
> _Theoretically_, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.
> 
> Until Gödel, we believed it was _theoretically_ possible to achieve a unified theory for the various numerical systems of the infinite number line that would universally hold true for all numbers. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on ones for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively descriptive-level perspective.
> 
> Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20-20 vision, we apprehend that we should have realized this in terms of numerical systems from the jump because they are of a purely immaterial/rational nature.
> 
> We just hadn't made the connection between the numerical construct of infinity and the transcendental construct of infinity before.
> 
> GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH



Hi M.D. Rawlings
Please see msg above this one where I agree we can drop the
interpretation of Godel you reject.

On that note, did you see my post where I listed several links to
math proofs of Godel's modal approach using computers to run the calculations:
Scientists Prove God Exists Austrian Researchers Use Advanced Math Based Modal Logic

M.D. if you AGREE that Godel's approach already proves God
then why are you using TAG?

If we agree with Godel, why not just promote that?

BTW
1. My point still stands that, in the same way you pointed out
science does not PROVE but just verifies and falsifies,
this is what I mean by man's knowledge is finite

Since God represents things on an infinite level beyond that,
that is what I mean. We can agree how to represent God
as you do with TAG, but this remains faith based
from the perspective of those who want to use Science.

2. I still hold that forgiveness and healing of mind/body and relationships
is the key to establishing the proof, understanding and/or consensus on God

3. I note that it is ironic that so many Christians and theists like you 
cannot forgive others and fail to practice the very Christianity being pushed,
and thus end up teaching forgiveness indirectly
because so many people have to learn patience and forgiveness
to deal with people like you who come across as hypocrite assholes,
blaming others for the very faults you commit yourself in attacking and insulting others without apologizing.

I wish all people would teach by setting better examples of 
the very faith and principles claimed to be the right way,
but apparently if this is the way you operate
you teach forgiveness by people having to forgive you for your faults.

I think that is a terrible way to teach Christianity
by forcing people to forgive instead of attacking you back
the way you harass and abuse others.  What a  backwards
way to teach people to be the bigger person. Whatever!


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
Click to expand...


Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent. 

I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
Click to expand...




> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.




that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -







it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.

the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  *



*Thou doth project too much methinks?*

M.D. where do you get off accusing people of being "liars"
when conflicts arise between people. That doesn't mean people are trying to LIE.

The fact that Hollie and GT are still here trying to establish some sense
speaks volumes that they care about the truth and are trying to make
and defend points in good faith! Why do you not see this in your fellow peers?

Are you trying to resolve issues to establish truth between people here?
Or you" giving up and chasing away" your audience by attacking and insulting people?
What is your motive for saying things like this that aren't helping anything?

Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
personally attack and insult others? 

Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
I don't understand this about you, please explain.
Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to 
do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.
> 
> It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly!
> 
> Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said? 

*God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.*

It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality. 

God created logic just as God created *every aspect* of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> .



Dear BreezeWood:
I agree there is something amiss or missing from MD's overall approach.
Both Boss and MD do allow their personal egos or issues to color what and how they say some things.

Given where you are coming from regarding the Almighty
how would you describe or define the Almighty
to follow the same basic steps or pattern that MD is using with TAG.

1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1

Aren't you basically following this when you
point out that Boss and M.D. definition or approach to God
is lacking and conflicting in some ways?

Because it is running contrary to the Almighty as you point out?
So BreezeWood how would you set up the same TAG steps
to make your above argument about Boss and MD running into conflicts.

Is this close:
1. The Almighty is ______________
2. Any lesser or limited definition or approach to God
is going to be biased by someone's personal ego or "idolatry"
in representing God in a way that suits them and is not fully the Almighty in #1
3 . So this lesser approach is going to run into conflicts.

So BreezeWood if MD's TAG approach was adapted in some way as the above sample,
can't this be used to make the very statement you just pointed out
that some idolatry was biasing the views of God and making this conflict with
how the Almighty is consistently defined or represented by nature?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
> If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
> personally attack and insult others?
> 
> Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
> I don't understand this about you, please explain.
> Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
> trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
> do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???



*AMEN EMILY! *

I'm not sure what the problem is with either Rawlings or Justin, they seem to be the same person. Teaming up to simply reject all other views but their own, and refusing to even accept the views of people who believe in God like they do. They remind me of Jehova's Witness people. Except JWs don't rudely insult and denigrate like they do.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.
> 
> It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly!
> 
> Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?
> 
> *God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.*
> 
> It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.
> 
> God created logic just as God created *every aspect* of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.
Click to expand...

Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments. 

What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Copy.paste. robot.
> 
> No one cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The opinion of liars, hypocrites, morons don't matter,  little girl. Grow up!  Real men don't care about the opinions of liars, hypocrites and morons.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me something, little girl, was it all about kissy kissy ass  with you in high school too?  The lowest common denominator, to go along to get along?  You smell like one those characters in teen flicks, like, you know and gag me with a spoon.  Were you a valley girl? LOL!
Click to expand...

This level of anger has me dying laughing for some reason.

I see you broke character from typing like a phony 1600's philosopher using language nobody really uses(& unsuccessfully, to boot) to now typing like a nut-bag middle school bully. Freudian slip?

Look, I never would have been any less than respectful to you nor your alter more angry ego Justin had y'all not flung the first insults but guess what? You're too socially awkward to control yourself and so you get what you deserve.

And back on topic, accusing you TAG proponents of redefining what an axiom is is not 'lying.' Its holding your feet to the fire.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.
> 
> It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly!
> 
> Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?
> 
> *God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.*
> 
> It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.
> 
> God created logic just as God created *every aspect* of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments.
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.
Click to expand...


Shut up, troll bitch.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now. 

God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.

Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.  

What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.

You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself. 

That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> I agree there is something amiss or missing from MD's overall approach.
> Both Boss and MD do allow their personal egos or issues to color what and how they say some things.
> 
> Given where you are coming from regarding the Almighty
> how would you describe or define the Almighty
> to follow the same basic steps or pattern that MD is using with TAG.
> 
> 1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
> 2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
> runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1
> 
> Aren't you basically following this when you
> point out that Boss and M.D. definition or approach to God
> is lacking and conflicting in some ways?
> 
> Because it is running contrary to the Almighty as you point out?
> So BreezeWood how would you set up the same TAG steps
> to make your above argument about Boss and MD running into conflicts.
> 
> Is this close:
> 1. The Almighty is ______________
> 2. Any lesser or limited definition or approach to God
> is going to be biased by someone's personal ego or "idolatry"
> in representing God in a way that suits them and is not fully the Almighty in #1
> 3 . So this lesser approach is going to run into conflicts.
> 
> So BreezeWood if MD's TAG approach was adapted in some way as the above sample,
> can't this be used to make the very statement you just pointed out
> that some idolatry was biasing the views of God and making this conflict with
> how the Almighty is consistently defined or represented by nature?
Click to expand...


Emily
You know, you are right there when you made these statements


"1. defining or agreeing God or the Almighty is ________________
2. so any other statement or notion about God or the Almighty
runs into a contradiction by conflicting with #1"

I think that is the main source of problems in this discussion.  #1 is not being agreed upon.  Posters are mistakenly imposing notion's of what God is upon other posters and that tends to create  "strawmen arguments". We should endeavor to avoid that by asking for clarity(if clarity is possible!)

I wouldn't talk about "personal ego's" or "idoltry" because those terms  carries a negative connotation and besides, who to say someones objection to what God is(from 1) is not verifiably true?

So, to ease conflicts--There has to exist some clear hypothetical concept of what God actually is before one can talk about God.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.
> 
> It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly!
> 
> Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?
> 
> *God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.*
> 
> It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.
> 
> God created logic just as God created *every aspect* of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments.
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, troll bitch.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Is that what jeebus would do?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
Click to expand...


God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" *-- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
> yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.*
> 
> Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
> the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
> so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.
> 
> *2.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" *-- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....*
> 
> *3.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- *if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.*
> 
> *4.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity" -- *just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!
> 
> So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?*
> 
> *5.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- *if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!*
> 
> *6.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." *==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!*
> 
> *7.* "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." *And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'.  If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.*
> 
> *Conclusions: *
> A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> *B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
> are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!*
> 
> *Weird? That's just human.
> To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
> both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap,  religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks.
> 
> Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?
> 
> Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies are you talking about?
> 
> 1. I said that your TAG approach works for those it works for.
> And it doesn't work for those it doesn't work for.
> That is true, you can see here,
> the people who agree that it has validity already believe in a God of some form
> and so we relate to what you are saying or trying to say.
> The people who DO NOT relate to or agree/believe
> do NOT relate to your TAG approach and have stated so clearly!
> 
> What is untrue about that?
> 
> 2. It is common sense that people do not have infinite knowledge
> and we could be wrong. that is not a lie, that is just a natural fact
> that human perception and knowledge is finite.
> 
> What are you interpreting as lying?
> 
> Sorry if we are communicating so badly
> that I come across as lying to you.
> 
> A. *Unlike liars who are trying to deny, suppress or manipulate the truth,
> my only intent here is to RESOLVE conflicts so ALL people here
> including you and me AGREE on what is true and consistent!
> 
> So this "lying" business is the exact OPPOSITE of my intent.*
> 
> B. I am willing to correct whatever came across wrong as lying
> because anything false or inconsistent is the opposite of my intent.
> Sorry this wasn't clear, to the point where you question
> if not attack the integrity of my intent when I have done
> nothing but DEFEND yours when others attacked you.
> Now I question your integrity if you go so far as to question mine
> when I did nothing but defend you. WTF?
> 
> C. M.D. Rawlings I think you must have forgiveness issues
> to project this wildly off base as to accuse me of lying?
> 
> Usually only people who are "lying to themselves"
> would EVER accuse me of such a thing. But I don't think
> that applies toyou, I think your problem is you don't
> trust or forgive people so you are projecting onto them as you just did to me.
> 
> My guess is you have just implicated yourself as being
> in denial about something, I"m not sure what.
> 
> If you are not willing to resolve all issues, that is your projection,
> your defensiveness because of some unresolved issue on your side of the fence.
> 
> I AM WILLING to resolve the points where you find fault with me.
> 
> Please clarify where I miscommunicated so badly as to
> be attacked by you as "lying" and I am willing to correct my faults.
> 
> Sorry I cannot say that about you.
> I saw that you made efforts to make amends with Boss when you went a big overboard,
> but to accuse me of lying is WAY beyond that.
> 
> So I am puzzled where the [heck] that came from.
> I really do not understand that, so please enlighten me by clarifying.
> 
> I would like to resolve the issues because I have absolutely
> NOTHING to gain by lying here, but am trying to get to the truth
> behind each person's position so we can reconcile given our differences that won't change.
> 
> The only way this process works is by complete TRANSPARENCY
> so how the heck I came across as lying is completely baffling to me.
> 
> Please explain and I am glad to correct the errors that caused
> this misperception and misunderstanding of my intent!
Click to expand...


What a load of baloney.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thou doth project too much methinks?*
> 
> M.D. where do you get off accusing people of being "liars"
> when conflicts arise between people. That doesn't mean people are trying to LIE.
> 
> The fact that Hollie and GT are still here trying to establish some sense
> speaks volumes that they care about the truth and are trying to make
> and defend points in good faith! Why do you not see this in your fellow peers?
> 
> Are you trying to resolve issues to establish truth between people here?
> Or you" giving up and chasing away" your audience by attacking and insulting people?
> What is your motive for saying things like this that aren't helping anything?
> 
> Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
> If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
> personally attack and insult others?
> 
> Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
> I don't understand this about you, please explain.
> Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
> trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
> do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???
Click to expand...



More baloney.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.
> 
> God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.
> 
> Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.
> 
> What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.
> 
> You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself.
> 
> That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.

However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.

BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
represent for our own convenience and interests.

BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.

So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!

I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.

I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.

So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.

You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.

Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!

You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
and not acknowledging their own bias.  Your issue is with each other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're a pathological liar, a sociopath.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thou doth project too much methinks?*
> 
> M.D. where do you get off accusing people of being "liars"
> when conflicts arise between people. That doesn't mean people are trying to LIE.
> 
> The fact that Hollie and GT are still here trying to establish some sense
> speaks volumes that they care about the truth and are trying to make
> and defend points in good faith! Why do you not see this in your fellow peers?
> 
> Are you trying to resolve issues to establish truth between people here?
> Or you" giving up and chasing away" your audience by attacking and insulting people?
> What is your motive for saying things like this that aren't helping anything?
> 
> Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
> If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
> personally attack and insult others?
> 
> Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
> I don't understand this about you, please explain.
> Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
> trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
> do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More baloney.
Click to expand...


How is that baloney? Please explain specifically
where I say anything false, unfair or contradictory/inconsistent
and I will gladly make corrections!

But just saying something is baloney doesn't give me anything to go on.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
Click to expand...


OK
so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
IS God

this is what I was saying that
God = Creator and God = Creation
are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God

These are not necessarily contradictory!

We agree more than we disagree.

At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.

It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
> IS God
> 
> this is what I was saying that
> God = Creator and God = Creation
> are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God
> 
> These are not necessarily contradictory!
> 
> We agree more than we disagree.
> 
> At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
> is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.
> 
> It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
> And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.
Click to expand...


Baloney.  I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Godel or anyone ever succeed by attacking and insulting people?
> If you so believe the proof speaks for itself, where is this "need" coming from to
> personally attack and insult others?
> 
> Where is that coming from and what purpose do you expect it to serve for your proof?
> I don't understand this about you, please explain.
> Your arguments and details you go into seem to be consistent with
> trying to work things out logically, and then out of the blue these attacks come out that have nothing to
> do with anything and aren't helping but hurting the ability to connect and communicate. Why???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AMEN EMILY! *
> 
> I'm not sure what the problem is with either Rawlings or Justin, they seem to be the same person. Teaming up to simply reject all other views but their own, and refusing to even accept the views of people who believe in God like they do. They remind me of Jehova's Witness people. Except JWs don't rudely insult and denigrate like they do.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means
2. If you look at Justin's last msg I responded to,
he was objecting to "God creating logic" because he was equating God WITH the logic that naturally exists.
So this is like how people object to God as Creator because God is the entire Creation itself.

There really is no sense in trying to pick that apart as conflicting
when those two positions can be used harmoniously. It is OK either way,
to combine God with the Creation as one body and not argue over a starting point or source,
as it is OK to say God and the logic are one, and not separate where God created the logic.

We can still talk about God's laws or truth as self-existent and focus on the CONTENT of the laws and logic therein.
So I see no need to argue about that separation; some people distinguish
and personify God as Creator and some blend God in with the Laws of the Universe as one and don't distinguish or separate.

3. About rudely insulting and denigrating,
just make sure not to fall into the same traps.
And maybe we can steer the group as a whole away from the personal attack business
which isn't helping focus on the content but detracting and discrediting.

Please see reply to your remarks about Hollie I felt were 
equally out of line, so if M.D. and Justin are going to be called out on those attacks,
it is only fair to be consistent and refrain from all such remarks that are denigrating.

Thanks, Boss!
I'm glad we can see where each other is coming from
and focus on the content where we agree, while working out the rest as we go.
If we stand on points of agreement, it is much easier to correct places of conflict.
But if we swing at each other using points of conflict to attack, 
we knock each other off the bridge and can't get anywhere that way.
I'd much rather build and stabilize the bridges between us first,
so at least we have a stable frame to work with and map out the rest from there.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
> IS God
> 
> this is what I was saying that
> God = Creator and God = Creation
> are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God
> 
> These are not necessarily contradictory!
> 
> We agree more than we disagree.
> 
> At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
> is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.
> 
> It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
> And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.  I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?
Click to expand...


Hi Justin
The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.

So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
per person  or context.

Isn't that beautiful?

To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!

We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.

Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
That even where we have completely different expressions,
they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss, I'm saddened by the harsh language. I'm not arguing anything I wasn't arguing from the beginning. I understand your position, but it is wrong to say that the only rational option that necessarily follows from The Seven Things, that doesn't throw everything into chaos, the clearly obvious conclusion that our logic is God's logic, that He theologized us, is subjective or can be logically ruled out is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's certainly not ludicrous to presume an omnipotent God created logic and the rules of logic for man to deduce his surroundings in a material universe. God either must have created logic or God is not omnipotent. MAN uses logic, God doesn't have to. God is not constrained by the limits of logic as comprehended by humans. Your _Seven Things_ argument actually makes this very point, but it is subtly made and you have to examine it closely.
> 
> Theology is a construct of man. If God had theologized us, we'd be spiritually perfect, we wouldn't know of thousands of religions because there would only be one... the perfect one which God bestowed upon us. We are spiritually aware of something greater than self, that fact cannot be denied and that's what I take away from your _Seven Things_ argument in a nutshell. From there, we've developed theological beliefs as humans who are full of inferiorities and flaws because we're not perfect. Only God is perfect. Our theologies are trivial attempts of humans to try and comprehend something too great for us to ever fully grasp. What's more, I think this is 'by design' and part of God's plan. It's why we were also given humility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Boss.  It's got nothing to do with Him being able to create anything.  It's a bad position to take.  You're making a very serious error.  This is a classic atheist argument, and it's utterly bonkers.  God is the Universal Logic of Existence. Our logic is His logic. That is self-evident from *#3, #4* and *#6* of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God is relativism.  There are no truths.  None!  All is chaos.  Everything is an illusion, a lie.  It's the same things as saying that God does not exist.  You simply do not grasp the implications.  God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.
> 
> It is self-evident from my refutation of the lying GT's bullshit about the *prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy *too! He just makes things up constantly!
> 
> Tomorrow I'm posting a summarizing post that will drive this point home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting "To assert that organic logic anthropomorphizes God..." I never said that or implied that in anything I stated. Now, maybe the reason you think something I've said is "bonkers" is because you're not comprehending what I've said?
> 
> *God theologized us. It's not the other way around.  That is the only thing that is rational.*
> 
> It can be what you believe is rational, but it's not the only thing that is rational. If God is perfect and God theologized us, it would have been perfectly. As we have an intrinsic awareness of spirit, we would also have an intrinsic awareness of theology, and there would be no need for religion. Theology is the theocratic man-made beliefs which stem from our spirituality.
> 
> God created logic just as God created *every aspect* of our reality and universe. And the laws/principles of logic do not apply to God. Being omnipotent, God can suspend logic at any time and make the illogical happen. Nothing trumps omnipotence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything trumps your failed "... because I say so" arguments.
> 
> What hasn't gone unnoticed is your inability to support a single element of your various claims to magical gawds and supernatural realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, troll bitch.
Click to expand...


^ Here, Boss, this is the msg where I felt this was unnecessarily denigrating.
To be fair to all people here, I hope we can agree to refrain from personal attacks and stick to content.

As for Hollie, if you can imagine having no concept at all that anything 
about God or Jesus is true or has anything valid or positive to offer,
but religion is all part of some mass manipulation to take advantage of
people who want to belong to a group or to follow some leader,
wouldn't you be frustrated and feeling "everyone else is in denial"
and refusing to admit that this is all BS.

I don't think I would be as civil as Hollie and GT are being here!
I would be outraged if I thought people were continuing to deny and spread
lies for some selfish motive that is abused to harm people. I would not be so polite!

Please consider the source.

Given that GT and Hollie have seen absolutely ZERO proof that there is
anything true, valid or positive about Christianity and belief in God or Jesus,
they are both being as gracious and tolerant as they can trying to even
discuss this with people they think are completely selfish and full of ****.

I can understand their outrage and frustration
before I can understand why Justin and MD talk trash
if they claim to have faith. If they understand God is good
why is there any need to be negative?

GT and Hollie do not claim to be Christian and forgiving,
so given that they have made no such commitment,
they look pretty tolerant and forbearing 
compared with Justin and M.D. who seem to
fall short of Christian values they claim to defend.

I hope we can correct that, and can learn from it
why Christianity teaches to forgive 77 times 77,
even if the same flaws or faults recur again, we
are to again forgive them over and over if we are going to break 
out of these negative patterns keeping us stuck. 
Only through forgiveness can we be freed from it.
So maybe this whole discussion involves a lesson in the
importance of forgiving one another  if we are going to get to the truth.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
> IS God
> 
> this is what I was saying that
> God = Creator and God = Creation
> are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God
> 
> These are not necessarily contradictory!
> 
> We agree more than we disagree.
> 
> At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
> is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.
> 
> It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
> And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.  I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Justin
> The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
> is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.
> 
> So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
> and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
> Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
> and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
> Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
> per person  or context.
> 
> Isn't that beautiful?
> 
> To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
> but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!
> 
> We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
> and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.
> 
> Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
> That even where we have completely different expressions,
> they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. It's utter baloney that leads nowhere.  It's circular reasoning that negates itself.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
Click to expand...


LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational. 

Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Here, Boss, this is the msg where I felt this was unnecessarily denigrating.
> To be fair to all people here, I hope we can agree to refrain from personal attacks and stick to content.



Sorry Emily, when someone is going to be a troll and a bitch, I am going to call them that.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
Click to expand...


Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?

I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."

You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."

Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?

Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic. 

Sorry but that doesn't work. 
.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey MD
> 
> It seems like you are on the verge of being labeled a troll!!
> 
> Maybe you should take a break for a few days.  You know, sit back and reread some of the things other people posted.  It will help keep you out of trouble.
> 
> Just consider this some advice from that "stupid atheists",OK?
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amrchaos, the only thing you've brought to this discussion is the sophomoric irrationalism of antirealism or the mindless skepticism of contrarianism, the sort of crap one gets from college students with a semester of philosophical idealism under their belts and no common sense above their belts.
> 
> Who in the hell but little rooty poots with fog up glasses and a lisp sit around babbling about how we or the cosmos might _not_ exist—ooglie booglie—as if such banalities, understood at a glance, however improbable, were something profound?  LOL!
> 
> Tell us about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning again as confounded by your mindless conflation of the deductive-inductive dichotomy and the rational-empirical dichotomy.  That was a hoot!  Is that what you got out of your semester of philosophy at school?  Did you flunk that course or did your instructor take pity on and give you a _C_ so your parents would keep throwing away good money after bed on your education? LOL!
> 
> (Between you and me, the system-building philosophy that you find so appealing, the stuff of dreams that the real men of mathematics, engineering and science could care less about beyond the fundamentals of metaphysics, is for nitwits.)
> 
> Tell us again how the three-dimensional, Newtonian world of our apprehension has primacy over the subatomic world of quantum physics which gives the cosmological order is stability and solidity.  That was a hoot, too!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm gong to start calling him Sillypsismchaos.  What kind of persons but silly people like that guy in the video say that axioms are informal fallacies or that the TAG says that logic is created?  The whole point of the TAG is that logic is something that couldn't have been made or created.  What an idiot.  The writers of the Bible and Kant begged the question and believe logic is created.   Things that have stood the test of time for centuries can suddenly be tossed out by the straw men of idiots.,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't want to get too personal with this, but I'm not giving any more serious thought to the posts of that dingbat until he starts acknowledging that his drivel has already been addressed.  How many times does it take?
> 
> I think he's got a real thing for solipsism.  There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish.
> 
> I already told him I qualified _The Seven Things_ from the beginning with regard to these kinds of philosophical objections and why *#1* and *#2 *are expressed as empirical facts.  Right.  As if most people do not regard them to be empirical facts, as if there's anything stopping this dingbat from intellectually modifying them in his mind, as if such a modification makes any difference to the central construct and the ramifications thereof, as if they  were not primarily of an _a priori_ nature or as if every damn thing that _is_ strictly empirical or inductive in nature had to pass muster with him, when the only legitimately pragmatic, universal standard for logic and science and for people of common sense is justified true belief/knowledge.
> 
> This punk is calling me a troll?!
> 
> So let him make *#1* and *#2* _I_ and _a purely rational impression_, for crying out loud!  Whose holding a gun to his head?  So where did this _I _he keeps going on about come from?  A trash can?  His toilet bowl?  His dog's last bowel movement?  Oh, wait!  No!  Those things would be empirical, and of course all syllogisms are necessarily instances of inductive reasoning if there's something empirical in them.
> 
> Not.
> 
> Maybe God slipped him a mickey or maybe he slipped a mickey to himself.
Click to expand...


"I think he's got a real thing for solipsism.  There might be something sexual going on there, some kind of fetish."

I don't care who you are that's funny.


----------



## the_human_being

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
Click to expand...


Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*On the Prescriptive-Descriptive dichotomy: Posts #4129, #4132 and #4139*

The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. *GT*, you don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The _descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy_ correlates with the _Is-Ought dichotomy_ as ultimately premised on the _subject-object dichotomy_. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the _rational-empirical dichotomy_ if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that *Amrchaos* is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that *Amrchaos* nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility.

In science it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent.

Any questions?


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
Click to expand...


God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational. 

God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic. 

Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
Click to expand...

Umm, no. Gawds are irrational inventions of humans. Logical thinking is a process independent of your gawds or anyone else's gawds.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Boss:
> 1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
> so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means



Actually, this is inaccurate.  Justin did not adequately understand the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning.  He had the right idea, by the way, vastly superior to Amrchaos' nonsense.  He simply was not entirely clear on the fundamental distinction that goes to probability and certainty as it relates to the issue of logical possibility and logical necessity.  Now part of his confusion was my fault because in one of my sentences, which I corrected, thanks to Justin, put the terms possibility and necessity together as it related to justified true belief/knowledge.  Essentially, the statement was true, albeit, poorly expressed and arguably misleading.  Justin picked up on that precisely because I cleared up the matter on the inductive-deductive dichotomy and the logical possibility-logical necessity dichotomy prior to the post that contained the error in expression.

In other words, the piece of the puzzle that remained a bit hazy for him became crystal clear, and as a result he was able to recognized a poorly expressed idea in my following post, a mere error in expression.  It was_ *not*_ an error or inconsistency in thought or in logic.    

The fact of the matter is that all logical possibilities are cognitive facts in and of themselves; that is to say, it is an objective fact of human cognition, for example, that it is _possible_ that our universe is just one of an unknown number of other universes within a multiverse.  That cogitation/proposition, in and of itself, is a logical necessity. The proposition that the object of that proposition has actual substance behind it is another issue altogether. That is a mere logical possibility and a hypothesis in science.  It was this distinction that was in my mind at the time that I wrote that sentence.   I simply failed to make that distinction clear, for the way the sentence read, on the face it, threw logical necessities and the latter kind of propositions of possibility together relative to justified true belief/knowledge.  But in fact I was thinking the former kind, not the latter.  

That Justin had a problem with the idea as it was expressed on the face of it is a good thing.  He's got it down!


----------



## Justin Davis

the_human_being said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.
Click to expand...



What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong.  That's moonbat crazy.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss:
> 1. to Justin's credit he did point out where MD was losing him on some of the definitions or logic that wasn't consistently used.
> so he does try to correct some points with MD and isn't blindly following by any means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is inaccurate.  Justin did not adequately understand the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning.  He had the right idea, by the way, vastly superior to Amrchaos' nonsense.  He simply was not entirely clear on the fundamental distinction that goes to probability and certainty as it relates to the issue of logical possibility and logical necessity.  Now part of his confusion was my fault because in one of my sentences, which I corrected, thanks to Justin, put the terms possibility and necessity together as it related to justified true belief/knowledge.  Essentially, the statement was true, albeit, poorly expressed and arguably misleading.  Justin picked up on that precisely because I cleared up the matter on the inductive-deductive dichotomy and the logical possibility-logical necessity dichotomy prior to the post that contained the error in expression.
> 
> In other words, the piece of the puzzle that remained a bit hazy for him became crystal clear, and as a result he was able to recognized a poorly expressed idea in my following post, a mere error in expression.  It was_ *not*_ an error or inconsistency in thought or in logic.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that all logical possibilities are cognitive facts in and of themselves; that is to say, it is an objective fact of human cognition, for example, that it is _possible_ that our universe is just one of an unknown number of other universes within a multiverse.  That cogitation/proposition, in and of itself, is a logical necessity. The proposition that the object of that proposition has actual substance behind it is another issue altogether. That is a mere logical possibility and a hypothesis in science.  It was this distinction that was in my mind at the time that I wrote that sentence.   I simply failed to make that distinction clear, for the way the sentence read, on the face it, threw logical necessities and the latter kind of propositions of possibility together relative to justified true belief/knowledge.  But in fact I was thinking the former kind, not the latter.
> 
> That Justin had a problem with the idea as it was expressed on the face of it is a good thing.  He's got it down!
Click to expand...


Yes that's my understanding of what happened.  You got me on the right track, but then I saw that expression near the end of the next post and went "huh"  Just when I thought I had it I was confused again. Then I realized it had to be an error in expression because everything else made sense but that. But that's cool because I never thought about the difference between necessary possibilities of thought and just possibilities of substance before either. Now I got the whole thing.


----------



## the_human_being

Justin Davis said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong.  That's moonbat crazy.
Click to expand...


But isn't that logical?  You have your answer.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
Click to expand...


What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent  
doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.


----------



## Justin Davis

the_human_being said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong.  That's moonbat crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't that logical?  You have your answer.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Why am wondering?  Without God we're all moonbat crazy. I forgot.  I remember when I was moonbat crazy before the Holly Spirit got a hold of me and straightened me out.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I had too put both those characters on ignore.  I am tired of being gourded into an unproductive argument through their long winded rants, false accusations and insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong.  That's moonbat crazy.
Click to expand...

Yes. Hit us with the math, science and "logic" that proves magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Seven Apparent Whether or Knots
> 
> 1.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or whether the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility" *-- M.D. Rawlings sounds like a jerk when he talks down to other people,
> yet he expects to be respected when he can barely show respect himself.*
> 
> Even if other people do not deserve respect or forgiveness,
> the point of Christianity is to forgive and let God fix the problems,
> so if M.D. were any type of Christian he should at least act like one.
> 
> *2.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" *-- people are human, and if they can't get over how M.D. Rawlings sounds like another jerk pushing an agenda, you're already dead in the water at Step One, and might as well quit talking to a wall....*
> 
> *3.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out" -- *if people can't get past #1 or #2 without getting hung up on attacking the speaker, then what good is it to push #3 even further with an audience that isn't listening and already wrote you off.*
> 
> *4.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity" -- *just means that if God is already defined to be something real, then that is true by definition and the proof defines itself. Big deal!
> 
> So the issue remains: If people agree, then any disagreements they have are more with the Speaker and how the points are presented or misrepresented; and if people don't agree, they will reject the entire proof by definitions they didn't agree with int the first place, Big Deal. Do we really need to stretch this out into 7 points?*
> 
> *5.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality" -- *if you are still pushing more points after this point, that is taken as proof that you must be just another pushy jerk with an agenda beyond just defining God and sticking to that, in which case you'd be done with step 1 and wouldn't require further explanation or confirmation from others while claiming proof doesn't rely on that!*
> 
> *6.* "Whether God actually exists or not, or the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one." *==> WTF, you already lost people at Step 1!*
> 
> *7.* "Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise." *And similarly, you contradict your own teachings of God if you insist on insulting, judging and blaming your audience instead of removing the beam from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in others'.  If you recognized your conflicts equally as the ones on the sides of atheists who reject theists based on guilty by association, then maybe you'd at least be equal.*
> 
> *Conclusions: *
> A. persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> *B. Speakers who push these views, while not seeing how they come across as self-serving and inviting rejecting,
> are equally baffling and come across as paradoxical if not nonsensical and hypocritical!*
> 
> *Weird? That's just human.
> To fault other people yet commit the same wrongs, and wonder why
> both sides think the other is being a hypocrite or contradicting themselves. They are both right!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily sounds like a liar when she repeats lies and fails to understand that it is my contempt for liars and hypocrites she's reading, that it's the likes of her with her fanatical, pseudoscientific claptrap,  religious mumbo jumbo with a monetary motive behind it all, who are the jerks.
> 
> Are you going recant the lie you told about Gödel or not?
> 
> Are you gong to recant the lie you repeated about the TAG or not?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies are you talking about?
> 
> 1. I said that your TAG approach works for those it works for.
> And it doesn't work for those it doesn't work for.
> That is true, you can see here,
> the people who agree that it has validity already believe in a God of some form
> and so we relate to what you are saying or trying to say.
> The people who DO NOT relate to or agree/believe
> do NOT relate to your TAG approach and have stated so clearly!
> 
> What is untrue about that?
> 
> 2. It is common sense that people do not have infinite knowledge
> and we could be wrong. that is not a lie, that is just a natural fact
> that human perception and knowledge is finite.
> 
> What are you interpreting as lying?
> 
> Sorry if we are communicating so badly
> that I come across as lying to you.
> 
> A. *Unlike liars who are trying to deny, suppress or manipulate the truth,
> my only intent here is to RESOLVE conflicts so ALL people here
> including you and me AGREE on what is true and consistent!
> 
> So this "lying" business is the exact OPPOSITE of my intent.*
> 
> B. I am willing to correct whatever came across wrong as lying
> because anything false or inconsistent is the opposite of my intent.
> Sorry this wasn't clear, to the point where you question
> if not attack the integrity of my intent when I have done
> nothing but DEFEND yours when others attacked you.
> Now I question your integrity if you go so far as to question mine
> when I did nothing but defend you. WTF?
> 
> C. M.D. Rawlings I think you must have forgiveness issues
> to project this wildly off base as to accuse me of lying?
> 
> Usually only people who are "lying to themselves"
> would EVER accuse me of such a thing. But I don't think
> that applies toyou, I think your problem is you don't
> trust or forgive people so you are projecting onto them as you just did to me.
> 
> My guess is you have just implicated yourself as being
> in denial about something, I"m not sure what.
> 
> If you are not willing to resolve all issues, that is your projection,
> your defensiveness because of some unresolved issue on your side of the fence.
> 
> I AM WILLING to resolve the points where you find fault with me.
> 
> Please clarify where I miscommunicated so badly as to
> be attacked by you as "lying" and I am willing to correct my faults.
> 
> Sorry I cannot say that about you.
> I saw that you made efforts to make amends with Boss when you went a big overboard,
> but to accuse me of lying is WAY beyond that.
> 
> So I am puzzled where the [heck] that came from.
> I really do not understand that, so please enlighten me by clarifying.
> 
> I would like to resolve the issues because I have absolutely
> NOTHING to gain by lying here, but am trying to get to the truth
> behind each person's position so we can reconcile given our differences that won't change.
> 
> The only way this process works is by complete TRANSPARENCY
> so how the heck I came across as lying is completely baffling to me.
> 
> Please explain and I am glad to correct the errors that caused
> this misperception and misunderstanding of my intent!
Click to expand...


Nope!  This brick, this straw man, ain't flying with me.  It's stupid.  I don't believe you, Emily.  I believe God.  The logic he put into our heads doesn't lie.  In fact, the only things that were not corrupted in the Fall are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition so that we would be without excuse or be without the means to find our way home with God's help. 

The categorical distinction between *(1)* our finite minds' ability to comprehend infinity as a construct and* (2)* our inability to comprehend the unlimited potentialities of the infinite Mind is clear.  The first is possible and actual.  We do it all the time in the logic of linguistics and mathematics with no sweat, insofar as our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension allows this side of transcendency.  We in fact do adequately comprehend the construct of infinity and, therefore, comprehend that God is infinitely great.  That's all we need to know.  So stop with this nonsense that I'm claiming  the latter to be possible when in fact all I'm talking about is what we know to be true about God and what is done everyday of the week by humans goes to the fact of the former. 

The TAG is true; it cannot be negated.   It is a simple, uncomplicated fact of human cognition.  It is self-evident.  Those who claim otherwise simply refuse to think about it or lie to themselves and others about it.  Let God be true and every man a liar.  Then there are those who cannot see this simple truth anymore as they are either congenital sociopaths or those who have been turned over to a reprobate mind due to a lifetime of habitual contrariness.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.
> 
> God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.
> 
> Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.
> 
> What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.
> 
> You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself.
> 
> That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
> and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.
> 
> However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.
> 
> BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
> represent for our own convenience and interests.
> 
> BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.
> 
> So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
> instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!
> 
> I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
> but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.
> 
> I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
> FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.
> 
> So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.
> 
> You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.
> 
> Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
> the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!
> 
> You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
> and not acknowledging their own bias.  Your issue is with each other.
Click to expand...


No.  BreezeWood is trying to put God into the relativist  box.  God is not a liar.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
Click to expand...


No Justin, YOU are the one not making any sense. You are claiming "God is Logic" ...Well okay, God is the Universe... God is the Sun... God is the Moon... God is Earth... God is Nature... God is Energy... God is Light... God is Humanity... God is the Wind... God is the Rain... God is the Trees... God is the Birds... on and on! 

God either created everything and everything is God's creation, or God didn't. You can't run to both arguments as you try to hold both positions to be true. That is irrational, and quite frankly, illogical. I'm sorry if you don't get that, maybe we just have two different views of God? MY God created Logic and is not bound by Logic itself. Do you honestly think if omnipotent God intended to circumvent logic, that wouldn't be possible? If so, then you simply don't believe in an omnipotent God like I do.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lies are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about Gödel for starters.  Did I stutter?
> 
> This is what you wrote:  "GT and I have agreed with Godel's assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."
> 
> Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Never! Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.
> 
> You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence!
> 
> G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> *Gödel's incompleteness theorems* demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence! *Gödel's incompleteness theorems *do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true *within* there individual paradigms! But the problem is that we don't have a universal theory that proves them to be true *outside* the proofs of the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity.
> 
> The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers *within* there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!
> 
> 
> Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!
> G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Kurt G del s Ontological Argument
> Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> *What in the world do you guys think you agree on? Gödel has never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."* *Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God. *
> 
> Moreover, Justin is talking about the metaphysics of materialism. He is right. It cannot be scientifically verified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi MD thanks for explaining.
> A. It seems you are taking Godel literally while I was going with this more liberal interpretation applying to a larger context.
> 
> If you disagree with this interpretation we can drop it and just stick to the literal Godel to prevent conflict
> and false accusations of my as lying which were completely unfounded. I am sorry you do not feel you owe any such apology, but expect other people to apologize to you if they were to do the same.
> 
> You do not seem to practice the tenets of Christianity but expect people to give you credit and respect
> though  you show none of the same for others unless backed into it as you did for Boss. Very problematic
> and I don't think it is fair at all to blame others for rejecting you when you come across as so false and unjust.
> 
> Here is the broader interpretation I was using it for:
> *With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*
> Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle
> 
> I happen to like how this writer explained this very briefly.
> 
> If you prefer YOUR way of saying it, you ALSO referred to
> 1. God as the source of knowledge
> 2. science cannot prove anything but is verifying or falsifying
> 
> So if you do not agree with using Godel to say these same things,
> but only want YOUR way, that is fine. but that is not fair to accuse me of lying
> when I am actually defending your points but trying to explain them in different ways or contexts.
> 
> B. Without Godel I can still make the same arguments:
> Since humans are finite in our perception, knowledge, understanding
> and language/ability to communicate
> we can never fully express much less prove the whole of God.
> 
> We can represent God, and agree what we mean.
> 
> I don't need Godel to express that, and sorry if this offended you somehow.
> 
> I wish you would take the time to apologize when you offend people.
> I had no intent of lying or saying anything offensive,
> and you do this constantly, accusing me and also insulting other people here.
> 
> And you have yet to acknowledge or apologize.
> What does that say about you, and how can you wonder
> why people reject theists like you who come across as arrogant assholes?
Click to expand...


This is no good.  I revised the following two posts on Gödel to make the matter abundantly clear.  There is no way your that you notions follow from the facts.  Please read carefully as they are not precisely the same posts, but carefully revised so that there can be no misunderstanding. 

*Emily writes*:

*1]* Neither can any of us produce "empirical evidence" that God created all things in creation because we cannot recreate that moment and we weren't physically there.

*[2]* GT and I have agreed with Gödel’s assertion that God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds.
Gödel is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. He is famous for his ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic and is famous for his mathematically revolutionary proofs of the incompleteness theorems and for the transcendental implications thereof!

*The first statement is confused.* The cosmological order and its constituents _are_ the evidence for God's existence. Period. The strictly empirical proof for God's existence (the Teleological) holds as an inductive argument of probability, just like any other inductive argument. The other proofs are essentially deductive, premised on the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. That proof is incontrovertible.

*The second statement is totally false and irresponsible.* Gödel's ontological proof in modal logic proves God's existence. *He never in his life asserted any such thing as you claim.* And the ramifications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems support God's existence, for crying out loud! The latter do not undermine it at all. But, ultimately, the latter do not pertain to the existence of God directly, but indirectly, as the  incompleteness theorems prove that only an infinitely transcendent mind could comprehend or contain the entirety of a unifying principle for all logical/mathematical truth. But then we've always intuitively known this to be true in terms of transcendence. Now we have a discrete, mathematical proof that underscores this axiom of organic logic.

_Theoretically_, we know that a unified theory for physics is possible because the cosmological order, as least in terms of its material nature, is finite, though it may not necessarily be spatially finite.

Until Gödel, we believed it was theoretically possible to extract an all-encompassing theorem for the various numerical sets of the infinite number line that would universally hold true or unify the variously discrete theorems thereof. In fact, we thought that we had such a thing at one point . . . at least insofar as the whole numbers were concerned as we worked on the problem of extracting universal theorems for the others. It never occurred to us that this quest actually involved a comprehensively transcendent, descriptive-level perspective.

Then Gödel came along and shattered our illusion. It can't be done, and what is obvious to us today with our 20/20 vision, we now clearly see the problem as something we should have understood from the jump: because the problem is of a purely immaterial/rational nature, it is one of a transcendental nature.

Before Gödel, we had simply failed to make the connection between the numerical construct of infinity, which we _do_ rationally comprehend in terms of its essence, and the transcendental construct of infinity. Gödel himself believed this achievement was possible. That’s what he was working on when he extracted to his amazement the incompleteness theorems instead.

The reason he was able to do this is because after years of frustration of trying to work out universal proofs for the other sets of numbers or an all-encompassing theorem, he intuited the potentiality that there might be something wrong with the standing "universal" for whole numbers and subsequently discovered not only that the theorem for whole numbers did not universally hold as previously believed, but that it was not possible to extract an all-encompassing, numerical theorem at our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension.

It simply can't be done by us. The transcendental ramifications of this fact of human cognition are profound, and they are not relativistic at all, but absolute!

And that's why I nipped *Amrchaos'* sophomoric conflation of _the deductive-inductive dichotomy_ with _the rational-empirical dichotomy_, and GT's sophomoric blather about _the prescriptive laws of logic-descriptive laws of nature dichotomy_ in the bud. Finally, the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence cannot be negated, Emily! Everyone of *GT's* sophomoric arguments have been roundly refuted for centuries. If what he and that idiot in the video claim were true, there is no way that these arguments could have withstood the test of time all these centuries.

Just how gullible are you, Emily? See *Posts #4129,* *#4132, #4178 and #4139*.

*GODEL S THEOREMS AND TRUTH*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did, Boss, you just don't understand what it means to say that God created logic.  That's why your arguent makes no sense as Rawlings shoiwed you.  God did not create logic, he gave his logic to us.  He is the logic of existence. In another post you asked me if I was saying that God couldn't create logic. God is all knowledge, no part of knowledge or mind was ever created, these things have always existed. I've always understood this.  Logic proves this and the seven things prove this. It doesn't make any sense to ask if  God can create logic for the same reason you don't ask who created God or did create himself.  The question makes no sense because God is the universal logic just like he's all-knowing, all-power and all the other stuff.
> 
> Discussion on logical absolutes as a proof for God s existence. Logic as proof of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Is God Real The Case from the Transcendent Laws of Logic Cold Case Christianity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... IF God did not create logic, then God is not Creator of all and God is not omnipotent.
> 
> I don't accept that argument and you've not supported that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> so if you are saying the logic/system of truth in the world
> IS God
> 
> this is what I was saying that
> God = Creator and God = Creation
> are both valid ways of presenting meaning of God
> 
> These are not necessarily contradictory!
> 
> We agree more than we disagree.
> 
> At this point, I see that this namecalling and rejection back and forth
> is more about personal issues, and not about content per se.
> 
> It seems there are "trust issues" between the people here personally.
> And if we get those out of the way, we'd actually see we agree on more of the actual content and points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney.  I'm not going to waste my time repeating what Rawlings already proved. Find the post for yourself or maybe he'll repost it for you. He titled it something like "what’s wrong with Boss’ idea?" What’s wrong with it is that it would mean that truth is relative, so nothing you or anyone says is true, so why say anything at all? How silly is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Justin
> The Beauty about human experience and expression being relative
> is that the PATTERNS still align and show universality in source.
> 
> So even though one person uses the Christian trinity,
> and another person the Buddhist Three Refuges,
> Constitutionalists divide the spectrum as judicial, legislative and executive
> and Taoists/Psychologists focus on Mind/Body/Spirit,
> Human Nature is still universal, even though we express the laws differently
> per person  or context.
> 
> Isn't that beautiful?
> 
> To see there is one source, one universal law motivating all human experience,
> but it's okay to express it differently and it's still pointing to the same absolutes!
> 
> We can have absolute concrete agreement on universal truths
> and we can include diverse expression, unique to each person, at the same time.
> 
> Is that not proof that people can be one with God's laws?
> That even where we have completely different expressions,
> they all follow the same patterns because Human Nature is designed consistently?
Click to expand...


This is no good, Emily.  Truth is not relative.

Gödel never asserted any such thing about God. Ever! Show me a link/citation for this nonsense.

You cannot be talking about anything but Gödel's incompleteness theorems regarding the natural numbers, not God's existence! G del s incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Gödel's incompleteness theorems* demonstrate that, like in physics, we lack a unified theory for the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity. That's all. In fact, Gödel holds as do many others that the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity is compelling evidence for the necessity of God's existence!

*Gödel's incompleteness theorems *do not undermine the idea of God or throw the question into doubt at all! Where are you getting this nonsense? The various sets of the natural numbers hold true *within* there individual paradigms as supplemented by their qualifying proofs of exceptions. We simply cannot extract any universal theorems/proofs or any all-encompassing theorem/proof within or without the various sets of natural numbers on the number line of infinity from our finitely prescriptive level of apprehension.

The implications correlate with the understanding that while we can comprehend the construct of infinity as such and can cipher the contents and the proofs for the various sets of the natural numbers *within* there individual paradigms, we cannot comprehend or contain what the entirety of infinity would entail in terms of its limitless potentialities. How could we? We would have to God to comprehend the latter. We can't get outside or above our human perspective of things!


Gödel's proof for God's existence holds!

*G del s ontological proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove G del God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE*


*http://www.decodedscience.com/modal-logic-proved-godel-right-god-exists/38801*


What in the world do you think that you and GT agree on? Gödel never asserted that "God can neither be proven nor disproven because of the limits on man's scope which God exceeds."

On the contrary, Gödel proved God's existence in model logic! The inability to fathom the depths and heights of God has nothing to do with the proof of God's existence in and of itself! By definition, of course we can't grasp the entirety of divine infinity. We're not God.

That's all.


----------



## G.T.

Tag has not withstood the test of time retard.

There are entire books refuting Kant, who was as short sighted as your MD but slightly less then you, as his understanding of how to communicate actually shits on yours. You're aweful at it. Sorry to say : (

Tag has been a laughing stock of academia, contrary to you LIE that its been peer reviewed which magically a link to a single peer review of tag escapes your lying ass.

Tag is so simple to refute its actually childish.




Presuppers continue to dip duck dodge in cowardly fashion: 'god created knowledge' is neither universally accepted nor are other possibilities for existence ALL ruled out, which BOTH have to be met for "MTAG" to be an axiom. There's your loss, loser. And, another W for your Captain.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.


*Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*

Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.

Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.

Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.

There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.

But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.

Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.

How did that happen?

Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.

Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.

By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.

It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.

God is perfect, not a liar.

Boss' argument Fails.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism*

The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in modal logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.

If I were to write _gods_ or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?

Yes. Of course they would.

And If not, why not?

We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!

_Knock Knock_ Anybody home?

If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.

The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals (polytheism) or as a pantheistic whole.

As I wrote elsewhere*:*

You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* _from nothing, nothing comes_, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you beg the question.

Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is *(1) *conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is *(2) *conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​

That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, *even classical, polytheistic philosophers:* for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.

In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, _not_ to beg the question.

A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.

The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.

Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.


----------



## G.T.

TaG begs the question, it is viciously circular reasoning. 

Knock knock, any charlatan home?


----------



## percysunshine

.

I think Rawlings' brain is going to explode if he does not get laid pretty soon.

.


----------



## amrchaos

If we say "God created logic" aren't we putting god beyond logic?

How do we argue about something that exist beyond logic? Don't we need logic to make such an argument?

We can not be certain if something can exist without the logic/rules of logic as we understand them, can we?

I think it is best to say "I don't know" and try not to argue for or against that notion of God.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
Click to expand...


You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd. 

You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls. 

I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.


----------



## the_human_being

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.



I think. Therefore God is.


----------



## amrchaos

the_human_being said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think. Therefore God is.
Click to expand...



But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?

I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Highest Conceivable Standard of Divine Attribution Does Not Beg the Question by Precluding the Arguable Potentialities of the Various Forms of Polytheism or Pantheism*
> 
> The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is the construct of God as a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself, moreover, an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.
> 
> This doesn't prevent anyone from inserting polytheism in the place of the generic construct if that's one's poison. I already made that clear and why that logically holds. Besides, all of the classical proofs, including those run through computer simulations in modal logic, are premised on the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution for a reason*:* *to do otherwise is what actually begs the question*.
> 
> If I were to write _gods_ or any given descriptor that denotes some form of pantheism, folks would complain about that, wouldn't they?
> 
> Yes. Of course they would.
> 
> And If not, why not?
> 
> We go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution precisely because it is the only all-inclusive standard!
> 
> _Knock Knock_ Anybody home?
> 
> If we were to start with a lower standard, the obviously higher/highest possibilities would be arbitrarily eliminated. So it is any given lower standard for divine attribution that is subjective and unjustifiably begs the question, not the objectively highest conceivable standard.
> 
> The highest conceivable standard of divine attribution allows for the conceptualization and the insertion of divinity as a collective whole of individuals (polytheism) or as a pantheistic whole.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> You're confusing people with your mysteriously subjective, ill-defined standard for the construct God in your Cosmological Argument/Proof when you disregard the fact of the endless objections that can be raised when you fail to assert the foundational apriority of the Cosmological Argument*:* _from nothing, nothing comes_, i.e., the conclusion of the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin. It _is _necessary to define/assert the construct of God in the terms of its objectively highest standard of attribution; otherwise, you beg the question.
> 
> Thusly, the only objection left to the antagonist is some form of pantheism. But pantheism is not precluded! And this objection demonstrates that the antagonist is *(1) *conscious of the fact that the objectively highest standard of attribution is a conscious, transcendently non-contingent divinity and is *(2) *conscious of the fact that he cannot logically rule out that possibility for divinity.​
> 
> That's why in the history of divine proofs, logicians always go to the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, *even classical, polytheistic philosophers:* for the sake of simplicity/economy and to make sure they do not preclude any given polytheistic model of divinity, pantheistic model of divinity or monotheistic model of divinity.
> 
> In other words, it is understood that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution is asserted for the purpose of universal inclusiveness, _not_ to beg the question.
> 
> A polytheistic construct is still, collectively, a single spiritual option of a higher degree, as is any given form a pantheism, against the purely material, non-theistic potentiality for origin.
> 
> The only reason some are objecting to the universal, philosophical standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind or to the universal, scientific standard of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin is because it is manifest that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution carries the greatest weight of probability.
> 
> Too bad. Whether they be ultimately right or not, the objectively applied imperatives of human logic do not permit them to usurp the issue on the grounds of their fanatical, intellectual bigotry, do not permit them to arbitrarily preclude what they don't believe to be true about God.


Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.
> 
> God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.
> 
> Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.
> 
> What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.
> 
> You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself.
> 
> That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.
Click to expand...

.
no I am not a christian ... except by persuasive discussion as certainly the parable of Noah is a universal religion in concert to the single Commandment of God to attain Remission to the Everlasting as a life's attainable goal.

.


----------



## the_human_being

amrchaos said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think. Therefore God is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?
> 
> I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....
Click to expand...


Really not complicated at all. God is Creator. God created man. The man God created was Adam. The name "Adam" means "thinker".  Adam was the first creature God breathed his own breath into giving Adam the capabilities of reason, judgment, conscience of actions, the ability to learn, the ability to be taught, etc.


----------



## amrchaos

the_human_being said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think. Therefore God is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But what should God "be" in order to validate God exist from the fact that you think?
> 
> I haven't read you post--so I think I have to go back and read them to see if I can grasp your notion of God from them.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really not complicated at all. God is Creator. God created man. The man God created was Adam. The name "Adam" means "thinker".  Adam was the first creature God breathed his own breath into giving Adam the capabilities of reason, judgment, conscience of actions, the ability to learn, the ability to be taught, etc.
Click to expand...


Before I go forward, I need to ask--Is your God the same as the implied description in the Bible?

Or is your God "a being that creates and man(Adam in particular), with all the positive attributes that man has, is one of his creations" ?

Both could be the case, but the second is not necessarily equivalent to the first.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.
> 
> You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.
> 
> I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper.  Non Sequitur.

Logic was _not_ created.  God _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.    Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation*:*  including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature.   Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . .  or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of _The Seven Things_ necessarily hold.

To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another.  In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that _The Seven Things_ are logically true and to hold that logic was created.

And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.

(An aside:  as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing,  orthodox Christianity.  Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.
> 
> God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.
> 
> Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.
> 
> What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.
> 
> You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself.
> 
> That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> no I am not a christian ... except by persuasive discussion as certainly the parable of Noah is a universal religion in concert to the single Commandment of God to attain Remission to the Everlasting as a life's attainable goal.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Okay.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)*

The _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the a standing proof, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
_
*Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
*
Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.

The only fallacy on display by those who argue otherwise is the stupidity that the standing axioms of human cognition and the historical fact of empirical experience are subject to the mere secondary, indemonstrable potentialities of human imagination. But the ultimate substance of this ridiculous allegation is the scientifically indemonstrable presupposition of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, a hidden/undisclosed apriority not put into evidence by the antagonist.

It's a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.

Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.

As I wrote elsewhere*:*

Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned _valid, albeit, might or might not be true_ values.

All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!

In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science*:* constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that _something can come from nothing_ is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen. Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.​

Logic proceeds from justifiable true belief/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that _something can come from nothing_.

The logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind, which yields the construct of a transcendent consciousness of ultimate origin, stands in logic, and the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_, stands in science!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.









Hollie


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Tag has not withstood the test of time retard.
> 
> There are entire books refuting Kant, who was as short sighted as your MD but slightly less then you, as his understanding of how to communicate actually shits on yours. You're aweful at it. Sorry to say : (
> 
> Tag has been a laughing stock of academia, contrary to you LIE that its been peer reviewed which magically a link to a single peer review of tag escapes your lying ass.
> 
> Tag is so simple to refute its actually childish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presuppers continue to dip duck dodge in cowardly fashion: 'god created knowledge' is neither universally accepted nor are other possibilities for existence ALL ruled out, which BOTH have to be met for "MTAG" to be an axiom. There's your loss, loser. And, another W for your Captain.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.
> 
> You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.
> 
> I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.
Click to expand...


Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.
> 
> You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.
> 
> I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper.  Non Sequitur.
> 
> Logic was _not_ created.  God _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.    Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation*:*  including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature.   Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . .  or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of _The Seven Things_ necessarily hold.
> 
> To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another.  In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that _The Seven Things_ are logically true and to hold that logic was created.
> 
> And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.
> 
> (An aside:  as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing,  orthodox Christianity.  Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)
Click to expand...


Sorry Rawlings, you're not supporting your argument. You are simply saying that I am being illogical and irrational, while being illogical and irrational yourself. You then mutter some nonsense about logic being God's logic, as if other things are not belonging to God. All things are God's, including all things we are consciously aware of in our reality which God also created. What's illogical is to say God is omnipotent creator of all things, then parsing out logic as something beyond God's ability to create or control.... but then, insisting it is God's. This is simply put, absurdity heaped on absurdity, which is what you ironically accuse me of. 

Without time, space, reality, and a material universe for it to apply, what is the purpose of logic? Without an intelligent mind to use it as a tool of understanding, what purpose would it serve? Logic is useful to humans attempting to understand their material reality and universe. And for the record, our understanding and perception of logic may not be always true. We don't know for sure, we can't know, it's not possible for us to know, we can only believe we know. 

I know that you think you're smart and you've figured God out, but let me tell you son, you're not that smart. None of us are. We're little monkeys amusing ourselves with trivial little grunt sounds we call words, to which we've applied all kinds of meaning and reasoning. It doesn't mean we're anywhere near right or close to the truth. Only God knows truth. We can philosophize, we can theologize, we can rationalize and conceptualize. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?



Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Truth isn't relative.



Absolute and Universal truth is by definition absolute and universal.

But our EXPRESSION Perception and EXPERIENCE of the truth
IS relative, and can be as unique as each person is!

Justin it is NOT either or. But "all of the above"

For example the same universal truths taught as Justice or Cause and Effect/Karma
are EXPRESSED differently using different terms in Christianity and Buddhism
but are still talking about the SAME spiritual process.

Christians use the term sin
Buddhists use the term karma

but they both mean conditions carried on the conscience
that bias and limit our perception and reactions so that we are not
perfectly unbiased, detached or free of sin. We still react to conditions.

Justin, only Jesus was so pure and free of sin he was not subject to karmic conditioning.

Justin, the rest of us humans have BIASES due to our personal preferences,
culture, language, etc. So our Perceptions and Expressions of "absolute/universal truth"
are still going to come out as RELATIVE.

You can see here, some people relate more to God as Creator
while others see God as impersonal and others see life/the universe in nontheistic terms.

The SAME universal laws are true for all of us.
But our Expressions and Perceptions come out different
and are RELATIVE to our experiences in life and how we see things from our perspective.

This does NOT negate there being Universal Absolutes.

There is both Absolutes and Relatives going on at the same time
and these can be in harmony without conflict.

I hope you can see this!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
Click to expand...


Please Boss do not give in to the same temptation of just resorting to namecalling and FU.
Thank you for being honest and transparent about how you feel,
but please do not give up. M.D. and Justin are trying, just like Hollie and GT are trying.

I can see the frustration is mutual, and don't see any need to insult anyone here.
If it happens I'm sorry for that and hope everyone can just work through that and get it out of the way.

Everyone has strong points and corrections to offer,
so I hope we can bring out the best from each one
and forgive/resolve the worst that is coming out also.

Sorry, but apparently that is part of the human process.

As we dig deeper and deeper into all the levels discussed here,
all the dirt and hurt comes out that has been attached to these issues.

So all that needs to be cleaned out int he process
of hashing out the points. the emotional baggage has to be resolved too.

Boss, please see this as a good thing, a cleansing out process,
and maybe we can get past it faster. Sorry please remember not to
take other people's projections personally if it's just them venting their own past grievances.

I see all people here are committed to uncovering and defending the truth
as we know and see it. We make mistakes but we can work those out as we go.

Sorry for this Boss, this is why forgiveness is so important
so we don't get stuck in the mud when it starts to fly,
but keep moving forward to make progress regardless of all the dirt we dig up.

I respect your points and want you to succeed in making them clear.
Please be encouraged and keep going, and let's try to get past the projections going back and forth.
I think we are all bigger than that, in the end where we are heading with this, but I guess we just have to go through that for now. People need to vent because there has been so much garbage and blame
dumped back and forth over these issues, so it is coming out in the process.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* It's just what I told you it is, BreezeWood, and there's lots of meaning. Namely, the ramifications of _The Seven Things_ compel us to understand that God has clearly revealed Himself to be and that we are accountable to Him.  It's especially due the latter that folks are so up in arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I said, your TST is meaningless without a practical purpose ascribed to it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is you and boss that delineate nature for an idolatry of your own making.
> 
> the Almighty is the GateKepper to the Everlasting for those whose accomplishment warrants their Admission.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The *simple, yet deeply profound  truths* of human cognition that are readily self-evident to all as a matter of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, the *common sense* obviously  given to you by God that you may know *that He exists and what He is like * is of no significance  to you _because_ you have no *faith* to *believe* in anything of any value but yourself.  *Your god is yourself*.  You have no* faith *or confidence in God at all.  You don't *believe* what God has been telling you about Himself  all your life, what He's telling you about Himself right now.
> 
> God's "voice" is the *commonsensical logic* in your mind.  As you don't even have enough *faith * to *believe* the simple truths of everyday-walk-in-the-park *common sense*, nothing that God is telling you is of any value to you.  You claim that what God has to tell you about Himself is worthless, but you haven't even shut up long enough, to be still and listen, so that you might know all the things He has to tell you about Himself . . . the things you say are worthless.  You've slapped the label of "worthless" on things you know nothing about.
> 
> Ultimately, *faith* is *the common sense* to *believe* the evidence, the testimony, that God has given you about Himself.  God has already *proven* His existence and what He's like to everyone here, but only a very few of you *believe* Him or will even take the time to *listen* to Him because you have no *faith* or confidence in anything of value but yourselves.
> 
> What you lack is *faith* in God, and because you lack *faith* in God, you lack the practical knowledge that may be known about God by all.
> 
> You are the idolater.  The only testimony you *believe* is your own.  The only thing you *believe* in is yourself.  The only thing you *worship* is yourself.
> 
> That's the real *truth* and nothing but the* truth*, so help me God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Thanks for backing off the personal attacks
> and sticking to spelling out the content of your objections and responses.
> 
> However, here with BreezeWood I think this is definitely projection.
> 
> BW keeps objecting to LIMITING the notion of God to something we perceive and
> represent for our own convenience and interests.
> 
> BW keeps pointing out that the Almighty is greater than what we perceive.
> 
> So BW is trying to be more SELFLESS and IMPERSONAL about it,
> instead of people PROJECTING our own self-image on God which comes across as idolatrous!
> 
> I don't think what you've said here applies to BW,
> but actually explains BW's very objections, where you actually agree something is amiss.
> 
> I think the problem both you and BW have is inability or unwillingness to
> FORGIVE the fact that people approach or frame God/the Almighty differently.
> 
> So you both accuse the other of projecting idolatrous images of God.
> 
> You both seem to be saying similar, that these projections run into conflicts or contradictions.
> 
> Since both you and BW are essentially arguing similar,
> the only reason you do not AGREE with each other is you do not forgive each other's ways of saying the SAME THING!
> 
> You don't trust each other's way of presenting, and feel the other person is flawed
> and not acknowledging their own bias.  Your issue is with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  BreezeWood is trying to put God into the relativist  box.  God is not a liar.
Click to expand...


I think BreezeWood sees you as trying to pigeonhole God into a box
that isn't big enough to contain the whole of God.

I agree with how Justin explains that yes God can still be greater than any of these things.
And I think you said also that God as Creator does not negate other aspects of God as well.

Somehow BW does not trust Christians to teach God correctly
but points to the religion and idolatry associated with Christianity.

So that is where BW is stuck, by not forgiving or trusting Christians in general.

From BW messages, the Almighty is something greater than the selfish religious agenda
that BW thinks you and I are pushing.

BW is trying NOT to put God into a box.

I blame some kind of bias and distrust against Christians
so that BW rejects perceived attempt by Christians to express God.

It is some kind of anti-Christian bias.
And if that is resolved, then BW should be able to resolve
views of God with you, me or anyone else without this issue coming up!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Justin, YOU are the one not making any sense. You are claiming "God is Logic" ...Well okay, God is the Universe... God is the Sun... God is the Moon... God is Earth... God is Nature... God is Energy... God is Light... God is Humanity... God is the Wind... God is the Rain... God is the Trees... God is the Birds... on and on!
> 
> God either created everything and everything is God's creation, or God didn't. You can't run to both arguments as you try to hold both positions to be true. That is irrational, and quite frankly, illogical. I'm sorry if you don't get that, maybe we just have two different views of God? MY God created Logic and is not bound by Logic itself. Do you honestly think if omnipotent God intended to circumvent logic, that wouldn't be possible? If so, then you simply don't believe in an omnipotent God like I do.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
I think Justin made it clear that God as Creator does not preclude other roles or representations of God.

I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.

I am perfectly fine talking about God's laws or universal laws/truth
REGARDLESS if someone focuses on God = Creator or God =Creation with no separation
and likewise if someone says God = Author of truth, logic science or God = laws of truth, logic, science.

If we had to agree perfectly, of course we'd never get anywhere!
Even husbands and wives married for generations don't agree on everything
and they still manage to get along and make decisions together DESPITE those conflicting differences.

Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
then this should not be an issue either.

Even though you and Justin set up the parameters differently,
the laws of God or science/logic are the same! in either set up!

So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way
of setting it up and the laws still come out the same.

Boss it is like how some people divide the trinity differently
but it's still the same God:
Some people don't get the trinity and just talk about God, and reject the idea of three levels.
Others say the trinity is all one God, but some will say Christ is the body or people
and the Holy Spirit joins man and God, while I will align the Holy Spirit with the
church body and say Christ is the law joining man and God. So those two 
interpretations don't agree perfectly, but we still agree there are three levels through which God
manifests and has relationships, and these are all one in spirit, even if we don't divide the levels the same way.

So people COULD argue forever and ever in circles
if God is one or three, or what do the three levels represent,
and not everyone will agree on that; but we CAN still agree it is still one God
even though we represent it differently than the next person does.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> their refusal for a practical application for whatever they are insisting exists delineates whatever resolution they may have accomplished other than an existence without meaning - leaving the debate as "so what" - then poof.
> 
> what is the point, mdr that would hold value for your TST ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  I got fed up with your phony insults and phony allegations regarding a number of things, including your nonsense about solipsism or how I, of all people, don't know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and which of the two is more sure, after about the sixth or seventh post out of at least twice that many long before you got fed up with me being fed up with you.  Check?
> 
> I got fed up being nice to you about the sixth or seventh time around the mulberry bush when you failed to acknowledge the facts of the posts that utterly negate your phony allegations, Sir!  Check?
> 
> And your goodbye note still doesn't acknowledge these things. . . .
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
> 
> Does that mean I won't have to put up with anymore of your mulberry bushing?  Good.  Of course I don't have you on ignore, so your nonsense will still be refuted when I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Solipsism with his pointed head.  I see what you mean now about atheists now.  I looked at some of the other threads, and I saw how they like to always attack, control and shut down the discussion, but they ain't controlling here with their garbage.  Now they run like girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Hit them with their own math and science and when they find they cannot respond, they will change the subject or go off on a mindless rant against the Bible and God. Happens every time. Every once in a while one will show the common sense to just leave the thread when he/she cannot refute the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What is really weird to me is why people insist on ignoring alternative explanations that are rational just because their idea might somehow be right, but only if sound logic is all wrong.  That's moonbat crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But isn't that logical?  You have your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Why am wondering?  Without God we're all moonbat crazy. I forgot.  I remember when I was moonbat crazy before the Holly Spirit got a hold of me and straightened me out.
Click to expand...


I'd say without forgiveness we drive ourselves and others crazy
projecting old issues from the past and repeating them.

So the part of the Holy Spirit that I appreciate most
is the more we forgive the more we receive:
more understanding, more healing, more insights and wisdom,
more solutions and more grace to share and uplift one another.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.



I don't understand either, it's as if he and Rawlings want to totally contradict themselves in order to condemn me and disagree, then run back to their viewpoint and gloat about that! I totally don't get why either of them feel the need to do this. I've not disagreed with MD's _7 Things_ argument, which Justin also agrees with, so what's the problem?  Is it a personality clash thing? A mental disorder? I totally don't get it. God can't be the omnipotent creator of all things, and also not the creator of logic or beyond the constraints of how we comprehend logic. It's just not possible for God to be both those things. Yet, here they are, leaping from one position to the other, in order to criticize me and hurl insults at me.... then leaping back and pretending that I have somehow challenged their view! It's mind numbing. 



emilynghiem said:


> Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
> then this should not be an issue either.



But God is not "things" ...God is God. If I create a cake, I am NOT the cake! You can wax esocentric and say that part of me is in the cake, but I can never be the cake I created. Justin is trying to say that God didn't create logic, God IS logic. Well then, God didn't create anything, God IS those things! God ISN'T omnipotent, God is constrained by logic He didn't create. I simply cannot accept that incarnation of God. MY God is not "other things" because God is not a thing, God is the Creator of everything, including our perception of reality and logic. 



emilynghiem said:


> So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way



But Justin (and MD) continue to jump ship on their way! They want to completely abandon the notion that God is The Creator of ALL and omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, and claim that God did not create logic and God is somehow constrained by this logic He didn't create... THEN, they want to leap back to their "other" way and claim I've contested that! It's as if they want to have things BOTH ways, depending on whether they are attacking ME! 

I am honestly beginning to think MD and Justin are the same person, and it's someone who has a grudge against me personally. They are saying virtually the same shit over and over again, and making NO rational sense. All these posters here who don't believe in anything Spiritual at all, and these two are tripping over each other to totally abandon their views in order to condemn ME... then run back to their view and claim I've contradicted them! It's fucking mental!

I've patiently put up with it for days now, and they just keep on doing the same thing. In unison... in lockstep... Seriously, I think it's the SAME poster!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
Click to expand...

That's a better argument than you have offered so far. 

I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)*
> 
> The _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the a standing proof, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> _
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.
> 
> The only fallacy on display by those who argue otherwise is the stupidity that the standing axioms of human cognition and the historical fact of empirical experience are subject to the mere secondary, indemonstrable potentialities of human imagination. But the ultimate substance of this ridiculous allegation is the scientifically indemonstrable presupposition of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, a hidden/undisclosed apriority not put into evidence by the antagonist.
> 
> It's a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
> 
> Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned _valid, albeit, might or might not be true_ values.
> 
> All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
> 
> In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science*:* constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that _something can come from nothing_ is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen. Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.​
> 
> Logic proceeds from justifiable true belief/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that _something can come from nothing_.
> 
> The logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind, which yields the construct of a transcendent consciousness of ultimate origin, stands in logic, and the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_, stands in science!



*Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*

An argument only the religiously insane could accept.* 
*
I'm guessing that, as with so much of your proselytizing, you simply ignore the self-refuting nature of your babbling.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)*
> 
> The _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the a standing proof, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes.
> _
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
> *
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.
> 
> The only fallacy on display by those who argue otherwise is the stupidity that the standing axioms of human cognition and the historical fact of empirical experience are subject to the mere secondary, indemonstrable potentialities of human imagination. But the ultimate substance of this ridiculous allegation is the scientifically indemonstrable presupposition of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, a hidden/undisclosed apriority not put into evidence by the antagonist.
> 
> It's a distortion of the more limited conventions of science, which can only be used to tentatively verify or falsify things.
> 
> Formally speaking, science cannot be used to prove or disprove things. Formally speaking, logic is used to prove or disprove things.
> 
> As I wrote elsewhere*:*
> 
> Justifiable premises for syllogisms are assertions that are held to be necessarily true by definition (tautology), by intuition (axiomatic), by pragmatic exigencies, by established inferences, or by previously established postulates/theorems. Period. Even in constructive logic such premises are held to be axiomatically true as long as their nature is empirical; otherwise, they're assigned _valid, albeit, might or might not be true_ values.
> 
> All logical proofs/propositions that are factually and rationally coherent are held to be true by necessity or as possibilities that cannot be ruled out. Word!
> 
> In all forms of logic the proposition that _from nothing, nothing comes_ would in fact be assigned a truth value, and that is also currently true for the propositional logic of science*:* constructive logic. And the reason that's true is because rationally and experientially the notion that _something can come from nothing_ is an absurdity, whether or not such a thing has ever happened or could happen. Formal logic does not proceed from absurdities; rather, it holds that axioms and the postulates/theorems derived from them are true until such time contradictions are deduced from them or they are falsified by direct evidence.​
> 
> Logic proceeds from justifiable true belief/knowledge, not from absurdities. Should something that currently defies the rational or experiential facts of human cognition be shown to be possible after all, then, and only then, is it assigned a truth value as a legitimate premise from which to proceed. Science has yet to verify or falsify the propositional hypothesis that _something can come from nothing_.
> 
> The logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind, which yields the construct of a transcendent consciousness of ultimate origin, stands in logic, and the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_, stands in science!


".... and the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that _from nothing, nothing comes_, stands in science!"

Actually, dear, that's a lie and a falsehood. As you fundie zealots are unschooled and uneducated in the sciences, you shouldn't feel a need to promote that ignorance on a public forum where you open yourself to ridicule. 

Really dude, avoid relating to science matters you are clueless about.


----------



## peach174

Here is proof
Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand either, it's as if he and Rawlings want to totally contradict themselves in order to condemn me and disagree, then run back to their viewpoint and gloat about that! I totally don't get why either of them feel the need to do this. I've not disagreed with MD's _7 Things_ argument, which Justin also agrees with, so what's the problem?  Is it a personality clash thing? A mental disorder? I totally don't get it. God can't be the omnipotent creator of all things, and also not the creator of logic or beyond the constraints of how we comprehend logic. It's just not possible for God to be both those things. Yet, here they are, leaping from one position to the other, in order to criticize me and hurl insults at me.... then leaping back and pretending that I have somehow challenged their view! It's mind numbing.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
> then this should not be an issue either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But God is not "things" ...God is God. If I create a cake, I am NOT the cake! You can wax esocentric and say that part of me is in the cake, but I can never be the cake I created. Justin is trying to say that God didn't create logic, God IS logic. Well then, God didn't create anything, God IS those things! God ISN'T omnipotent, God is constrained by logic He didn't create. I simply cannot accept that incarnation of God. MY God is not "other things" because God is not a thing, God is the Creator of everything, including our perception of reality and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Justin (and MD) continue to jump ship on their way! They want to completely abandon the notion that God is The Creator of ALL and omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, and claim that God did not create logic and God is somehow constrained by this logic He didn't create... THEN, they want to leap back to their "other" way and claim I've contested that! It's as if they want to have things BOTH ways, depending on whether they are attacking ME!
> 
> I am honestly beginning to think MD and Justin are the same person, and it's someone who has a grudge against me personally. They are saying virtually the same shit over and over again, and making NO rational sense. All these posters here who don't believe in anything Spiritual at all, and these two are tripping over each other to totally abandon their views in order to condemn ME... then run back to their view and claim I've contradicted them! It's fucking mental!
> 
> I've patiently put up with it for days now, and they just keep on doing the same thing. In unison... in lockstep... Seriously, I think it's the SAME poster!
Click to expand...


1. No, Justin does not get into all the complicated details that M.D. does.
M.D. can barely carry on an argument with someone else like you or me,
he certainly cannot create another persona like Justin to argue with.

Where are you getting they are the same person?

That is as far fetched as M.D. calling people LIARS just because of an issue!

If you can understand that Justin and M.D. are NOT the same person,
maybe M.D. can understand people are NOT lying but expressing honestly what they think and maybe making errors
but not lying!

Whatever is causing that impression, we just have to forgive and cancel it out
and it can go away.  If we keep distrusting each other, these obstructions haunt us.

I don't get where they are coming from either, but the more
we forgive and let the love of truth correct any such errors or misjudgments
then these anomalies will go away.

It's like "stumbling blocks" trying to trip us up, so we have to be bigger than the rocks in the road we could trip over.

2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.

they are blending them together as one!

Some people will say God IS the Creation.
or the Word of God IS God.

The Word means the law, so logic is part of the law. Logos the Word.

People don't always separate this from God.

Just know Justin is blending them together
as so synonymous, God with Logic, they become one.

Some people understand the Universe as ALL THINGS
with no beginning or no end. So that is GOD to them.
They will not understand how can you isolate or personify
God as Creator if God is the Creation itself!

Please understand people divide the spiritual spectrum differently.

To us, it seems contradictory, but that is their system.

So Boss the wisest thing to do is to use
* your system for you
* BW system for BW
* Justin's system for Justin
* MD's system for MD
and we can all align our views as parallels
they are not gonig to be perfect matches
we cannot apply your system to Justin
or Justin system to you because you do not
define Creator/God/Logic the same way.

Justin blends God and Logic together as one,
BW may call All things the Almighty and not separate God as creator.

The whole point is to get past those differences in how we represent God
and see it is the same God anyway, just bigger than all our ways of dividing and explaining the aspects of God
on different levels.

Boss have you ever run into people who disagreed on the Trinity?
This is the same phenomena: one God but people divide it up differently and it's not the same for each person.

Boss if you can be OK with this, that will help
Justin and MD be OK with this. If we are all equally
uncomfortable then we stay stuck. We've got to learn
to be OK that we do not represent God the same way though it's the same God.

We are going to have to equally give and take
and leave some room for weird differences we can't explain or make no sense from our system to theirs.
let each use their own system and work it out the best we can, okay?

Thanks, Boss
Please keep trying to be the bigger person
and you will inspire others to be bigger and not be so petty and distrustful as well.
we all have to help each other rise above the  petty differnces and see the bigger picture!

Keep up that effort, let go of the negatives
and let's focus on the positives. the points will connect
and create a path and process for us to follow to get somewhere
instead of getting stuck on sticking points. sorry for those
but we need to learn to get past the little things if we are going to take on bigger things....

RE: 





> But God is not "things" ...God is God. If I create a cake, I am NOT the cake! You can wax esocentric and say that part of me is in the cake, but I can never be the cake I created. Justin is trying to say that God didn't create logic, God IS logic. Well then, God didn't create anything, God IS those things! God ISN'T omnipotent, God is constrained by logic He didn't create. I simply cannot accept that incarnation of God. MY God is not "other things" because God is not a thing, God is the Creator of everything, including our perception of reality and logic.



To some people they do not distinguish God/Creator from Creation, so the Creation/Universe being infinite and eternally self-existent is the equivalent of God to them.

My bf beliefs about God are somewhere in between distinguishing God as Creator the way Christians do, but seeing God as something greater because he can't relate to the personified God either. 

People have all kinds of views on this, Boss.

If we are going to work with all people, we are just going to have to forgive some of these anomalies or differences, and try to focus on what is important about God's laws or logic
that we do agree to follow, what needs correction to establish truth/justice, and what are these petty points that are going to differ or be outright contradictory that we can "forgive" and still reach agreement on waht matters.

Boss in the end, it doesn't matter if God is Creator or God is Creation,
the universal laws of science/logic/nature work the same either way.

What IS a problem is if Justin cannot work with you or you cannot work with Justin
because of your differences here. I can work with both of you, so I know it is possible
to get past this point. If you cannot forgive and work together, you both have some
mutual issues.

I sense something is wrong because
* M.D. who normally sticks objectively to arguments will DERAIL and start
namecalling and saying "I'm a liar" which is the opposite of my nature, purpose and intent
* and you will accuse Justin and M.D. of being the same person which is not possible.
M.D. cannot even imagine how another person thinks besides himself
how can he argue with himself as another persona?

So get rid of that distrust issue between you and Justin
and I think you will be ok with this God/Logic/Creator issue.
It isn't going to be perfect on our side, we are going to have shortcomings
and flaws in how we represent God. Like trying to stick a 3D object in a 2D rendering,
or a 4D object in a 3D drawing it isn't going to be perfect.

We just hve to know we are TRYING to talk about the same thing,b
but we are lopping off different angles and compromising how we represent
the infinite God using finite terms. it's not going to be the same for all people
and will have inconsistencies here and there.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you and Justin have to reject each other's views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand either, it's as if he and Rawlings want to totally contradict themselves in order to condemn me and disagree, then run back to their viewpoint and gloat about that! I totally don't get why either of them feel the need to do this. I've not disagreed with MD's _7 Things_ argument, which Justin also agrees with, so what's the problem?  Is it a personality clash thing? A mental disorder? I totally don't get it. God can't be the omnipotent creator of all things, and also not the creator of logic or beyond the constraints of how we comprehend logic. It's just not possible for God to be both those things. Yet, here they are, leaping from one position to the other, in order to criticize me and hurl insults at me.... then leaping back and pretending that I have somehow challenged their view! It's mind numbing.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss from where I am, I can see that if Justin is OK with God = Creator plus other things,
> then this should not be an issue either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But God is not "things" ...God is God. If I create a cake, I am NOT the cake! You can wax esocentric and say that part of me is in the cake, but I can never be the cake I created. Justin is trying to say that God didn't create logic, God IS logic. Well then, God didn't create anything, God IS those things! God ISN'T omnipotent, God is constrained by logic He didn't create. I simply cannot accept that incarnation of God. MY God is not "other things" because God is not a thing, God is the Creator of everything, including our perception of reality and logic.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's okay this isn't a condition that has to be fixed, it can be left open to your way or Justin's way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Justin (and MD) continue to jump ship on their way! They want to completely abandon the notion that God is The Creator of ALL and omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, and claim that God did not create logic and God is somehow constrained by this logic He didn't create... THEN, they want to leap back to their "other" way and claim I've contested that! It's as if they want to have things BOTH ways, depending on whether they are attacking ME!
> 
> I am honestly beginning to think MD and Justin are the same person, and it's someone who has a grudge against me personally. They are saying virtually the same shit over and over again, and making NO rational sense. All these posters here who don't believe in anything Spiritual at all, and these two are tripping over each other to totally abandon their views in order to condemn ME... then run back to their view and claim I've contradicted them! It's fucking mental!
> 
> I've patiently put up with it for days now, and they just keep on doing the same thing. In unison... in lockstep... Seriously, I think it's the SAME poster!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. No, Justin does not get into all the complicated details that M.D. does.
> M.D. can barely carry on an argument with someone else like you or me,
> he certainly cannot create another persona like Justin to argue with.
> 
> Where are you getting they are the same person?
> 
> That is as far fetched as M.D. calling people LIARS just because of an issue!
> 
> If you can understand that Justin and M.D. are NOT the same person,
> maybe M.D. can understand people are NOT lying but expressing honestly what they think and maybe making errors
> but not lying!
> 
> Whatever is causing that impression, we just have to forgive and cancel it out
> and it can go away.  If we keep distrusting each other, these obstructions haunt us.
> 
> I don't get where they are coming from either, but the more
> we forgive and let the love of truth correct any such errors or misjudgments
> then these anomalies will go away.
> 
> It's like "stumbling blocks" trying to trip us up, so we have to be bigger than the rocks in the road we could trip over.
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> Some people will say God IS the Creation.
> or the Word of God IS God.
> 
> The Word means the law, so logic is part of the law. Logos the Word.
> 
> People don't always separate this from God.
> 
> Just know Justin is blending them together
> as so synonymous, God with Logic, they become one.
> 
> Some people understand the Universe as ALL THINGS
> with no beginning or no end. So that is GOD to them.
> They will not understand how can you isolate or personify
> God as Creator if God is the Creation itself!
> 
> Please understand people divide the spiritual spectrum differently.
> 
> To us, it seems contradictory, but that is their system.
> 
> So Boss the wisest thing to do is to use
> * your system for you
> * BW system for BW
> * Justin's system for Justin
> * MD's system for MD
> and we can all align our views as parallels
> they are not gonig to be perfect matches
> we cannot apply your system to Justin
> or Justin system to you because you do not
> define Creator/God/Logic the same way.
> 
> Justin blends God and Logic together as one,
> BW may call All things the Almighty and not separate God as creator.
> 
> The whole point is to get past those differences in how we represent God
> and see it is the same God anyway, just bigger than all our ways of dividing and explaining the aspects of God
> on different levels.
> 
> Boss have you ever run into people who disagreed on the Trinity?
> This is the same phenomena: one God but people divide it up differently and it's not the same for each person.
> 
> Boss if you can be OK with this, that will help
> Justin and MD be OK with this. If we are all equally
> uncomfortable then we stay stuck. We've got to learn
> to be OK that we do not represent God the same way though it's the same God.
> 
> We are going to have to equally give and take
> and leave some room for weird differences we can't explain or make no sense from our system to theirs.
> let each use their own system and work it out the best we can, okay?
> 
> Thanks, Boss
> Please keep trying to be the bigger person
> and you will inspire others to be bigger and not be so petty and distrustful as well.
> we all have to help each other rise above the  petty differnces and see the bigger picture!
> 
> Keep up that effort, let go of the negatives
> and let's focus on the positives. the points will connect
> and create a path and process for us to follow to get somewhere
> instead of getting stuck on sticking points. sorry for those
> but we need to learn to get past the little things if we are going to take on bigger things....
Click to expand...

Emily, boss makes 4-5 people in this very thread that thought md and justin are the same person.

perhaps there's something to it? perhaps its axiomatic.


----------



## emilynghiem

emilynghiem said:


> Justin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Why am wondering?  Without God we're all moonbat crazy. I forgot.  I remember when I was moonbat crazy before the Holly Spirit got a hold of me and straightened me out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say without forgiveness we drive ourselves and others crazy
> projecting old issues from the past and repeating them.
> 
> So the part of the Holy Spirit that I appreciate most
> is the more we forgive the more we receive:
> more understanding, more healing, more insights and wisdom,
> more solutions and more grace to share and uplift one another.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin and Boss, M.D. and BreezeWood:
I see there are some sticking points with things like:
* if God = Creator then God cannot be = Logic if this is separate and created by the Creator
* if God = Creator than God cannot be the greater Almighty that is greater than just the Creator

Justin especially, since I believe you may have greater understanding of the Christian calling
while Boss and M.D. are struggling,
*can I please ask that we make a commitment to FORGIVE each other our differences FIRST, and then clear the way to receive insights and understanding how to RESOLVE those differences SECOND.*

Boss wants to see the corrections first.
But the namecalling and ugliness seems to be getting in the way
and need to be removed. In order to see clearly HOW to resolve or correct issues.

The only thing I know that invites that kind of negative energy and thoughts
is UNFORGIVENESS

this is like a wormhole that twists reality and invites corrupted feelings
and perceptions

Can we agree to REMOVE the points of Unforgiveness between us
and see if that helps straighten out the rest?

there is something negative SKEWING the perceptions here
for MD. to be namecalling and accusing me of lying
and for Boss to be so frustrated and baffled as to believe
Justin and MD are the same person. That is not natural.

Justin if you and MD are fellow Christians
May I please join you in prayer that all things unforgiven
be removed from this equation and replaced with only
the understanding and wisdom of God that will help us be aligned in Christ.

Thank you in Jesus name Amen!


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss and GT:

This message from Justin is arguing about different things.

Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.

MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.

Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.

Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
* God's absolute truth cannot be relative
* if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless

MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.

GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.

if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation.  I did support my argument and you know that what you're saying is irrational.  Rawlings argument clearly shows why that's irrational.  All you have left is the irrational statement that God created logic. Anything that is created is not necessary, so according to you logic is not necessary.  But you can't get away from logic and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
Click to expand...

But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> This is no good, Emily.
> 1. Truth is not relative.
> 2. We're not God.
> 
> That's all.



Dear M.D. Please see my reply to Justin.
That God's Absolute/Universal Truth is by definition Absolute
But our PERCEPTION and EXPRESSION of it is RELATIVE.

2. Because "We're not God"
then our expressions are short of God.

So our expressions are not absolute/infinite but are representations that are finite.

Do you agree that man's scope is limited compared with God's?

So I am NOT saying that God's truth is relative,
I am saying our HUMAN Representation of truth is relative.

Is this more clear? Thanks!

P.S. can you and Justin please give some background on both of yourselves
to show you are not the same person. For some reason this has come up
and caused an issue of distrust to skew communications. if this can please
be resolved, that will be one barrier out of the way that is throwing wrenches into the system we don't need.
Thanks!

I see from your profiles MD. calls himself a classic liberal
while Justin is a Second Amendment advocate. Can you go into 
details about your background on what issues brought you into this forum
so we can see you are from different paths and not the same persona? Thanks


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational.
> 
> Again... If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
Click to expand...


If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?

We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.

Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.

How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Boss who unwitting anthropomorphizes God, for example, when he forgets that God is eternally omniscience and thinks of God's existence from our finite perspective of time.
> 
> From God's perspective of existence, which, contrary to Boss's claims, we _can_ in fact apprehend because God gave us the logic we need in order to apprehend it on His terms*: * everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.
> 
> You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.
> 
> I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper.  Non Sequitur.
> 
> Logic was _not_ created.  God _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.    Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation*:*  including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature.   Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . .  or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of _The Seven Things_ necessarily hold.
> 
> To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another.  In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that _The Seven Things_ are logically true and to hold that logic was created.
> 
> And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.
> 
> (An aside:  as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing,  orthodox Christianity.  Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Rawlings, you're not supporting your argument. You are simply saying that I am being illogical and irrational, while being illogical and irrational yourself. You then mutter some nonsense about logic being God's logic, as if other things are not belonging to God. All things are God's, including all things we are consciously aware of in our reality which God also created. What's illogical is to say God is omnipotent creator of all things, then parsing out logic as something beyond God's ability to create or control.... but then, insisting it is God's. This is simply put, absurdity heaped on absurdity, which is what you ironically accuse me of.
> 
> Without time, space, reality, and a material universe for it to apply, what is the purpose of logic? Without an intelligent mind to use it as a tool of understanding, what purpose would it serve? Logic is useful to humans attempting to understand their material reality and universe. And for the record, our understanding and perception of logic may not be always true. We don't know for sure, we can't know, it's not possible for us to know, we can only believe we know.
> 
> I know that you think you're smart and you've figured God out, but let me tell you son, you're not that smart. None of us are. We're little monkeys amusing ourselves with trivial little grunt sounds we call words, to which we've applied all kinds of meaning and reasoning. It doesn't mean we're anywhere near right or close to the truth. Only God knows truth. We can philosophize, we can theologize, we can rationalize and conceptualize. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth.
Click to expand...


Boss, your argument is that God _*created everything*_ (*not God created everything apart from Himself*); therefore, God created logic.

That does not follow!

When you are asked:  "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"

You answer:  "Because God created everything."

Nonresponsive!   

God did not _*create everything*_, Boss, did He?  That premise is not rational, is it?  It's not sound, is it?


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you getting sarcastic and arguing against straw men?  Is it because I don't accept your stupid argument and you know it's stupid?
> 
> I said this:  "God did not create logic.  God _is_ Logic.  Logic is not a creation."
> 
> You imply I said this:   "God is not Logic, God is God. Logic is Logic. That is rational."
> 
> Did Hollie or GT take over your mind?
> 
> Here's your argument:  "If God did not create Logic, then God cannot be omnipotent" = Because God is omnipotent, he created logic.
> 
> Sorry but that doesn't work.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
Click to expand...


I told you a long time ago, Emily. 

I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around. 

I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy. 

I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect. 

So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures. 

I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people. 

These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.


----------



## peach174

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss didn't say any of this claptrap. I've fucking had it with you Rawlings. If you are going to sit here and outright LIE about things I've stated, in order to further denigrate and insult me, you can go to hell.
> 
> God IS omniscient, therefore... God has NO PURPOSE for conscious awareness, perception or sentience. It's not that God is incapable of it, it's that God has no purpose for it other than to bestow them upon human beings. God DID give us logic, God CREATED logic, contrary to YOUR statement that God did NOT create logic. God created EVERYTHING!
> 
> *everything that has ever existed, exists now and will exist, according to our sense of time, have always existed in God's mind from eternity and exist in God's mind right now!*
> 
> God does not have a "mind" because God doesn't need one. This is something God created for humans to have. Omniscient spiritual entities do not need minds. What you continue to try and do is apply humanistic attributes to a God that is not human and who created these attributes FOR humans. You do this because you are a human and incapable of fully comprehending the God that you are aware exists. It doesn't negate or refute your _Seven Things_ argument, it's just a superficial detail you are completely wrong about.
> 
> The _Seven Things_ argument stands on its own accord without the need for applying your biased interpretations of God. When it comes to conceptualizing God, we are like monkeys trying to explain or rationalize nuclear fission. The smartest monkey in the world can't do that, no matter how much they wish they could, or how much they attempt to apply their monkey grunts, it will never be sufficient. God is above all that you are capable of imagining as an inferior mortal human being. Your application of humanistic attributes to God are caused by your need to explain something you cannot explain. It's a paradoxical argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but you unmistakably _did_ argued that we cannot conceptualize God on any other terms but the logic that we have, which is true. If that's the end of it, i.e., if the logic we have is of a constitutionally alternate form of thought than that of God, a creature designed specifically for man, not the conferral of God's logic on man*:* our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God. It would be utterly unreliable; nothing could be credibly asserted about God whatsoever. It cannot be any other way. Hence, this post of yours, which amounts to the argument that _God is omnipotent; therefore, He created logic_ is an unresponsive non sequitur that doesn't even begin to address the following argument, let alone resolve the incoherencies of your untenable position.
> 
> 
> *Why Does Boss' Argument Fail?*
> 
> Boss has argued that because humans cannot think about God on any other terms but human logic and, therefore, in any other terms but their rational conceptualizations and expressions (linguistic/mathematical), humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> Well, of course, the former part of that statement is incontrovertibly true! Boss rightly argues that since our organic logic is all we have to go on, everything we think we know about God is doubtful . . . assuming that his conclusion necessarily follows.
> 
> Amazingly, however, Boss doesn't stop with his origin conclusion of doubt, which would necessarily prove . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . that either *(1)* the things we think we know about God based on our logic are true or* (2)* _might_ not be true.
> 
> There is nothing else that can be rationally asserted beyond that cogitation of doubt whatsoever.
> 
> But Boss doesn't stop on that dime of doubt that holds . . . assuming his original conclusion necessarily follows . . . but goes on to assert all kinds of things with absolute certainty, namely, that virtually everything we think we know about God based on our logic is wrong.
> 
> Boss jumps the shark of doubt and lands on the ground of absolute certainty that clearly does not and cannot follow.
> 
> How did that happen?
> 
> Worse, the ground of absolute certainty that he lands on amounts to the absurdity that our absolutes about God are not absolutes but absolutely false . . . except, of course, the absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false, which would necessarily mean that Boss' absolute that all of our absolutes about God are absolutely false is absolutely false.
> 
> Welcome to the mind of doubt and confusion, chaos and absurdity, paradox and willful contrariness, contradiction and incoherency*:* a landscape of delusions and darkness. God is not perfect after all, but a liar, Who created us with a standard of logic that misleads us into believing things about Him that are all wrong.
> 
> Fortunately for the rest of us, Boss is absolutely outside his mind. God _is_ perfect. He does not lie. Boss' original, contradictory conclusion does not follow at all. Non sequitur. The logic we have is bottomed on God Who is the ultimate substance of the same. He is the universal Principle of Identity. The logic we have is not a creature, but a prior existent endowed by God to us. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him.
> 
> By definition, God is all-knowing. He has all knowledge, including the very foundation and first principle of knowledge, namely, logic. Logic was not created! God created us and endowed with His logic so that we may know that He exists and understand Him in accordance with His will and good pleasure. In that there is no chaos, absurdities, paradoxes, willful contrariness, contradictions or incoherency, but perfect order and harmony.
> 
> It's absurd to assert, as Boss does, that we could even know God exists based on a doubtful standard of logic, let alone any of the other things he claims to know about God, which would necessarily contradict everything the actual standard divulges, based on the doubtful standard of logic he alleges, which begets one absurdity after another.
> 
> God is perfect, not a liar.
> 
> Boss' argument Fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of shit, you don't understand anything I've argued and you never have. You fail. As a debater and as a person. I've been patient with you, I've tried to understand your reasoning, agreed with your _7 Things_ argument, and helped you defend it to the Atheists, and you continue to want to insult me, criticize my thinking, call my reasoning into question and misconstrue every single thing I have said. It's only absurd because you are making it absurd.
> 
> You need to learn some manners, for one. You've literally driven me away from your viewpoint by being rude and obnoxious to me for no reason. Second, you need to learn how to read in context, rather than deliberately taking things way out of context in order to formulate an objection. I don't know if you are on drugs or what your problem is... maybe you just like being contrary? It's disgusting behavior from someone who seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. I am disappointed because you started out with so much potential and you've completely blown it with your attitude. Finally, you need to stop LYING about what people have said, in order that you may contradict them. It's the behavior of trolls.
> 
> I've never said God is a liar, I don't know how you derived that from anything I have posted. I have argued nothing but "God is perfect" in everything I have said. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and THE CREATOR of EVERYTHING! There are no exceptions, there isn't any caveat, that is a stand alone statement of truth you either believe or don't believe. God created logic just as God created math, physics, gravity, energy, and everything else we are aware of in this reality and universe. There isn't anything God didn't create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, Boss, but the notion that logic is a creature/a created thing clearly does not follow from the understanding that God is omnipotent, the Creator of all other things that exist outside Himself proper.  Non Sequitur.
> 
> Logic was _not_ created.  God _is_ the universal Principle of Identity.    Our logic is God's logic, conferred on His creation*:*  including the laws of thought, the spiritual and natural laws of morality and the physical laws of nature.   Truth is not relative and God as the very Substance and the Ground of logic is the Source and Guarantor of the universal logic that prevails at both the transcendent and temporal realms of being . . .  or so the laws of organic thought and the logical ramifications of _The Seven Things_ necessarily hold.
> 
> To hold otherwise is sheer irrationalism, the fount of one absurdity after another.  In fact, it's absurd to simultaneously hold that _The Seven Things_ are logically true and to hold that logic was created.
> 
> And all this handwringing is not going to make these objective facts of human cognition go away.
> 
> (An aside:  as the false allegation that I am a Jehovah Witness has reared its stupid head again, I am Bible-believing,  orthodox Christianity.  Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the universal Logos of existence by Whom and for Whom all created things were created and are sustained and held together.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Rawlings, you're not supporting your argument. You are simply saying that I am being illogical and irrational, while being illogical and irrational yourself. You then mutter some nonsense about logic being God's logic, as if other things are not belonging to God. All things are God's, including all things we are consciously aware of in our reality which God also created. What's illogical is to say God is omnipotent creator of all things, then parsing out logic as something beyond God's ability to create or control.... but then, insisting it is God's. This is simply put, absurdity heaped on absurdity, which is what you ironically accuse me of.
> 
> Without time, space, reality, and a material universe for it to apply, what is the purpose of logic? Without an intelligent mind to use it as a tool of understanding, what purpose would it serve? Logic is useful to humans attempting to understand their material reality and universe. And for the record, our understanding and perception of logic may not be always true. We don't know for sure, we can't know, it's not possible for us to know, we can only believe we know.
> 
> I know that you think you're smart and you've figured God out, but let me tell you son, you're not that smart. None of us are. We're little monkeys amusing ourselves with trivial little grunt sounds we call words, to which we've applied all kinds of meaning and reasoning. It doesn't mean we're anywhere near right or close to the truth. Only God knows truth. We can philosophize, we can theologize, we can rationalize and conceptualize. We can't know truth, we can only believe we know truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boss, your argument is that God _*created everything*_ (*not God created everything apart from Himself*); therefore, God created logic.
> 
> That does not follow!
> 
> When you are asked:  "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"
> 
> You answer:  "Because God created everything."
> 
> Nonresponsive!
> 
> God did not _*create everything*_, Boss, did He?  That premise is not rational, is it?  It's not sound, is it?
Click to expand...


He created everything in this universe.
We know very little or next to nothing yet about parallel worlds.


----------



## sealybobo

peach174 said:


> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.



It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not Logic, God is God, Logic is Logic. What you are saying is irrational.
> 
> God is the Creator of all things. To say God did not create Logic is to say that God is not the creator of all things. To argue that God is confined to Logic which God did not create, is to say that God is not omnipotent. IF you believe in a God who created all things and a God who is omnipotent, then God must have created Logic.
> 
> Logic, as we understand it, applies to the material physical universe of which we experience a reality. Before this, there was void... nothingness. There was simply nothing for Logic to apply to. Now we can continue to simply repeat ourselves over and over, and add an insult to each other every time, that's fine with me... but you're not refuting my argument in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
Click to expand...


Dear me!

GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
if the sentiment is mutual.

I just know that where I treat people with respect,
they do the same, or try to.

how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
if we treat each other as trash?

It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
the only things we can change are the relations in our range.

If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?

Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.

You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.

here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
Rachel s Challenge
If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
Click to expand...

Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?

Think.


Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.

If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.

You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


Dear Sealybobo: My friend Olivia had an out of body experience where she saw her young son crying not to leave yet.
She never told him, but thought it was just a dream/vision to tell  her that she had a lot more work to do in this lifetime.

Years later, her son told her that very same night he had a dream and saw her and begged her not to go.

So on what level did they both have a connection on this "astral" plane?

SB I have a friend who studied psychometrics and learned to control lucid dream states, so he could travel and be aware of where he was while he was in dream states. He said most people were standing still in that plane, because they were not aware of where they went while asleep and partially out of their bodies.

In Scott Peck's book on the exorcism sessions he and his team studied as therapy for two incapacitated schizophrenic patients, they all described witnessing the same demonic faces and voices.

so even if that was a mass hallucination on the astral plane, they all shared the same perceptions.

Just because you and I don't have these experiences
doesn't mean other people aren't having them.

Just because they are not visible in the realistic 3D world
does not mean they aren't real signals and energy/waves on  higher planes or wavelengths.

One of my friends said that analog technology was so sensitive, it could pick up noise
and signals of "voices" in people's heads and show these WERE registering on some level.
So they weren't imaginary but  higher dimensional and we just can't always detect them on our normal levels.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
Click to expand...


I'm saying even if we cannot prove/disprove, we can reach agreement
if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.

So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
we can do more to resolve them.

So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
if people don't forgive, they get stuck
if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
does the more we forgive the conflicts.

Note: forgiveness does not mean passively allowing or enabling wrongs to continue.
it means to detach from the emotional burden of holding onto the injustice.
you can actually address and correct issues of injustice more clear-headed
by forgiving first and then using restored relations to resolve the actual grievances.
this is much more effective than going into conflicts with loaded guns expecting to resolve
things by force, which tends to backfire and cause backlash after using force for some things.
it doesn't solve the problem in the longrun. and only after people forgive can they reason
rationally and work toward sustainable solutions and prevention. usually that isn't possible
until after they forgive and heal because the parties are too combative and can't work together yet.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  The idea that God is Logic does not confine Him to being just logic.  God is Love doesn't mean that God is only love. God is omnipotent
> doesn't mean that he is only omnipotent. He is also all-knowing and lots of other things too  So when you say that God is omnipotent, you can’t argue that he's anything else according to your logic. Nope sorry God is omnipotent and that's all he is according to your logic, but that doesn't work, so you're wrong again. You're just not making any sense and what you're saying adds up to relativism.  Truth isn't relative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
Click to expand...


I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. 

If you eventually get past the fact that I won't respect these guys and want to have a conversation independent of them, let me know and I'll be game for it. I'm not going to be on the same page with bothering with them as you are, sorry about that.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
Click to expand...


Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.  

I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.

I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.

I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.

So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
Click to expand...


Well, maybe after the venting stage
more people will blow off the excess steam
and start focusing on what really will make the engine run smoothly
where we agree how to stay on the right track toward agreed solutions,
instead of throwing cows onto the train tracks to derail each other to control the train.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.
> 
> I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.
> 
> I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.
> 
> I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo: Are you talking to me? I am a prochoice Democrat.
I support the equal religious beliefs of both prochoice and prolife equally.
I believe the prolife position is best exercised as it is now by CHOICE not force of law.

I don't believe in imposing any laws/legislation/punitive measures
that violate either prochoice or prolife beliefs I hold as equally protected under Constitutional laws as equal beliefs.

So I believe in laws passed by consensus that all sides agree support both and violate neither.

So this points to prevention as you stated you also see as the logical focus!

What disagreement do you have that you see me as representing?

I believe in stopping all forms of abuse: relationship abuse, sexual abuse, incest, rape,
trafficking and other crimes in order to prevent abortions. I find that men are equally
if not more responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in cases of coercion so it makes
no sense to penalize the women after the fact as that discriminates against women
when it takes two people to cause the pregnancy, and if the sex was coerced it wasn't the women's fault. So prevention of abuse seems the fairest focus that doesn't discriminate,
but on that level, the state cannot legislate and it has to be the people to intervene and
educate and prevent abuses. the state can only address crimes after they have occurred.

So the focus should be on prevention on a level that people control those choices.

if we can stop rape, bullying coercion and other abuses, then the unwanted sex,
pregnancies and abortions will stop. that is up to the people not the govt because it is 
on a personal level outside the govt jurisdiction.


----------



## peach174

sealybobo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks


----------



## G.T.

peach174 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
Click to expand...


But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.
> 
> I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.
> 
> I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.
> 
> I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo: Are you talking to me? I am a prochoice Democrat.
> I support the equal religious beliefs of both prochoice and prolife equally.
> I believe the prolife position is best exercised as it is now by CHOICE not force of law.
> 
> I don't believe in imposing any laws/legislation/punitive measures
> that violate either prochoice or prolife beliefs I hold as equally protected under Constitutional laws as equal beliefs.
> 
> So I believe in laws passed by consensus that all sides agree support both and violate neither.
> 
> So this points to prevention as you stated you also see as the logical focus!
> 
> What disagreement do you have that you see me as representing?
> 
> I believe in stopping all forms of abuse: relationship abuse, sexual abuse, incest, rape,
> trafficking and other crimes in order to prevent abortions. I find that men are equally
> if not more responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in cases of coercion so it makes
> no sense to penalize the women after the fact as that discriminates against women
> when it takes two people to cause the pregnancy, and if the sex was coerced it wasn't the women's fault. So prevention of abuse seems the fairest focus that doesn't discriminate,
> but on that level, the state cannot legislate and it has to be the people to intervene and
> educate and prevent abuses. the state can only address crimes after they have occurred.
> 
> So the focus should be on prevention on a level that people control those choices.
> 
> if we can stop rape, bullying coercion and other abuses, then the unwanted sex,
> pregnancies and abortions will stop. that is up to the people not the govt because it is
> on a personal level outside the govt jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


I don't question your position on things.  I disagree with how you constantly keep asking us all to "see the other side".  My point is I do.  I see the conservatives side on everything.

Oh, and this is more for Boss, but I was watching this movie on terrorism and the man woke his kid up at 4:30am to pray, say allah akbar 30 times.  Basically brainwashing that kid.  Eventually that kid will grow up to brainwash his sons and daughters the same way.

And you wonder why we think this god character is made up?  Look at how believers act.  Don't tell me Christians are much better.  Of course they are.  But they still believe in the same imaginary invisible man.  I believe this believe is unhealthy.  It may make most theists happy but that doesn't mean its a good thing overall.


----------



## emilynghiem

peach174 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
Click to expand...


Dear Peach174 and Sealybobo:
My favorite author/testimony on this phenomena is
Don Piper "90 Minutes in Heaven"
He did not even want to return to life on earth after he had his "vision of heaven" real or imagined.
He wanted to stay there!
After he got crushed to death by an 18 wheeler, with no pulse for 90 minutes,
he came back with no brain/head injuries. His body had to be reconstructed,
but his brain and functions were completely normal which teh doctors coudl not explain.
he jsut felt that it was a blessing his heart stopped or he would have "bled out"
so he understood he needed to be in a suspended state of death in order to recover later.

But the more people asked him to share his story,
he saw they got something out of it that made them
appreciate life and each other better, they prayed together and uplifted one another
by understanding that prayer did have a positive connection on a higher level.

So it was only because it helped other people
that he accepted his role and purpose, to use his story that way.

Every day he lives in such pain where only a few minutes or maybe
2 hours of each day he doesn't feel pain, that it is only worth it
because it has helped other people to live and not give up.

because he had to go through painful bone reconstruction
he has counseled other people to bear and live with the pain
even though they'd rather die it hurts so unstoppably. 
so there are many levels he has used his story
"real or imagined" to help people rise above physical suffering and  enjoy life with thanks despite the pain and losses.

it still serves a good purpose and doesn't have to be real or fake,
the vision is what it is, Don had his vision and it helped him make it through and help others as well.


----------



## sealybobo

peach174 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
Click to expand...


No it is not a miracle.  An amputee waking up and his arm has grown back would be a miracle.  

Besides, the existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.

Funny when some lives it's a miracle and when someone dies it's gods will.


----------



## amrchaos

Emily

Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.

Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.

It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.

There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.

There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance. 

Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> 
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.
> 
> I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.
> 
> I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.
> 
> I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo: Are you talking to me? I am a prochoice Democrat.
> I support the equal religious beliefs of both prochoice and prolife equally.
> I believe the prolife position is best exercised as it is now by CHOICE not force of law.
> 
> I don't believe in imposing any laws/legislation/punitive measures
> that violate either prochoice or prolife beliefs I hold as equally protected under Constitutional laws as equal beliefs.
> 
> So I believe in laws passed by consensus that all sides agree support both and violate neither.
> 
> So this points to prevention as you stated you also see as the logical focus!
> 
> What disagreement do you have that you see me as representing?
> 
> I believe in stopping all forms of abuse: relationship abuse, sexual abuse, incest, rape,
> trafficking and other crimes in order to prevent abortions. I find that men are equally
> if not more responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in cases of coercion so it makes
> no sense to penalize the women after the fact as that discriminates against women
> when it takes two people to cause the pregnancy, and if the sex was coerced it wasn't the women's fault. So prevention of abuse seems the fairest focus that doesn't discriminate,
> but on that level, the state cannot legislate and it has to be the people to intervene and
> educate and prevent abuses. the state can only address crimes after they have occurred.
> 
> So the focus should be on prevention on a level that people control those choices.
> 
> if we can stop rape, bullying coercion and other abuses, then the unwanted sex,
> pregnancies and abortions will stop. that is up to the people not the govt because it is
> on a personal level outside the govt jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't question your position on things.  I disagree with how you constantly keep asking us all to "see the other side".  My point is I do.  I see the conservatives side on everything.
> 
> Oh, and this is more for Boss, but I was watching this movie on terrorism and the man woke his kid up at 4:30am to pray, say allah akbar 30 times.  Basically brainwashing that kid.  Eventually that kid will grow up to brainwash his sons and daughters the same way.
> 
> And you wonder why we think this god character is made up?  Look at how believers act.  Don't tell me Christians are much better.  Of course they are.  But they still believe in the same imaginary invisible man.  I believe this believe is unhealthy.  It may make most theists happy but that doesn't mean its a good thing overall.
Click to expand...


Sealybobo:
Do you see enough of the other side to see how "our side" looks to them?

It looks like Democrats don't care about choice for other people such as health care,
but only choice when we want to use abortion as a political tool to organize votes.

It looks like liberals/Democrats don't care about defending Christian practices,
but only Atheists.  And only care about one side's views of marriage but not other people's equal beliefs.

It looks like liberals don't care about Mia Love and Tim Scott being black leaders elected historically,
but slam any conservative Blacks as "not real Blacks but Uncle Toms" and only pushing stories
in the media that fit the race-baiting agenda.

Sealybobo do you HONESTLY treat Conservatives the same as your own peers?

Do you DEMAND that the Liberals be forgiven as you point out with forgiving the perceived injustice by Conservatives?

Sealybobo, if liberals block and reject the practice of spiritual healing as valid,
this is preventing people from getting help for mental and physical disorders.

How many people have died of suicide, addiction, mental or criminal illness or acts of sick people
who could have been cured and deaths prevented had Spiritual Healing been proven earilier?

So this "separation of church and state" that Liberals tout
is CENSORING help that could save lives.

Do you ask liberals to apologize for that?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> Emily
> 
> Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.
> 
> Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.
> 
> It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.
> 
> There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.
> 
> There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.
> 
> Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.


Hey man, I'm not going to take advantage of anyone but my wife! lol


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
Click to expand...


Same thing with the god.

We've been asking this question a long time.

*Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings. 

And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?

And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.

I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not a miracle.  An amputee waking up and his arm has grown back would be a miracle.
> 
> Besides, the existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.
> 
> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.
> 
> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.
> 
> Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.
> 
> Funny when some lives it's a miracle and when someone dies it's gods will.
Click to expand...


Dear Sealybobo:
No, spiritual healing is natural and works WITH the laws of nature not against it.
you cannot turn something into something it is not, like you cannot change a butterfly into an elephant.

What you CAN do is identify the spiritual root cause of blockage
that is IMPEDING natural healing, and then remove it.

So once the natural healing energy flows full force,
this can result in curing and healing
* cancer
* schizophrenia including demonic voices
* multiple personalities by removing demons
* suicidal, self-destructive or addictive obsessions in the spirit and mind
* causes or symptoms of abusive behavior

This is all natural and consistent with science.

See sources for further research at freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.
> 
> I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.
> 
> I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.
> 
> I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo: Are you talking to me? I am a prochoice Democrat.
> I support the equal religious beliefs of both prochoice and prolife equally.
> I believe the prolife position is best exercised as it is now by CHOICE not force of law.
> 
> I don't believe in imposing any laws/legislation/punitive measures
> that violate either prochoice or prolife beliefs I hold as equally protected under Constitutional laws as equal beliefs.
> 
> So I believe in laws passed by consensus that all sides agree support both and violate neither.
> 
> So this points to prevention as you stated you also see as the logical focus!
> 
> What disagreement do you have that you see me as representing?
> 
> I believe in stopping all forms of abuse: relationship abuse, sexual abuse, incest, rape,
> trafficking and other crimes in order to prevent abortions. I find that men are equally
> if not more responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in cases of coercion so it makes
> no sense to penalize the women after the fact as that discriminates against women
> when it takes two people to cause the pregnancy, and if the sex was coerced it wasn't the women's fault. So prevention of abuse seems the fairest focus that doesn't discriminate,
> but on that level, the state cannot legislate and it has to be the people to intervene and
> educate and prevent abuses. the state can only address crimes after they have occurred.
> 
> So the focus should be on prevention on a level that people control those choices.
> 
> if we can stop rape, bullying coercion and other abuses, then the unwanted sex,
> pregnancies and abortions will stop. that is up to the people not the govt because it is
> on a personal level outside the govt jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't question your position on things.  I disagree with how you constantly keep asking us all to "see the other side".  My point is I do.  I see the conservatives side on everything.
> 
> Oh, and this is more for Boss, but I was watching this movie on terrorism and the man woke his kid up at 4:30am to pray, say allah akbar 30 times.  Basically brainwashing that kid.  Eventually that kid will grow up to brainwash his sons and daughters the same way.
> 
> And you wonder why we think this god character is made up?  Look at how believers act.  Don't tell me Christians are much better.  Of course they are.  But they still believe in the same imaginary invisible man.  I believe this believe is unhealthy.  It may make most theists happy but that doesn't mean its a good thing overall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealybobo:
> Do you see enough of the other side to see how "our side" looks to them?
> 
> It looks like Democrats don't care about choice for other people such as health care,
> but only choice when we want to use abortion as a political tool to organize votes.
> 
> It looks like liberals/Democrats don't care about defending Christian practices,
> but only Atheists.  And only care about one side's views of marriage but not other people's equal beliefs.
> 
> It looks like liberals don't care about Mia Love and Tim Scott being black leaders elected historically,
> but slam any conservative Blacks as "not real Blacks but Uncle Toms" and only pushing stories
> in the media that fit the race-baiting agenda.
> 
> Sealybobo do you HONESTLY treat Conservatives the same as your own peers?
> 
> Do you DEMAND that the Liberals be forgiven as you point out with forgiving the perceived injustice by Conservatives?
> 
> Sealybobo, if liberals block and reject the practice of spiritual healing as valid,
> this is preventing people from getting help for mental and physical disorders.
> 
> How many people have died of suicide, addiction, mental or criminal illness or acts of sick people
> who could have been cured and deaths prevented had Spiritual Healing been proven earilier?
> 
> So this "separation of church and state" that Liberals tout
> is CENSORING help that could save lives.
> 
> Do you ask liberals to apologize for that?
Click to expand...


We didn't turn abortion into a political football.  That was the GOP.  They need wedge issues like god gays and guns to divide the middle class who would otherwise vote for the workers party.   Seeing as how they are workers.  And the ones that sat home, maybe did so because they couldn't vote for the godless pro abortion liberals!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> Emily
> 
> Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.
> 
> Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.
> 
> It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.
> 
> There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.
> 
> There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.
> 
> Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.



If there are forces that dark, then we need to call in an exorcist to remove the demonic influences.

I didn't think it was that bad until I saw the twisted perceptions accusing others of far fetched things.
If that doesn't straighten out by our own interactions to correct them,
yes, I might believe there are outside forces at play manipulating people's minds.

I don't think anyone here is that criminally sick, but even a stuck obsession
can be hard to root out by oneself. if people are that bent on destructive rejection, it may not be within their control.
I didn't think it was that bad. these people seemed open to reason
and only acted that way if the OTHER person also accused and didn't forgive.

When I respond trying to be reasonable and listening, they seem to respond so that's why i thought
it was still within our ability to correct ourselves. I don't think it is on the level of demonic interference from outside?


----------



## G.T.

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
Click to expand...

Yea,

I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it. 

The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof. 

I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying we can reach agreement
> if we can get past our forgiveness/unforgiveness issues.
> 
> So to prove that, we'd have to show that by forgiving each others differences,
> we can do more to resolve them.
> 
> So part of this process here is to demonstrate the difference:
> if people don't forgive, they get stuck
> if people do forgive, they can move forward and resolve more points.
> the views/beliefs underneath don't really change,
> but our perception of how our views connect and relate to each other (despite our differences)
> does the more we forgive the conflicts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  I forgive you that you make women who don't want to have a child guilty.
> 
> I forgive you that you took Texas from having 30 abortion clinics all over the state to 6.  Making it harder for poor people, not rich, to get abortions, even if they don't want or shouldn't have children.
> 
> I forgive you that your side murdered Dr. Tiller.  Don't do it again, please.
> 
> I forgive you that you make it harder for poor women to get abortions and the lower the amount of foodstamps you give them so it isn't enough.  Is that tough love?  It certainly isn't smart.  Maybe we should cover birth control pills for poor women?  Maybe that would make sense.  And pills aren't enough.  We should get poor women IUD's.  That takes the chances of having an accident or mistake from 50% to 2%.
> 
> So if you want to talk about how we can lower the number of teen pregnancies, which will lead to less abortions, we've been trying to have that conversation for years.  Tell your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Sealybobo: Are you talking to me? I am a prochoice Democrat.
> I support the equal religious beliefs of both prochoice and prolife equally.
> I believe the prolife position is best exercised as it is now by CHOICE not force of law.
> 
> I don't believe in imposing any laws/legislation/punitive measures
> that violate either prochoice or prolife beliefs I hold as equally protected under Constitutional laws as equal beliefs.
> 
> So I believe in laws passed by consensus that all sides agree support both and violate neither.
> 
> So this points to prevention as you stated you also see as the logical focus!
> 
> What disagreement do you have that you see me as representing?
> 
> I believe in stopping all forms of abuse: relationship abuse, sexual abuse, incest, rape,
> trafficking and other crimes in order to prevent abortions. I find that men are equally
> if not more responsible for the unwanted pregnancy in cases of coercion so it makes
> no sense to penalize the women after the fact as that discriminates against women
> when it takes two people to cause the pregnancy, and if the sex was coerced it wasn't the women's fault. So prevention of abuse seems the fairest focus that doesn't discriminate,
> but on that level, the state cannot legislate and it has to be the people to intervene and
> educate and prevent abuses. the state can only address crimes after they have occurred.
> 
> So the focus should be on prevention on a level that people control those choices.
> 
> if we can stop rape, bullying coercion and other abuses, then the unwanted sex,
> pregnancies and abortions will stop. that is up to the people not the govt because it is
> on a personal level outside the govt jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't question your position on things.  I disagree with how you constantly keep asking us all to "see the other side".  My point is I do.  I see the conservatives side on everything.
> 
> Oh, and this is more for Boss, but I was watching this movie on terrorism and the man woke his kid up at 4:30am to pray, say allah akbar 30 times.  Basically brainwashing that kid.  Eventually that kid will grow up to brainwash his sons and daughters the same way.
> 
> And you wonder why we think this god character is made up?  Look at how believers act.  Don't tell me Christians are much better.  Of course they are.  But they still believe in the same imaginary invisible man.  I believe this believe is unhealthy.  It may make most theists happy but that doesn't mean its a good thing overall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sealybobo:
> Do you see enough of the other side to see how "our side" looks to them?
> 
> It looks like Democrats don't care about choice for other people such as health care,
> but only choice when we want to use abortion as a political tool to organize votes.
> 
> It looks like liberals/Democrats don't care about defending Christian practices,
> but only Atheists.  And only care about one side's views of marriage but not other people's equal beliefs.
> 
> It looks like liberals don't care about Mia Love and Tim Scott being black leaders elected historically,
> but slam any conservative Blacks as "not real Blacks but Uncle Toms" and only pushing stories
> in the media that fit the race-baiting agenda.
> 
> Sealybobo do you HONESTLY treat Conservatives the same as your own peers?
> 
> Do you DEMAND that the Liberals be forgiven as you point out with forgiving the perceived injustice by Conservatives?
> 
> Sealybobo, if liberals block and reject the practice of spiritual healing as valid,
> this is preventing people from getting help for mental and physical disorders.
> 
> How many people have died of suicide, addiction, mental or criminal illness or acts of sick people
> who could have been cured and deaths prevented had Spiritual Healing been proven earilier?
> 
> So this "separation of church and state" that Liberals tout
> is CENSORING help that could save lives.
> 
> Do you ask liberals to apologize for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't turn abortion into a political football.  That was the GOP.  They need wedge issues like god gays and guns to divide the middle class who would otherwise vote for the workers party.   Seeing as how they are workers.  And the ones that sat home, maybe did so because they couldn't vote for the godless pro abortion liberals!!!
Click to expand...



Hi Sealybobo to cite the wisdom of Bernie Glassman who is a Buddhist/Jewish/Zen peacemaker
he noted that whenever a position
divides people as them vs. us, you vs. me, this group vs. that group
you are already not treating people as equals or inclusive
so the resolution process fails.

it is already divided.

SB when people truly forgive and let go of past sides,
then we see things as WE are in this TOGETHER.

So if you are still dividing as Conservatives did X Y Z
instead of seeing all faults equally on all sides, and good on both sides equally also,
this is already set up to fail.

it is still skewed unequally and begets the same reaction so it fails.

When you can see the good and bad equally on both sides,
and see both are contributing to the problems
and both are contributing to the solutions,
that is where these things can be rsolved.

you are very close, and probably the best that can be expected of people.
most people are going to favor their side and blame the other.
that is human. but that is why we are still in conflict and haven't solve this together.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is proof
> Florida woman survives 45 minutes without pulse - NY Daily News
> Not having any brain or physical damage what so ever.
> These types miracles happen all the time and they all say the same thing.
> That they were on the other side and they were told it was not their time yet and that they had to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
Click to expand...


I think you can transcend linear time and space
by prayer and meditation. People have connected
with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.

look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean

he realized the purpose of life was to help others
and he started getting visions of the future, the
Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.

so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss, your argument is that God _*created everything*_ (*not God created everything apart from Himself*); therefore, God created logic.
> 
> That does not follow!
> 
> When you are asked:  "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"
> 
> You answer:  "Because God created everything."
> 
> Nonresponsive!
> 
> God did not _*create everything*_, Boss, did He?  That premise is not rational, is it?  It's not sound, is it?



God created everything. 
God is omnipotent. 
God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation. 
God IS...  *"I AM!"* 

What does not follow is the idea that God *did not create everything*, yet God is omnipotent. 

That argument is not sound. That argument is not rational. 
Furthermore, it's not even in accordance to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. 

As for "knowing" I've already said, we cannot "know" things, we can only _*believe*_ we know things. 
*(*Except for you and Justin, who are apparently all-knowing individuals who know more than God, even though God is omniscient!)*


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all in their heads.  They were even heavily sedated.  Maybe that's what happens when the lights start to go out.  Your brain races and has flashbacks (life flashed before my eyes) plus we've all heard these stories growing up so when it is our time we are basically wishful thinking/hoping to see St. Peter at the Pearly gates.  Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can transcend linear time and space
> by prayer and meditation. People have connected
> with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.
> 
> look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
> he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean
> 
> he realized the purpose of life was to help others
> and he started getting visions of the future, the
> Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.
> 
> so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
> and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.
Click to expand...


Two things, here. 

#1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."

#2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*



And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.

Boss there is no need for conflict here.

Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can transcend linear time and space
> by prayer and meditation. People have connected
> with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.
> 
> look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
> he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean
> 
> he realized the purpose of life was to help others
> and he started getting visions of the future, the
> Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.
> 
> so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
> and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things, here.
> 
> #1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."
> 
> #2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.
Click to expand...


the best way I know to improve your awareness and spiritual reception
is to forgive all things negative that block you from growing forward.

So all these things you hear, or people you run across that make you think "NO! NEGATIVE! FALSE!,"
those are signs of things to FORGIVE and let go so you can receive greater truth in their place.

Remove these negative blocks from your mind, by forgiveness and letting go,
and you open yourself up to receive.

If you waste mental energy actively rejecting them with negative thoughts or attached emotional reactions, that blocks you from spiritual progress.

let your love of truth be greater than your fears
and your quest for forgiveness and freedom 
be greater than anything you struggle to forgive or let go.


----------



## peach174

Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can transcend linear time and space
> by prayer and meditation. People have connected
> with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.
> 
> look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
> he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean
> 
> he realized the purpose of life was to help others
> and he started getting visions of the future, the
> Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.
> 
> so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
> and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things, here.
> 
> #1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."
> 
> #2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the best way I know to improve your awareness and spiritual reception
> is to forgive all things negative that block you from growing forward.
> 
> So all these things you hear, or people you run across that make you think "NO! NEGATIVE! FALSE!,"
> those are signs of things to FORGIVE and let go so you can receive greater truth in their place.
> 
> Remove these negative blocks from your mind, by forgiveness and letting go,
> and you open yourself up to receive.
> 
> If you waste mental energy actively rejecting them with negative thoughts or attached emotional reactions, that blocks you from spiritual progress.
> 
> let your love of truth be greater than your fears
> and your quest for forgiveness and freedom
> be greater than anything you struggle to forgive or let go.
Click to expand...

This makes sense. But don't worry - I don't really invest any fortitude into the antipathy I have for others on this thread. This messageboarding is a tiny insignificant sidebar into what I'd classify as my "real life."


----------



## G.T.

peach174 said:


> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.


Do you think he will attend any County fairs?

Do you reckon he's scared of the Scrambler? It makes some people dizzy. 

How about a Green Bay Packers game, do you think he'd face paint and pre-game in the parking lot? 

Do you think he'd do some singing for the New Year's celebration in Times Square?

I wonder if Jesus would be proficient at first person shooters on xbox, or if he's just a button masher. 

Do you think he'll have a jumpshot, now that basketball has been invented? 

Will he be into vintage cars, muscle cars, or environmentally friendly ones?

Will he consider Americans living in the dark ages because we still use toilet paper? Would you touch poop, and then clean your hands with just paper, and then eat off those hands? No? Then why should toilet paper be considered "cleaning your ass?" jesus would probably say. Where is the inventor for better ass cleaning? Seems we're not adopting that european bidet (sp?) thingy. 

I have so many questions.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!



No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there. 

What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe! 

To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.


----------



## peach174

G.T. said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think he will attend any County fairs?
> 
> Do you reckon he's scared of the Scrambler? It makes some people dizzy.
> 
> How about a Green Bay Packers game, do you think he'd face paint and pre-game in the parking lot?
> 
> Do you think he'd do some singing for the New Year's celebration in Times Square?
> 
> I wonder if Jesus would be proficient at first person shooters on xbox, or if he's just a button masher.
> 
> Do you think he'll have a jumpshot, now that basketball has been invented?
> 
> Will he be into vintage cars, muscle cars, or environmentally friendly ones?
> 
> Will he consider Americans living in the dark ages because we still use toilet paper? Would you touch poop, and then clean your hands with just paper, and then eat off those hands? No? Then why should toilet paper be considered "cleaning your ass?" jesus would probably say. Where is the inventor for better ass cleaning? Seems we're not adopting that european bidet (sp?) thingy.
> 
> I have so many questions.
Click to expand...


Dummkapf questions G.T..


----------



## G.T.

peach174 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think he will attend any County fairs?
> 
> Do you reckon he's scared of the Scrambler? It makes some people dizzy.
> 
> How about a Green Bay Packers game, do you think he'd face paint and pre-game in the parking lot?
> 
> Do you think he'd do some singing for the New Year's celebration in Times Square?
> 
> I wonder if Jesus would be proficient at first person shooters on xbox, or if he's just a button masher.
> 
> Do you think he'll have a jumpshot, now that basketball has been invented?
> 
> Will he be into vintage cars, muscle cars, or environmentally friendly ones?
> 
> Will he consider Americans living in the dark ages because we still use toilet paper? Would you touch poop, and then clean your hands with just paper, and then eat off those hands? No? Then why should toilet paper be considered "cleaning your ass?" jesus would probably say. Where is the inventor for better ass cleaning? Seems we're not adopting that european bidet (sp?) thingy.
> 
> I have so many questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dummkapf questions G.T..
Click to expand...

I'll add asking him "what is dummkapf?" lol.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
> as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
> so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.
> 
> Boss there is no need for conflict here.
> 
> Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
> doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as "God's Logic!" What that is doing is elevating Logic to the level of GOD! 

Logic is a human-created word to describe our rational understanding of our universe and reality. GOD has no need for Logic whatsoever... GOD *needs* NOTHING!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy *


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
*1.*  God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, God created logic.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
*1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
1.*  Humans can only  think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:*  human logic and human emotions.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
*1.*  God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, God created logic.

*Or:*

*1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.

*Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*

*1.*  Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
[*4.*  Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss:  "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]



Yep!  Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.



*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
1.*  Rawlings does not support his argument.
*2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
*3.*  Rawlings is irrational.
[*4.*  Rawlings:  "Hogwash!  See *Post #4191*."]

*Or:*

*1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic.  The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
*2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
*3.*  Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
[*4.*  Rawlings:  "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*.  If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.  But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age  older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]


----------



## Boss

The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD. 

God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.



LMFAO... NOW we have "commonsensical" logic! This is presumably logic which comes from our "common sense" (aka: conventional wisdom) 

Do I need to chronicle the plethora of "common sense" beliefs humans have held through history, which turned out to be totally incorrect? I'm not sure if USMB can handle the bandwidth!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think he will attend any County fairs?
> 
> Do you reckon he's scared of the Scrambler? It makes some people dizzy.
> 
> How about a Green Bay Packers game, do you think he'd face paint and pre-game in the parking lot?
> 
> Do you think he'd do some singing for the New Year's celebration in Times Square?
> 
> I wonder if Jesus would be proficient at first person shooters on xbox, or if he's just a button masher.
> 
> Do you think he'll have a jumpshot, now that basketball has been invented?
> 
> Will he be into vintage cars, muscle cars, or environmentally friendly ones?
> 
> Will he consider Americans living in the dark ages because we still use toilet paper? Would you touch poop, and then clean your hands with just paper, and then eat off those hands? No? Then why should toilet paper be considered "cleaning your ass?" jesus would probably say. Where is the inventor for better ass cleaning? Seems we're not adopting that european bidet (sp?) thingy.
> 
> I have so many questions.
Click to expand...


Hi GT Imagine that Jesus is the spirit of Equal Justice for ALL humanity.
Now imagine what it will take for that spirit of truth and justice to be  incarnated
in EVERY human relationship on Earth, where all people are joined in good will and charity for all others
equally as ourselves.

That is what it means for the Kingdom of God to be established on Earth.
World peace where we all work out our daily and longterm issues CIVILLY, and do not 
abuse each other, bully, commit crimes or wage war against each other,
because we are too busy solving problems together to waste time fighting.

When all people embrace the body of laws and commit to following equal
justice and protection of interests for all people under law, then we are equal in peace and justice.

If you can imagine that, this is the miracle of Jesus or Justice coming
to be manifested and received by all people worldwide, every nation and every tribe
joined under common conscience or law as one humanity.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... NOW we have "commonsensical" logic! This is presumably logic which comes from our "common sense" (aka: conventional wisdom)
> 
> Do I need to chronicle the plethora of "common sense" beliefs humans have held through history, which turned out to be totally incorrect? I'm not sure if USMB can handle the bandwidth!
Click to expand...


Boss you said yourself "God didn't need creation" right? because God is self-existent.
So imagine that Logic already exists within God and is equally self-existent as is God.

The Logic was there, as an INHERENT part of God that didn't need creation,
before the Creation manifested.

Does that help?

Would it help to make a distinction
between the manmade logic (lower case l) that is part of the Creation that God created,
and the divine Logic (upper case) on the level of God that doesn't need creation but is self-existent.

So can we distinguish that you mean the man made logic, so if God made man then man's logic is also created
in that chain.

But Justin and MD may be talking about the self-existent truth and logic on the level of God
that isn't created but has always existed.

Can we resolve it that way? by labeling these two levels as different points in the process of creation?

This reminds me of Jesus being with God in heaven from the beginning and not being created.
versus Jesus incarnated on Earth as man and having a beginning and and end in finite form.

Both are still called Jesus or the Word of God made incarnate Logos.
But these laws existed with God in heaven already,
and it was only in the Process of manifesting on man's level they go through a finite/physical beginning and process.

So these are two different levels of Existence
even though in spirit they are both called Jesus or the divine Laws of Justice synonymous with God's perfect will
and thus called God.


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
> as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
> so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.
> 
> Boss there is no need for conflict here.
> 
> Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
> doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "God's Logic!" What that is doing is elevating Logic to the level of GOD!
> 
> Logic is a human-created word to describe our rational understanding of our universe and reality. GOD has no need for Logic whatsoever... GOD *needs* NOTHING!
Click to expand...



A little care here, Boss

"If God needs Nothing" will lead to the question
"Does God want something?"

Two problems are popping up

1)The question of why this God would create
2)The increase of characteristics in this notion of God

Right now, I'm at "I don't know" but continued qualities can give me something to latch unto even if this God is beyond logic.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
> as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
> so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.
> 
> Boss there is no need for conflict here.
> 
> Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
> doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "God's Logic!" What that is doing is elevating Logic to the level of GOD!
> 
> Logic is a human-created word to describe our rational understanding of our universe and reality. GOD has no need for Logic whatsoever... GOD *needs* NOTHING!
Click to expand...


God's "logic" is cause and effect, the laws of justice, of karma, of reaping what you sow
where you get the justice you give.

So if you refuse to forgive and you reject judge or punish others,
lo and behold, they do the same unto you.

Man did not invent the laws of justice.
We struggle to define, understand, follow and enforce them.
and we are baffled when we don't get the justice we think ought to happen
because God's justice is based on greater knowledge of cause and effect we can't always see.

I agree man's logic and justice is limited, and flawed compared with God's logic and laws of justice
that are by definition in charge.

I think we do need to make a distinction between God's perfect justice that
existed already, and not confuse this with manmade understanding or systems of logic and justice.

We fall terribly short, and this is what MD means by our reliance on science is not going to work here.
I think we all agree man's ways fall short, but are saying it
in different ways and talking past each other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.
> 
> What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe!
> 
> To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.
Click to expand...


It's a mutual process.

You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.

once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.
> 
> God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.



Pride, foolish pride:  that's what we have here!

God _is_ Love.  Did God create love?

God _is_ Truth.  Did God create truth?

God _is_ Omniscience.  Did God create omniscience?

God _is_ Omnipotence.  Did God create omnipotence?

God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?

God _is_ Rationality and Order.  Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?

Where is the contradiction in that?

Answer:  there is no contradiction!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?

That's your argument?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

What's wrong with that argument?

Answer:  everything!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

A perfect God is not bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?

Answer:  Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

Is  God rational or is He irrational?  He is rational!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order?  Yes or no?

Answer:  Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

*A:  A = A.*

God = Not-God?!  Is that your argument?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

Is that argument sensible?

Answer:  No, it's not!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

God ≠ Not-God.

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

Is your logic right?

Answer:  No, it's not!  It's incoherent and insane.

Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn:  for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.

Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement?  Yes or no?

Answer:  Yes, you are!

Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?

Answer:  Yes, it does!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer:  Yes, it is!

Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!

Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!

*God did not create logic!*


----------



## Taz

God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.
> 
> God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pride, foolish pride:  that's what we have here!
> 
> God _is_ Love.  Did God create love?
> 
> God _is_ Truth.  Did God create truth?
> 
> God _is_ Omniscience.  Did God create omniscience?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipotence.  Did God create omnipotence?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?
> 
> God _is_ Rationality and Order.  Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?
> 
> Where is the contradiction in that?
> 
> Answer:  there is no contradiction!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?
> 
> That's your argument?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> What's wrong with that argument?
> 
> Answer:  everything!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> A perfect God is not bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is  God rational or is He irrational?  He is rational!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order?  Yes or no?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> *A:  A = A.*
> 
> God = Not-God?!  Is that your argument?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is that argument sensible?
> 
> Answer:  No, it's not!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> God ≠ Not-God.
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is your logic right?
> 
> Answer:  No, it's not!  It's incoherent and insane.
> 
> Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn:  for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.
> 
> Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement?  Yes or no?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, you are!
> 
> Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it does!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!
> 
> Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!
> 
> *God did not create logic!*
Click to expand...


Dear MD
I am guessing that Boss means something like
man's logic or man's science based on laws in creation.
so if God created man and created the universe
then the laws of logic and science are also part of this level of creation.

I think we agree more than we disagree.

Boss has a problem with what is meant by Logic on God's level
just like Justin had a problem with what is meant by
relative truths. vs. absolute truths on God's level.

i think we need better distinctions when we are talking
about the DIFFERENT LEVELS of truth or logic.
And distinguish God's absolute level from the
man made level. i think that is where we might be talking past each other.

In addition, I don't think any insult offense or error is intended
by you, Justin, me or Boss or even GT and Hollie and others.

From what I see, we are all trying to be honest with each other
what we see going on or wrong, and just not getting where the other is coming from yet.

The frustration and misunderstanding will be less as we go.
I hope the accusations and namecalling drop because that isn't helping at all,
especially with people who are sincerely trying and being accused of otherwise!


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!



Someone had to create divine forgiveness
or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)

And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
And MD and Justin for either being the same person
or being two different people, whichever is worse!

love of creation, love of truth and justice
has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.

Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what Justin and M.D. are saying is that they places the Logic of God
> as part of God's identity inseparable from God,
> so where God doesn't require creation neither does God's Logic.
> 
> Boss there is no need for conflict here.
> 
> Just because you and I Justin and MD draw the lines in different places
> doesn't mean we're not talking about the same God!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as "God's Logic!" What that is doing is elevating Logic to the level of GOD!
> 
> Logic is a human-created word to describe our rational understanding of our universe and reality. GOD has no need for Logic whatsoever... GOD *needs* NOTHING!
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
I am more where you are coming from, that if
God is the source of laws, and logic is part of the laws,
then those came from God.

However, here is another source that takes the position like Justin takes
that Logic is self-existent on the level of God and not created by God:
Is God Subject to Logic Tough Questions Answered

I understand how this makes no sense to you if you come from the view
that if God created nature so all laws of the universe, science and logic come with creation.

the only difference, then, between you and me
is I am willing to forgive these differences
but you and MD. and maybe Justin struggle with that.

I am Okay that both these approaches are out there.
If people take this one or that one, I just need to know,
so I don't mispeak with that person.

I am okay either way. if that's how people set up and
understand where God, creation and logic lie, that's fine
as long as I know which way they are coming from
and they can deal with me!


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss you said yourself "God didn't need creation" right? because God is self-existent.
> So imagine that Logic already exists within God and is equally self-existent as is God.
> 
> The Logic was there, as an INHERENT part of God that didn't need creation,
> before the Creation manifested.
> 
> Does that help?



No, it doesn't help. You are making logic equal to God and nothing is equal to God. Everything already exists within God because God is the source of all creation. So this is a nonsensical argument. Before the creation there is nothing for logic to apply to. What does logic mean if there is nothing? It only has functional meaning and significance when there is something to which it can apply. Logic is simply the parameter of mechanics functioning in our material universe, it has no other purpose and is not required by God. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omnipotent. You can certainly believe that, but I don't believe that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss you said yourself "God didn't need creation" right? because God is self-existent.
> So imagine that Logic already exists within God and is equally self-existent as is God.
> 
> The Logic was there, as an INHERENT part of God that didn't need creation,
> before the Creation manifested.
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't help. You are making logic equal to God and nothing is equal to God. Everything already exists within God because God is the source of all creation. So this is a nonsensical argument. Before the creation there is nothing for logic to apply to. What does logic mean if there is nothing? It only has functional meaning and significance when there is something to which it can apply. Logic is simply the parameter of mechanics functioning in our material universe, it has no other purpose and is not required by God. To argue otherwise is to argue that God is not omnipotent. You can certainly believe that, but I don't believe that.
Click to expand...


Boss did you see my last message above?
I said I align more with YOUR viewpoint, not Justin and MD.
But I looked online and found other people who believe that Logic is self-existent on the level of God.

So I accept that other people set it up that way.

Some people set up God = Creation itself with no beginning and no end,
that it was always in existence and didn't have a creation starting point.

So who am I to argue with that approach either?

Boss just because you and I disagree and don't set it up that way,
doesn't mean we can't work with Justin MD and people who do.

We just need to know that our bounds and definitions are different
so we don't keep tripping on that same snag. It's like having a cultural
accent, and learning to understand and communicate anyway. Even though
to the English person, the other person has a Spanish accent, and to the Spanish
person the other person has an English accent. So what, can't we just let
people say things the way that works for them and be okay with that?

of course we have our biases, I've run into many different takes.
Even BreezeWood does not agree this God is the same as the Almighty.
so why not align both of those as their understanding of God and not argue about them.

If we have different ways, we have different ways.
Justin's won't make as much sense to me because I relate more to yours.
And our way may not make sense to them either!

Does this have to be a point of conflict?
Can't we just work around this bias we have?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.
> 
> What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe!
> 
> To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mutual process.
> 
> You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
Click to expand...


There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.  Relativism is irrationalism!  Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true.  Hence, the relativist himself necessarily  proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If that's not true, then nothing's true.  Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth.  There is nothing complex about my arguments.  No, sir!  They are simple.  It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true.  They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily  claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, your argument is that God _*created everything*_ (*not God created everything apart from Himself*); therefore, God created logic.
> 
> That does not follow!
> 
> When you are asked:  "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"
> 
> You answer:  "Because God created everything."
> 
> Nonresponsive!
> 
> God did not _*create everything*_, Boss, did He?  That premise is not rational, is it?  It's not sound, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything.
> God is omnipotent.
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> What does not follow is the idea that God *did not create everything*, yet God is omnipotent.
> 
> That argument is not sound. That argument is not rational.
> Furthermore, it's not even in accordance to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.
> 
> As for "knowing" I've already said, we cannot "know" things, we can only _*believe*_ we know things.
> *(*Except for you and Justin, who are apparently all-knowing individuals who know more than God, even though God is omniscient!)*
Click to expand...


_Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.
> 
> What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe!
> 
> To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mutual process.
> 
> You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.  Relativism is irrationalism!  Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true.  Hence, the relativist himself necessarily  proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since, that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If this's not true, then nothing's true.  Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> That don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth.  There is nothing complex about my arguments.  No, sir!  They are simple.  It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true.  They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily  claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
Click to expand...


Hi M.D.
if it weren't for my tolerance of relative views,
I would not be talking with you at all.

End of argument.
Keep talking, don't shut up, because I 
accept your views as relative to you
even though they make no sense to others.


----------



## sealybobo

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are using an excuse and you tell me to grow up?
> Going 45 min. without a pulse and having no brain damage is a miracle and even the Doctors are amazed.
> How do you explain the deaths on the operating table and patients tell them exactly what was said and done in the operating room. No heart beat and no brain waves These experiences have started studies on the concept of life after death.
> When you have no brain waves there is no flashbacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can transcend linear time and space
> by prayer and meditation. People have connected
> with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.
> 
> look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
> he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean
> 
> he realized the purpose of life was to help others
> and he started getting visions of the future, the
> Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.
> 
> so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
> and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things, here.
> 
> #1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."
> 
> #2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.
Click to expand...


Every religious/spiritual person I know swears they saw an angel, ghost, demonic possession.  Either that or they believe other people when they make the claim.  

I'm not buying it either.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> A little care here, Boss
> 
> "If God needs Nothing" will lead to the question
> "Does God want something?"
> 
> Two problems are popping up
> 
> 1)The question of why this God would create
> 2)The increase of characteristics in this notion of God
> 
> Right now, I'm at "I don't know" but continued qualities can give me something to latch unto even if this God is beyond logic.



Okay... IF GOD is *omnipotent*, it is not possible for God to *want*. IF God _"wanted"_ it would simply *BE!* There would be no question of it, no doubt about it, no denying it. Period!

*Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know. 

Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, your argument is that God _*created everything*_ (*not God created everything apart from Himself*); therefore, God created logic.
> 
> That does not follow!
> 
> When you are asked:  "How do you know God created logic, Boss?"
> 
> You answer:  "Because God created everything."
> 
> Nonresponsive!
> 
> God did not _*create everything*_, Boss, did He?  That premise is not rational, is it?  It's not sound, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God created everything.
> God is omnipotent.
> God did not create himself because God doesn't require creation.
> God IS...  *"I AM!"*
> 
> What does not follow is the idea that God *did not create everything*, yet God is omnipotent.
> 
> That argument is not sound. That argument is not rational.
> Furthermore, it's not even in accordance to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.
> 
> As for "knowing" I've already said, we cannot "know" things, we can only _*believe*_ we know things.
> *(*Except for you and Justin, who are apparently all-knowing individuals who know more than God, even though God is omniscient!)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo
it's not that God is unwilling
it's that the process must follow the laws.

If God corrected every time someone died by shooting themselves in the foot with their own gun,
what motivation would we have not to shoot ourselves? God would magically fix it.

We have to quit smoking if we want to lower our chances of cancer.
If all cancer were magically cured, what motivation woudl peopel have to eat and live healthy?

This is common sense.

Need I go on?

What motivation would we have to avoid stepping on rusty nails
if there was not pain and infection telling us we harmed our bodies?

There are natural laws in place.

So when we follow them in harmony, we reap harmonious results.

When we violate the laws of harmony and do things out of whack,
then we get out of whack results.

Cause and effect.

Butterfly eggs produce larva that turn into Butterflies.
Elephant breed elephants.

God is not going to go against natural laws to magically do unnatural things.
What purpose would that serve?


----------



## sealybobo

peach174 said:


> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.



Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?  

This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.

Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> God did not create logic!




*THEN GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT!*


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.
> 
> God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.



Or there is no god.  3rd option.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't yet have an explanation that is natural, doesn't mean we won't find one and so jumping the gun and calling it concrete evidence for someone or something that didn't directly come down and show people that IT was what was doing what was happening - - - - - is not a very sound practice of discovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing with the god.
> 
> We've been asking this question a long time.
> 
> *Cosmogony* is any theory concerning the coming into existence (or origin) of either the cosmos (or universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings.
> 
> And we still don't have an explanation yet that is natural.  But remember all the things they thought were god turned out to have scientific explanations?  Yet still they say WE must be from god. But that's not based on evidence, unless you believe one of the organized religions.  Those are all unbelievable lies.  So we go back to before the Abraham 3 Religions, back to the same question, what created us?
> 
> And you and I know the answer is still we don't know.
> 
> I love it when weak minded theists swear they saw a ghost or angel or had an out of body experience or saw an exorcist.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea,
> 
> I only entertain these discussions for some intrigue, but I never really find it.
> 
> The only way to prove something to me is to reach a certain bar of objective evidence, which is to mean evidence not subjectively fanciful or a twisting of the English language to make a fallacious proof.
> 
> I think I'm reiterating, but besides my family and friends - the last things in life that could blow my intrigue like a kid in a candy store would be time travel and the knowledge of existence's origin. And, outlook not so good, so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you can transcend linear time and space
> by prayer and meditation. People have connected
> with previous or future generations spiritually on that level.
> 
> look up the story about Buckminster Fuller
> he had a spiritual experience when he was about to kill himself by drowning himself in the ocean
> 
> he realized the purpose of life was to help others
> and he started getting visions of the future, the
> Bucky Ball/geodesic dome and other insights that changed the future.
> 
> so this is not unlike a spiritual experience of transcending time
> and seeing into the future to start creating it in the present before it is realized later in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two things, here.
> 
> #1. I've been heavily invested in trying to advance my meditations and lucid dreaming skills. Still not where I'd call myself affluent yet, but also not sure if anything aside from cognitive wiring / firing implications are there as opposed to anything deistic or "spiritual."
> 
> #2. Testimonies are lost on me, they're an ineffective way to communicate a phenomena that's already hard to believe EVEN when witnessing it, let alone taking a person's word for it. For me, personally, testimonials are time wasted. I mean, I can maybe pick up relevant information by accident while listening to them, but they don't 'prove' anything to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every religious/spiritual person I know swears they saw an angel, ghost, demonic possession.  Either that or they believe other people when they make the claim.
> 
> I'm not buying it either.
Click to expand...


My friend Ray Hill is an atheist, does not believe in any personified Jesus or God,
and still teaches forgiveness and abundance of free grace, synonymous with Christianity.

He finds it is just pure common sense to avoid insanity by not driving yourself crazy keeping inventory
on yourself and other people.

So no, you do not need to believe in anything magical or supernatural
to believe in spiritual laws of Peace and Justice, charity and forgiveness.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THEN GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT!*
Click to expand...


If God did not create God why is that okay and God is still omnipotent?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "gap" appears to be between your ears, MD.
> 
> God created logic just as God created every parameter of our universe and reality... OR... God is not omnipotent and omniscient and is restricted by laws of logic which God didn't create. You can pick one or the other, you cannot pick both because both cannot be true at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or there is no god.  3rd option.
Click to expand...

or humans cannot define what God is without getting into contradictions
because people define God differently. that doesn't mean there is no God
just because people can't agree how to define it, or how to get along despite different representations.


The most amazing thing about these discussions is seeing who is able to forgive whom.
Sealyboby, you and GT are able to work with me and my views
but other Theists and Christians jump all over me for them.

So who is forgiving their neighbors as Jesus called us to love one another?

Sometimes the Good Samaritans practicing charity for neighbors
are not the people we expected to be so kind, and the people who
claim to promote Christianity don't seem very forgiving and leaving it to God to judge, right?

Very curious, most ironic sometimes!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
Click to expand...


*You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*

*Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*


*There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!*

*Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

That's you nutjob, not I!*

*There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*

Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.

Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.

If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.

They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.

So they need to shut up!

This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!

They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.

Fine.

I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.

My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.

The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.

The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.

So how does he know that?

Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .

The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.

Shut up!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> *Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know.
> 
> Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.



OK Boss let's try this.
Let's say God created all things.
And you are saying we cannot know WHY God created.

So if the "REASON God created" all things existed BEFORE he created all things,
isn't that REASON part of the LOGIC that existed with God BEFORE anything else was created?
Does that help?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?



I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower. 

Sorry, not interested!


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*
> 
> *Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
> 
> 
> *There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!*
> 
> *Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> That's you nutjob, not I!*
> 
> *There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*
> 
> Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
Click to expand...

Stop screaming and having temper tantrums like a little toddler.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*
> 
> *Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
> 
> 
> *There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are not absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are not absolute truths must be absolutely false!*
> 
> *Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> That's you nutjob, not I!*
> 
> *There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*
> 
> Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If this's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
Click to expand...


Dear Justin: Can you please help me explain to MD?
I said there was a difference between Absolute truth and Relative EXPRESSIONS OR PERCEPTIONS of truth.

So these Relative truths are what humans use such as science and empirical experience.
Sealybobo has no experience with spiritual healing but my other friends do,
so their relative truths are different.

Can you please explain to MD this does not contradict absolute truths?

We can have both.

Two people can play on the same baseball team,
and the score is tied 3 to 3 -- absolutely.

But one person says the game was fair, because mistakes were made on both sides, and it came out even to them;
and the other person can say the game was unfair because X Y Z were unfair calls and one team should have won.

That's not a perfect example,
but I hope you get what I mean.

The score is absolutely unquestioned, 
but the interpretation of whether the game was evenhanded or not is relative.
One person sees it one way and the other sees it another way,
and they are both right from their perspective.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know.
> 
> Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Boss let's try this.
> Let's say God created all things.
> And you are saying we cannot know WHY God created.
> 
> So if the "REASON God created" all things existed BEFORE he created all things,
> isn't that REASON part of the LOGIC that existed with God BEFORE anything else was created?
> Does that help?
Click to expand...


No, because now you are talking about something transcendental and out of our capacity to comprehend. Reason and logic are applied to a physical material universe in which we humans experience a reality. God has no purpose for these attributes because God is omnipotent.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.
> 
> Sorry, not interested!
Click to expand...


Well, whatever it is that is preventing them from understanding
you and I 
are NOT against them,
these two need to resolve that anyway
if they are going to be more effective and successful in the future.

It is for their own benefit as well, that they learn to resolve 
what the issues are, and not make problems where they don't have to be any.

There is some nonsense going on here.
Not sure where the false accusations are coming from
but getting those out of the way 
may clear the air to communicate on the real points of content.

Thanks for trying and I hope better insights come to us
as we let go. Maybe better ways will come along, if not
on this thread by other means, other doors will open up, too!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.
> 
> Sorry, not interested!
Click to expand...


I love it when two god believers argue.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know.
> 
> Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Boss let's try this.
> Let's say God created all things.
> And you are saying we cannot know WHY God created.
> 
> So if the "REASON God created" all things existed BEFORE he created all things,
> isn't that REASON part of the LOGIC that existed with God BEFORE anything else was created?
> Does that help?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because now you are talking about something transcendental and out of our capacity to comprehend. Reason and logic are applied to a physical material universe in which we humans experience a reality. God has no purpose for these attributes because God is omnipotent.
Click to expand...


But you just said humans cannot know. We can believe but can't know.

How can you be "so sure" there is no logic for God's ways and means?


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.
> 
> Sorry, not interested!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when two god believers argue.
Click to expand...


Hey no couple I know ever made peace by guessing, reading minds and not talking.

If you can see the difference in SPIRIT, when Boss and I are trying to hash things out
there is no namecalling, no accusing me of lying or accusing us of being the same person etc.

We trust each other to tell the truth and just aren't getting why isn't the conflict being addressed and resolved.
Nothing wrong with using words to try to work it out.

This is the good kind of hashing out that is productive


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*
> 
> *Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
> 
> 
> *There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!*
> 
> *Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> That's you nutjob, not I!*
> 
> *There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*
> 
> Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings: From your above statements
I don't think my approach to "relative expressions"
is anything at all like what you mean by "relative truths"

For example
In Buddhism there are  Three Refuges
Buddha Dharma and Sangha
In Confucianism there is
Jen Yi and Li
In Taoism and Psychology there is
Body Mind and Spirit

So the way i explain the meaning of the Trinity
is that it is the collective fulfillment of all three of these levels in spiritual harmony and wholeness.

Just because there is an Absolute truth and universal pattern to the Trinity
does not mean there cannot be relative expressions of this same trinity

Human nature is body mind and spirit "made in the image of God"

So no matter how you symbolize this
it is referring to the same pattern or structure of levels.

There is only ONE God, so these all have to point to the same
source in order to be universal truth, even though the expressions are culturally different.

is this more clear how there can be Absolute truths and universal laws,
and still be relative expressions that have local meaning to people personally?

There is no need for contradiction between them.

So i am NOT saying to ABUSE relativity and start waxing and waning all over the place with
relative morals and ethics.

People either consent or they don't, either believe or don't.
If you listen and follow what they say they understand or reject,
we can map out the absolute points of agreement even though
we express these differently and relatively per person or context.

When Jesus spoke with farmers he used parables of seeds and farming.
When he spoke with fishermen he spoke of fishing.
When he argued with Pharisees in the temple, he may have argued scripture.
He used whatever language spoke to his audience

So the truths he spoke are still absolutes
but the language was relative to the audience.

is that more clear, or do you need better examples of what I mean?
thanks!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*
> 
> *Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
> 
> 
> *There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths must be absolutely false!*
> 
> *Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> That's you nutjob, not I!*
> 
> *There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*
> 
> Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If that's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
Click to expand...


You do realize that nothing in your hysterical rant is objectively true, right?

Your meaningless ranting is no different from the believer of another religion who is just as convinced that their gawds are true. 

Really, dude. Just drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know.
> 
> Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK Boss let's try this.
> Let's say God created all things.
> And you are saying we cannot know WHY God created.
> 
> So if the "REASON God created" all things existed BEFORE he created all things,
> isn't that REASON part of the LOGIC that existed with God BEFORE anything else was created?
> Does that help?
Click to expand...



You need a little more information....its still a bit of an enigma as it is


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> _Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus



This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute. 

Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....

Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power. 
Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent. 
Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution? 
Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity? 

As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Taz said:


> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!



The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute.
> 
> Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....
> 
> Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power.
> Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent.
> Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution?
> Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity?
> 
> As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.
Click to expand...



The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.


----------



## amrchaos

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.
> 
> Sorry, not interested!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when two god believers argue.
Click to expand...


You haven't read the past, like oh 300 posts!

By the way, GT POSTED SOME NICE ZINGERS!!

So it maybe worth going over it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little care here, Boss
> 
> "If God needs Nothing" will lead to the question
> "Does God want something?"
> 
> Two problems are popping up
> 
> 1)The question of why this God would create
> 2)The increase of characteristics in this notion of God
> 
> Right now, I'm at "I don't know" but continued qualities can give me something to latch unto even if this God is beyond logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... IF GOD is *omnipotent*, it is not possible for God to *want*. IF God _"wanted"_ it would simply *BE!* There would be no question of it, no doubt about it, no denying it. Period!
> 
> *Why did God create?* We can't comprehend this with human cognition. We can speculate, we can theorize using our perceptions of logic and reason, we can formulate opinions and beliefs... and that's what we do. But we can't *know* the answer to this question, we can only *believe* we know.
> 
> Now, all I can do is explain what I believe, and that is that we are inclined toward a spiritual purpose which transcends our physical selves. The nature of this is most apparent in our intrinsic understanding of "right and wrong" or "good and evil." What that purpose is exactly or what's beyond the physical, I have no idea. Perhaps another dimension of awareness? Perhaps something above awareness and knowledge as we comprehend them? I don't know, I can't answer that question.
Click to expand...



The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> IYou may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't get on the same page with them, they refuse to let me. Whenever I get on the page they are on, they switch to the page we're not on and demand I change pages with them, then they jump back to the page we were on and claim I am contradicting them. They are determined to not allow me to be on their page, regardless of how hard I try. Unless I want to idiotically trip and stumble between one page and the other with my head up MD's ass like a cult follower.
> 
> Sorry, not interested!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love it when two god believers argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't read the past, like oh 300 posts!
> 
> By the way, GT POSTED SOME NICE ZINGERS!!
> 
> So it maybe worth going over it.
Click to expand...


The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”_ – Epicurus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a presumptive philosophy based on the notion that God "cares." That is a human attribute.
> 
> Previously, I have asked you to think of God in terms of something you can understand, physical energy. Not that God is "equal to" this, but simply as a way for you to better comprehend how God works in a spiritual sense. So let's take your soliloquy and reconstruc it using "electricity" in place of "god" ....
> 
> Is electricity willing to prevent death but unable? Then it has no power.
> Is electricity able but not willing? Then it is malevolent.
> Is it both willing and able? Then whence comes electrocution?
> Is it neither able or willing? Then why call it electricity?
> 
> As you can see, none of the arguments make much sense. Electricity exists. It is there for us to benefit from if we chose to use it properly. If we ignore it and chose not to use it, electricity doesn't get it's feelings hurt. If we abuse it and don't use it properly, it has the power to kill us instantly. Electricity doesn't demand that we worship it or honor it in any way, it doesn't care if we do or don't. It doesn't sit in judgement of us or threaten to punish us if we fail to worship it. The choice of what to do with electricity is totally ours. We CAN use electricity to save lives. We can also use it to kill people. Sometimes, it may come down from the sky to just randomly kill someone for no reason. Electricity doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't "care" what we do. We can deny electricity exists and never realize the amazing benefits it affords. We can be afraid of electricity because we don't understand it. We can form all sorts of incarnations of what we think electricity is. We can even believe that electricity "loves" us, if that's what we want to believe. Electricity doesn't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.
Click to expand...


And how is this different from the "boastfully arrogant" absolutist?
Who attacks people as lying without due process to prove such charges are true first
before stating this as absolute fact.

Are you saying that type of arrogance is any better than the arrogance of the relativist who smears other people unfoundedly?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.
> 
> What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe!
> 
> To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mutual process.
> 
> You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.  Relativism is irrationalism!  Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true.  Hence, the relativist himself necessarily  proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since, that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If this's not true, then nothing's true.  Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> That don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth.  There is nothing complex about my arguments.  No, sir!  They are simple.  It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true.  They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily  claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D.
> if it weren't for my tolerance of relative views,
> I would not be talking with you at all.
> 
> End of argument.
> Keep talking, don't shut up, because I
> accept your views as relative to you
> even though they make no sense to others.
Click to expand...



I have no tolerance for them.  None.  For they are. . . .

The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> But you just said humans cannot know. We can believe but can't know.
> 
> How can you be "so sure" there is no logic for God's ways and means?



Because I believe in a God who created everything, including the logic we comprehend as part of our physical universe. IF there is something akin to "logic" which God uses, it's beyond our ability to comprehend because we aren't Gods. Speculating that God is confined by humanistic logic and reason, is just not something I can believe or accept. That means something is greater than God and God is not omnipotent or Creator of All. I've seen no argument presented which changes my belief. I don't "know" anything... I *believe.*


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. as for Justin and this idea of either the Creator BEING logic or the Creator creating logic,
> Boss this is like how Christians will say Jesus is God but Jesus is the Son and God the Father is greater.
> 
> they are blending them together as one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Emily, that's not what is flying back in my face from them. The equivalent would be me saying "Jesus is the Son of God" and them responding.. "Nuh uh! Jesus IS God! You're irrational!" There is no "blending" there.
> 
> What they are both actually doing is making the case for the Atheists and Agnostics even better than they can do themselves. If believers in God can't even get on the same page, how the hell are they supposed to believe? What are they supposed to believe? We can't even settle  it amongst ourselves and we believe!
> 
> To me, it is sad and unfortunate that MD made such a great argument with the 7 Things, and has now destroyed his own argument in order to criticize and contradict someone who believes in God. Either God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of ALL, or God isn't that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a mutual process.
> 
> You may have to figure out how to get on the same page with them
> if they can't figure out how to get on the same page with you.
> 
> once you get how to connect, maybe they can reciprocate after you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no mutual process of connection on the grounds of relativism.  Relativism is irrationalism!  Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true.  Hence, the relativist himself necessarily  proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since, that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If this's not true, then nothing's true.  Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> That don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth.  There is nothing complex about my arguments.  No, sir!  They are simple.  It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true.  They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily  claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D.
> if it weren't for my tolerance of relative views,
> I would not be talking with you at all.
> 
> End of argument.
> Keep talking, don't shut up, because I
> accept your views as relative to you
> even though they make no sense to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no tolerance for them.  None.  For they are. . . .
> 
> The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.
Click to expand...


OK M.D. I have a premise for you similar to your TAG premise
that any statement that God does not exist "runs into contradictions."

I offer that whatever you say about another person or group,
if it is negative unforgiving excluding judging or rejecting,
then you will end up making contradictory statements at some point
because you commit the same faults as that person/group. We all do.

So we will contradict ourselves if we say
REJECT person or group X
but LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY.

How we treat the least of our neighbors 
is how we get treated.

Since we all have strengths and flaws in different areas,
it is unjust to say "blame that person/group more" 
and hold me above them. You will run into conflicts that way.

So you can look at the track records of people who
respect all people as equally as possible, and look how well they reconcile with diverse views,
versus people who reject or blame one group more than themselves
and then run into conflicts they can't resolve. You will see a recurring pattern.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.
Click to expand...

Common sense doesn't dictate magic and supernaturalism as models for existence.

And yes, you're a rube.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said humans cannot know. We can believe but can't know.
> 
> How can you be "so sure" there is no logic for God's ways and means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I believe in a God who created everything, including the logic we comprehend as part of our physical universe. IF there is something akin to "logic" which God uses, it's beyond our ability to comprehend because we aren't Gods. Speculating that God is confined by humanistic logic and reason, is just not something I can believe or accept. That means something is greater than God and God is not omnipotent or Creator of All. I've seen no argument presented which changes my belief. I don't "know" anything... I *believe.*
Click to expand...


OK so we agree that if there is some Logic God uses on God's level this is beyond our comprehension.
that is fair enough.

So we should drop it if we don't agree.
If you keep holding on to your assertion
it isn't fair to ask Justin to let go of his.

So either agree to let both keep their own view of logic and God
or agree not to argue about either way, but not force one view onto the other if we don't know
for sure the process before God created anything, and if there was reason/logic involved already at the point or before it.

So if we agree to drop it there should not be an argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense doesn't dictate magic and supernaturalism as models for existence.
> 
> And yes, you're a rube.
Click to expand...


This is why I strongly suggest studying the process of Spiritual Healing
to understand that it is natural and consistent with explicable science.

You are right, there is no need to depend on anything mystical magical or supernatural.
Sources I recommend for medical research and scientific studies:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Dear MD
> I am guessing that Boss means something like
> man's logic or man's science based on laws in creation.
> so if God created man and created the universe
> then the laws of logic and science are also part of this level of creation.
> 
> I think we agree more than we disagree.
> 
> Boss has a problem with what is meant by Logic on God's level
> just like Justin had a problem with what is meant by
> relative truths. vs. absolute truths on God's level.
> 
> i think we need better distinctions when we are talking
> about the DIFFERENT LEVELS of truth or logic.
> And distinguish God's absolute level from the
> man made level. i think that is where we might be talking past each other.
> 
> In addition, I don't think any insult offense or error is intended
> by you, Justin, me or Boss or even GT and Hollie and others.
> 
> From what I see, we are all trying to be honest with each other
> what we see going on or wrong, and just not getting where the other is coming from yet.
> 
> The frustration and misunderstanding will be less as we go.
> I hope the accusations and namecalling drop because that isn't helping at all,
> especially with people who are sincerely trying and being accused of otherwise!



I understand what he's saying.  It's irrational.  He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.  He _believes_ the opposite of what these things tell him to be true.  Which would fine with me, though it is not fine for him.  For is it God with Whom he has set himself up against.  What is not fine with me is his arrogant attitude, making people like me who believe God out to be  liars or fools with his utter insanity that defies common sense, when his nonsense, which defies the self-negating "absolute" of his very own premise, positively proves the opposite of what he claims to be true, that which he cannot objectively or rationally demonstrate.

Who do these people think they are?  These sealybobo's, these QW's, these Foxfyres, these Bosses, these GTs, these Armchaoses, these Hollies?

Who do they think they are?

God?

Yes, apparently, that's what they think.

And when I tell them I don't believe them because I believe God, they get mad. 

Well that's too bad.  Let God be true and every man a liar.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear MD
> I am guessing that Boss means something like
> man's logic or man's science based on laws in creation.
> so if God created man and created the universe
> then the laws of logic and science are also part of this level of creation.
> 
> I think we agree more than we disagree.
> 
> Boss has a problem with what is meant by Logic on God's level
> just like Justin had a problem with what is meant by
> relative truths. vs. absolute truths on God's level.
> 
> i think we need better distinctions when we are talking
> about the DIFFERENT LEVELS of truth or logic.
> And distinguish God's absolute level from the
> man made level. i think that is where we might be talking past each other.
> 
> In addition, I don't think any insult offense or error is intended
> by you, Justin, me or Boss or even GT and Hollie and others.
> 
> From what I see, we are all trying to be honest with each other
> what we see going on or wrong, and just not getting where the other is coming from yet.
> 
> The frustration and misunderstanding will be less as we go.
> I hope the accusations and namecalling drop because that isn't helping at all,
> especially with people who are sincerely trying and being accused of otherwise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what he's saying.  It's irrational.  He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.  He _believes_ the opposite of what these things tell him to be true.  Which would fine with me, though it is not fine for him.  For is it God with Whom he has set himself up against.  What is not fine with me is his arrogant attitude, making people like me who believe God out to be  liars or fools with his utter insanity that defies common sense, when his nonsense, which defies the self-negating "absolute" of his very own premise, positively proves the opposite of what he claims to be true, that which he cannot objectively or rationally demonstrate.
> 
> Who do these people think they are?  These sealybobo's, these QW's, these Foxfyres, these Bosses, these GTs, these Armchaoses, these Hollies?
> 
> Who do they think they are?
> 
> God?
> 
> Yes, apparently, that's what they think.
> 
> And when I tell them I don't believe them because I believe God, they get mad.
> 
> Well that's too bad.  Let God be true and every man a liar.
Click to expand...


That's NOT what I am getting from what Boss is saying.

Boss is saying
A. any logic on the level of God is beyond our comprehension anyway
and doesn't want to impose conjectures on that, so I asked to be fair,
let's not pose any conjectures AGAINST it either
B. if logic is part of the laws of science within creation,
then logic on man's level is created by God just as man and man's conscience was
C. Boss does believe in God but not a personal relationship/personified God.
So similar to BreezeWood I think they are looking at a broader impersonal God
beyond the personified symbolism in Christianity.

What the REAL issue is separating us is
whether or not we can forgive our differences.

I don't see GT and me insulting each other,
and yet we are nontheist and theist (actually I use both systems and don't have conflicts with either one).

You and Boss are both Theists and yet
accusations fly back and forth between you.

So it isn't just about who believes or doesn't believe.
It's about openness to include receive and forgive each other despite our different or conflicting views
that makes a difference if we can reach agreement on how to talk about God and God's laws/truth.

The more you and Boss let go of whatever negative perceptions and grievances
keep coming up, the more you can resolve the source of those conflicts where they don't have to be sticking points.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Let God be true and *every man a liar.*



Again if you do not apply this rule equally to yourself as others,
then it will cause conflicts.

What I find works better and treats people with equal respect
is to look for what true points each person has to offer.
And trade out from there. I share my points, you share yours, etc.
So we all contribute our part of the puzzle and piece together as much as we can.

instead of judging / rejecting people for mistakes
why not accept and correct the good points so we all benefit[/QUOTE]


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.



No, it is YOU who rejects my belief that God created everything, including human logic. You've presented NO argument to validate that belief, it's just simply what you stubbornly insist to be the truth without regard for any sort of rationality. Furthermore, not only do you reject my beliefs, you mock and ridicule me, and compare me with Atheists who don't believe in anything spiritual at all. 

Get yourself a turban and a mosque, and you can be a radical fanatic! That's where you are!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear MD
> I am guessing that Boss means something like
> man's logic or man's science based on laws in creation.
> so if God created man and created the universe
> then the laws of logic and science are also part of this level of creation.
> 
> I think we agree more than we disagree.
> 
> Boss has a problem with what is meant by Logic on God's level
> just like Justin had a problem with what is meant by
> relative truths. vs. absolute truths on God's level.
> 
> i think we need better distinctions when we are talking
> about the DIFFERENT LEVELS of truth or logic.
> And distinguish God's absolute level from the
> man made level. i think that is where we might be talking past each other.
> 
> In addition, I don't think any insult offense or error is intended
> by you, Justin, me or Boss or even GT and Hollie and others.
> 
> From what I see, we are all trying to be honest with each other
> what we see going on or wrong, and just not getting where the other is coming from yet.
> 
> The frustration and misunderstanding will be less as we go.
> I hope the accusations and namecalling drop because that isn't helping at all,
> especially with people who are sincerely trying and being accused of otherwise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what he's saying.  It's irrational.  He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.  He _believes_ the opposite of what these things tell him to be true.  Which would fine with me, though it is not fine for him.  For is it God with Whom he has set himself up against.  What is not fine with me is his arrogant attitude, making people like me who believe God out to be  liars or fools with his utter insanity that defies common sense, when his nonsense, which defies the self-negating "absolute" of his very own premise, positively proves the opposite of what he claims to be true, that which he cannot objectively or rationally demonstrate.
> 
> Who do these people think they are?  These sealybobo's, these QW's, these Foxfyres, these Bosses, these GTs, these Armchaoses, these Hollies?
> 
> Who do they think they are?
> 
> God?
> 
> Yes, apparently, that's what they think.
> 
> And when I tell them I don't believe them because I believe God, they get mad.
> 
> Well that's too bad.  Let God be true and every man a liar.
Click to expand...

The paranoid delusions of the religiously insane.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
Click to expand...


What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.
Click to expand...

Do you need a tissue?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin: 
I have not said any such disrespectful thing to either you or M.D. but sought to support you both.

And you called my msgs a bunch of baloney
and M.D. said to shut up, calling me a liar and
saying I was full of BS!

So what does that say about you both as well?

Sounds like you are equally hostile.

Even Boss has tried to resolve issues as a fellow theist
and met with insult and attack.

Whatever has gone wrong in the past,
I suggest we drop it at the doorstep and
ask that the Wisdom of God enter and guide
us in fellowship and not this negative backbiting!

If you and M.D. are fellow Christians
I ask that you lead us in prayer that we 
be guided in Christ and that all stumbling blocks
be resolved and removed so that we may
establish agreement in truth as we are called to do as believers.

Thank you Justin
and my apologies for whatever has been going on before
this, that we may leave this behind and do better in teh futrue!


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss and GT:
> 
> This message from Justin is arguing about different things.
> 
> Justin was first to confirm with me that he was okay with God being more than just Creator.
> MD didn't say anything like that till much later, and in more complicated terms and generally
> does not speak English as Justin does. MD rattles off in long complicated terms that Justin has no capacity to replicate.
> 
> MD's issue is with antitheists or atheists attacking him and his proof for the sake of attack,
> so he does the same thing, and attacks back one minute by poorly spouting off nonsense like calling GT a valley girl,
> and then posts 10 points of highly complicated arguments that don't address the objection. Justin doesn't do that.
> 
> Justin AT LEAST tries to explain what his objection is using Plain terms.
> 
> Justin has stated in two messages now his issue is
> * God's absolute truth cannot be relative
> * if you do go off on relativity, then anything could be anything and becomes meaningless
> 
> MD has never made such an argument or explained his qualms.
> Justin at least spelled out why he isn't following what Boss or I am saying.
> 
> GT/Boss even if these are two branches from the same tree,
> they are both arguing DIFFERENT things, so these can be addressed SEPARATELY.
> 
> if we stick to the points, we can resolve those REGARDLESS.
> Justin's posts are bringing up personal issues he has which are unique.
> M.D. has offered no explanation or correction to why his objections have come out as accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the sentiment mutual when they lash out at YOU?
> 
> Think.
> 
> 
> Pacifism has its wisdom, but in these situations and for me personally - it's naive.
> 
> If you could, ignore that I'll never respect them and treat my and your interactions independent from the rest of the bumble-jargain.
> 
> You are correct, god cannot be proven n'or dis-proven by humans. We begin on similar ground there. However you'd like to elaborate based upon that, I'm game/open minded.
Click to expand...


Phony!  Another straw man.  Human logic proves that God exists and you did not and could refute that fact.  Everyone of your arguments have been refuted, shown to be stupid and false.  Atheisism is stupid and on this thread you guys aren't able to hide that.  That's what you don't like and Emily is wrong too.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
Click to expand...


Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is YOU who rejects my belief that God created everything, including human logic. You've presented NO argument to validate that belief, it's just simply what you stubbornly insist to be the truth without regard for any sort of rationality. Furthermore, not only do you reject my beliefs, you mock and ridicule me, and compare me with Atheists who don't believe in anything spiritual at all.
> 
> Get yourself a turban and a mosque, and you can be a radical fanatic! That's where you are!
Click to expand...


Dear Boss
I think we can agree that God's logic is on another level.
This is clearly not the same as the logic on our human level.

M.D. and Justin both reacted to this idea of relative truths vs. absolute truths.
So they do not put human logic or relativity on the same level of God's truth and logic as absolute.

They are just not perfect at expressing this,
and are rejecting us when we are actually agreeing with them.

the concepts are there, but the language is missing the mark.
We are talking past each other to the point of sounding
completely contradictory when that cannot be what we mean.

Sorry for this.

The hostile negative energy has to be removed from the picture first
and maybe there won't be such wild refractions skewing what
we are saying and hearing, like walking through a hall of mirrors
where everything is getting distorted beyond sense and recognition.

Yuck

I think we need to do a control alt delete on this thread
and maybe start over from a fresh perspective. something got off on the wrong track
and don't know if we can fix that or have to start over instead?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is YOU who rejects my belief that God created everything, including human logic. You've presented NO argument to validate that belief, it's just simply what you stubbornly insist to be the truth without regard for any sort of rationality. Furthermore, not only do you reject my beliefs, you mock and ridicule me, and compare me with Atheists who don't believe in anything spiritual at all.
> 
> Get yourself a turban and a mosque, and you can be a radical fanatic! That's where you are!
Click to expand...


Dear Boss
I think we can agree that God's logic is on another level.
This is clearly not the same as the logic on our human level.

M.D. and Justin both reacted to this idea of relative truths vs. absolute truths.
So they do not put human logic or relativity on the same level of God's truth and logic as absolute.

They are just not perfect at expressing this,
and are rejecting us when we are actually agreeing with them.

the concepts are there, but the language is missing the mark.
We are talking past each other to the point of sounding
completely contradictory when that cannot be what we mean.

Sorry for this.

The hostile negative energy has to be removed from the picture first
and maybe there won't be such wild refractions skewing what
we are saying and hearing, like walking through a hall of mirrors
where everything is getting distorted beyond sense and recognition.

Yuck

I think we need to do a control alt delete on this thread
and maybe start over from a fresh perspective. something got off on the wrong track
and don't know if we can fix that or have to start over instead?

I asked MD and Justin if we can try to remove the
stumbling blocks, but not sure the best way to do that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> He simply doesn't _believe_ what the objective facts of human cognition and the logic thereof tell him to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is YOU who rejects my belief that God created everything, including human logic. You've presented NO argument to validate that belief, it's just simply what you stubbornly insist to be the truth without regard for any sort of rationality. Furthermore, not only do you reject my beliefs, you mock and ridicule me, and compare me with Atheists who don't believe in anything spiritual at all.
> 
> Get yourself a turban and a mosque, and you can be a radical fanatic! That's where you are!
Click to expand...


Dear Boss
I think we can agree that God's logic is on another level.
This is clearly not the same as the logic on our human level.

M.D. and Justin both reacted to this idea of relative truths vs. absolute truths.
So they do not put human logic or relativity on the same level of God's truth and logic as absolute.

They are just not perfect at expressing this,
and are rejecting us when we are actually agreeing with them.

the concepts are there, but the language is missing the mark.
We are talking past each other to the point of sounding
completely contradictory when that cannot be what we mean.

Sorry for this.

The hostile negative energy has to be removed from the picture first
and maybe there won't be such wild refractions skewing what
we are saying and hearing, like walking through a hall of mirrors
where everything is getting distorted beyond sense and recognition.

Yuck

I think we need to do a control alt delete on this thread
and maybe start over from a fresh perspective. something got off on the wrong track
and don't know if we can fix that or have to start over instead?

I asked MD and Justin if we can try to remove the
stumbling blocks, but not sure the best way to do that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sorry Justin
Human knowledge being finite
means God being infinite is beyond our limits.

We can symbolize God and prove there is a consensus on meaning and definition,
so I agree with you and M.D. on that.

But I also agree when M.D. says that science cannot prove anything, but only verify and falsify,
so this is what we mean by human logic that is on the level of science.

Justin you and I and MD and Boss would agree
if we could agree what we are calling these different levels.

I see we are getting tied up in the terms we use for "which level"
so of course these conflict with each other. We aren't talking about the same things.

And when we are, we use different terms!

Sorry this is causing so much confusion.

This is why we are called to forgive one another
because of these imperfections and biases.

I pray we can overcome these so we can continue to
uncover greater understanding of God that can come about here by continuing to share
and help each other.

Only the Devil would delight in anyone being divided and attacking each other.

So if you love God more than the Devil
you would seek truth that sets us free from division and strife
and would not play into the traps used to divide and conquer.

Let us forgive and seek the truth of God the Kingdom of God
that brings us closer to perfect understanding.

Let us not seek to trip and fail one another, as there is no joy in iniquity.

Can we agree to seek the Wisdom of God
and let perfect love of truth cast out all error?


----------



## emilynghiem

Sorry Justin
Human knowledge being finite
means God being infinite is beyond our limits.

We can symbolize God and prove there is a consensus on meaning and definition,
so I agree with you and M.D. on that.

But I also agree when M.D. says that science cannot prove anything, but only verify and falsify,
so this is what we mean by human logic that is on the level of science.

Justin you and I and MD and Boss would agree
if we could agree what we are calling these different levels.

I see we are getting tied up in the terms we use for "which level"
so of course these conflict with each other. We aren't talking about the same things.

And when we are, we use different terms!

Sorry this is causing so much confusion.

This is why we are called to forgive one another
because of these imperfections and biases.

I pray we can overcome these so we can continue to
uncover greater understanding of God that can come about here by continuing to share
and help each other.

Only the Devil would delight in anyone being divided and attacking each other.

So if you love God more than the Devil
you would seek truth that sets us free from division and strife
and would not play into the traps used to divide and conquer.

Let us forgive and seek the truth of God the Kingdom of God
that brings us closer to perfect understanding.

Let us not seek to trip and fail one another, as there is no joy in iniquity.

Can we agree to seek the Wisdom of God
and let perfect love of truth cast out all error?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
Click to expand...


Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else. 

You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
Click to expand...


Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else. 

You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin:
Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.

I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.

I am sorry you are going through this,
but maybe it is necessary that you do.

After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.

This path seems to be a negative dead end, so 
maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.

I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.

God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.

Amen


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin:
Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.

I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.

I am sorry you are going through this,
but maybe it is necessary that you do.

After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.

This path seems to be a negative dead end, so 
maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.

I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.

God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.

Amen


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.
Click to expand...


It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.  

So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts?  Can you give me a couple examples?  

No one is lying Justin.  We truly don't believe in your gods.  And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.  

It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know.  But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.
Click to expand...


It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.  

So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts?  Can you give me a couple examples?  

No one is lying Justin.  We truly don't believe in your gods.  And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.  

It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know.  But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's way more fun to consider them one person, and also keeps things more organized and concise. All in all, it enhances my quality of life 0.000000001367%, which is closer to zero than one but still, it's NOT zero. I may even have a party in its honor!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't respect and treat people as individuals,
> how can we ask them not to lump us all together and dismiss us collectively?
> 
> We need to stop this business of labeling for convenience.
> 
> Especially if Boss is trying to distinguish God as Creator from God as Logic naturally existing.
> 
> How can we ask others to make a distinction that is more convenient for us,
> when we refuse to distinguish them from something or someone else we are lumping together?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you a long time ago, Emily.
> 
> I don't take this as seriously as you do. This is a flippant internet conversation to pass time while I also handle my business. It cuts it up a bit. In real life, these conversations would never devolve like this such as they have, not in the circles of people that I keep around.
> 
> I lost respect for justin and md long ago, when I saw that their tactics of discussion were grimy.
> 
> I consider them vile, as humans. I don't want to respect them. And I'm even the re-conciliatory kind of guy, I give people chances because I'm pretty nice. For that reason, it's even MORE egregious when someone crosses my line of disrespect.
> 
> So, to bring the point home for you: I have zero reason or want or necessity to respect these vile creatures.
> 
> I respect you though. We disagree in terms of spiritualism, and can still get along like peanut butter and jelly. That's because we are nice people.
> 
> These gentlemen called you names, as well. And YOU DEFINITELY did not start that level of disrespect with them. Remember that, when they think they can talk past or down to you, and pretend that you need a babysitter telling you who and who not to trust and things like that. The blatant disrespect cannot be reeled in, their egos are to the moon, alice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear me!
> 
> GT, no wonder they lash out and have no respect
> if the sentiment is mutual.
> 
> I just know that where I treat people with respect,
> they do the same, or try to.
> 
> how are we going to carve out any civility in the world
> if we treat each other as trash?
> 
> It makes sense to me if we want to make the world a better place,
> the only things we can change are the relations in our range.
> 
> If we don't even clean up the garbage there, where we can do something about it,
> what hope is there for the rest of the world to clean up messes going on?
> 
> Just my understanding of think globally, act locally.
> Whatever we do to correct error and restore good faith relations locally
> you multiply that by 1000 and you get an exponential impact on the world.
> 
> You don't have to believe in the 100th monkey syndrome, or 6 degrees of separation.
> Even young kids get the idea of the ripple effect, that if you do one nice thing to
> make things better, then the positive love and energy passes forward.
> 
> here is a whole nonprofit group doing outreach based on that concept:
> Rachel s Challenge
> If just one student can have this much impact, think of what the rest of us can do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, from what I remember reading, he was just saying "he/we don't have time for all that shit".  We come here to vent a little.  If you want to effectively communicate, stop whatever yoga mentality bullshit you are trying to put on us.  No one is buying in yet I see you reaching out to everyone the same way.  It's not effective.  Try something new.  Or put it in plain terms.  If we are bitching about abortion, we already know the other sides position on it.  We disagree.  And it is the other side that doesn't want to focus on the real problems, which is how can we reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.   Why don't they want to talk about the solutions?  Because they involve rubbers and birth control and sex ed in school.  Even covering contraception as part of your healthcare coverage.   They don't understand that it's important.  Why?  Because their god tells them his way or the highway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a load of baloney. I've looked at the other threads. The tactic of atheists like you, GT, Hollie, Jake and Jones and a whole lot of others I noticed is to personally attack, attack, attack, attack, attack, shut down discussion, ruin the thread. Most of the threads stop within a page or maybe two pages, because everybody leaves once you punks start. I even saw another thread that Rawlings started. GT, Hollie, Jake, you jump into with insults right off the bat, just like you did here. All the theists left and the OP ended. I can quote you guys from other threads. GT's first post on this thread was to call the theist he was talking to an idiot. Told him to shut up. What's happening here is you guys ain't running the show. And you are a liar seallybobo. Your arguments have been blown to pieces every time, not by yoga but by hard cold, logical facts. What you don't like is getting drubbed by theists who aren't backing down this time, letting you punks run the show or end discussion. And all you phony subjectivist theists who play the same games that atheists do, like Foxfyre, can go hang too.  In fact, this is crap that always happens on the other threads.  The theists try to stick to the arguments and all you arguments are this same personal crap. You don't have anything but attacking the man arguments, you bunch of phonies.
Click to expand...


It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.  

So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts?  Can you give me a couple examples?  

No one is lying Justin.  We truly don't believe in your gods.  And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.  

It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know.  But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others *tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.*  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin:
When I was nice to Hollie and GT, I was unconditional.
They responded very civilly.

When you and M.D. react,  you seem to very conditional in your acceptance and rejection.
So maybe that is your lesson to learn here.

If the CONDITIONS by which you accepted to be civil towards Hollie and GT
were not met, then this turned hostile into namecalling and accusing people of lying.

If this way of projecting expectations onto others isn't working,
I hope this means to let go of that approach, and try a different way that
might succeed in getting points made that we can agree upon.

I would much rather we all succeed, than any of us fail.
We each have special points to offer if we could listen and bring out those insights to help us all.


----------



## emilynghiem

Sealybobo said:
			
		

> It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.
> 
> So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts? Can you give me a couple examples?
> 
> No one is lying Justin. We truly don't believe in your gods. And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.
> 
> It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know. But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
> 
> _“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.”_


_

Dear Sealybobo:
I think this is a very honest straightforward explanation.

May I also add that for my atheist friends who have SEEN proof
of spiritual healing and abundant grace as natural processes in life,
they still do not personify God and Christ and do not convert just
because they understand these things are real.

So the same message in Christianity can be shared universally
even with nontheists or atheists, and it doesn't mean everyone has to convert to Christian.

People can remain secular and still work with the same process
of forgiveness and spiritual healing as represented in the Bible.
The atheists and nontheists may remain as they are and just add this knowledge
and understanding to what they already use in life.

There is no need for conflict or combat between theists and nontheists, Christians or nonchristians; we can still be joined in Christ and remain our respective affiliations._


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin:
> Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
> because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.
> 
> I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
> if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.
> 
> I am sorry you are going through this,
> but maybe it is necessary that you do.
> 
> After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
> NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.
> 
> This path seems to be a negative dead end, so
> maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.
> 
> I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
> so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.
> 
> God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
> so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
> In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
> to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.
> 
> Amen
Click to expand...


That's because your posts don't directly challenge relativism, which I finally got after trying to discuss things from a different basis.  At first I thought Rawlings basic approach from the beginning was wrong though I agreed with most of the details but now I see that he was right all along.  The reason some people think we're the same guy is because we're both absolutists.  The reason we agree on most things is because we both start with the same premise and try to figure out what objective logic shows.  It all comes down to absolutism verses relativism or maybe it's versus materialism.  I'm not sure.  But either way it's what the objective facts say versus somebody's subjective opinion and the subjective opinions about the logic of God are always illogical.   The real truth is that the more I think about the things we have disagreed on the more we agree because I start seeing things I didn't see before very good.  That's what 's freaking people out.  But they're not thinking objectively like we are, but subjectively.  So does The Natural Human Being, Where Are my Keys, Abba and Peach.  The subjectivist just won't let themselves see the pattern. Everyone knows that Hollie knows the seven things are logically true.  All she's really saying is that she doesn't believe they are ultimately true.  But the absolutists are not saying they can prove them to be ultimately true but that they are logically true and the relativists  just lie or curse you out just like Boss cursed my out.  Phonies.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others *tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.*  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin:
When I was nice to Hollie and GT, I was unconditional.
They responded very civilly.

When you and M.D. react,  you seem to very conditional in your acceptance and rejection.
So maybe that is your lesson to learn here.

If the CONDITIONS by which you accepted to be civil towards Hollie and GT
were not met, then this turned hostile into namecalling and accusing people of lying.

If this way of projecting expectations onto others isn't working,
I hope this means to let go of that approach, and try a different way that
might succeed in getting points made that we can agree upon.

I would much rather we all succeed, than any of us fail.
We each have lots to offer if we could listen and bring out those insights to help us all.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin:
> Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
> because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.
> 
> I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
> if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.
> 
> I am sorry you are going through this,
> but maybe it is necessary that you do.
> 
> After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
> NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.
> 
> This path seems to be a negative dead end, so
> maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.
> 
> I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
> so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.
> 
> God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
> so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
> In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
> to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because your posts don't directly challenge relativism, which I finally got after trying to discuss things from a different basis.  At first I thought Rawlings basic approach from the beginning was wrong though I agreed with most of the details but now I see that he was right all along.  The reason some people think we're the same guy is because we're both absolutists.  The reason we agree on most things is because we both start with the same premise and try to figure out what objective logic shows.  It all comes down to absolutism verses relativism or maybe it's versus materialism.  I'm not sure.  But either way it's what the objective facts say versus somebody's subjective opinion and the subjective opinions about the logic of God are always illogical.   The real truth is that the more I think about the things we have disagreed on the more we agree because I start seeing things I didn't see before very good.  That's what 's freaking people out.  But they're not thinking objectively like we are, but subjectively.  So does The Natural Human Being, Where Are my Keys, Abba and Peach.  The subjectivist just won't let themselves see the pattern. Everyone knows that Hollie knows the seven things are logically true.  All she's really saying is that she doesn't believe they are ultimately true.  But the absolutists are not saying they can prove them to be ultimately true but that they are logically true and the relativists  just lie or curse you out just like Boss cursed my out.  Phonies.
Click to expand...


Justin do you understand that from BreezeWood and Boss's understanding of God
then in comparison yours and M.D. approach also appear relativistic as working for you but not for others?

If you can see this, then you can understand what it means for us humans to be equals.
Our biases can separate use from the next person who doesn't see God or life the same way.

So if you are saying there is something limited or flawed with that relativistic approach
which fails to capture and fully represent the absolute truth,
they can say the same of you!  

Now what I do differently is I ACCEPT the approach you and M.D. use which is right for you.
I ACCEPT the approach that Boss or BreezeWood understands as right for them.

This does NOT belittle, negate or undermine the Absolute truth behind it all.

This is actually supporting it, by showing all the other ways of representing such truth,
still ALIGN. So they all point to the same Absolute truth/universal laws as the source.

Somehow I don't feel you and MD. are as comfortable
with reconciling how there can be absolute truth and also these relative approaches to truth.

I think you both had very bad experiences with people abusing relative approaches to
negate, undermine, defy or deny absolutes, so to you it may seem like a "dirty word" or manipulative tactic.

Justin if you can get over your negative associations with "relativism"
maybe other atheists on here will try the same to get over negative associations with "theism"
or "absolutist" that make them flip out unable to listen because of the negative meanings this has.

I think we'd all have to agree to let go of negative associations
to really here what you, M.D. and others here are trying to say.

It would likely be a mutual process and agreement to let go of those past habits
that destroyed trusting relations and take time to recover from the injury and insults.


----------



## emilynghiem

GT said:
			
		

> poor widdew justin



So instead of throwing "temper tantrums"
should we throw a huge "pity party" for all these
atheists left off the guest list of the TAG after-party in heaven
or the Theists who tried to be nice but then gave up?


----------



## G.T.

poor widdew justin


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin:
> Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
> because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.
> 
> I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
> if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.
> 
> I am sorry you are going through this,
> but maybe it is necessary that you do.
> 
> After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
> NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.
> 
> This path seems to be a negative dead end, so
> maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.
> 
> I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
> so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.
> 
> God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
> so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
> In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
> to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because your posts don't directly challenge relativism, which I finally got after trying to discuss things from a different basis.  At first I thought Rawlings basic approach from the beginning was wrong though I agreed with most of the details but now I see that he was right all along.  The reason some people think we're the same guy is because we're both absolutists.  The reason we agree on most things is because we both start with the same premise and try to figure out what objective logic shows.  It all comes down to absolutism verses relativism or maybe it's versus materialism.  I'm not sure.  But either way it's what the objective facts say versus somebody's subjective opinion and the subjective opinions about the logic of God are always illogical.   The real truth is that the more I think about the things we have disagreed on the more we agree because I start seeing things I didn't see before very good.  That's what 's freaking people out.  But they're not thinking objectively like we are, but subjectively.  So does The Natural Human Being, Where Are my Keys, Abba and Peach.  The subjectivist just won't let themselves see the pattern. Everyone knows that Hollie knows the seven things are logically true.  All she's really saying is that she doesn't believe they are ultimately true.  But the absolutists are not saying they can prove them to be ultimately true but that they are logically true and the relativists  just lie or curse you out just like Boss cursed my out.  Phonies.
Click to expand...


It's ultimately the relativism of entrenched, unexamined subjective beliefs that might be based on materialism or any given theistic belief. 

Take Boss's entrenched, unexamined, subjective belief, for example:  objectively, we can see that either man's logic was created by God for man or endowed by God on man.  That is axiomatic!

There is no apparent contradiction at that point in terms of recognizing the alternatives. 

Boss:  "it was created for man!  It couldn't have been endowed!"

Utter nonsense!  No objectivity at all!  This is  a  purely  entrenched, unexamined, subjective belief of fanatical dogmatism. 

So what happens when we look at the matter more deeply, objectively, to figure out which one works best logically or which one is more probable? 

Well, we find out that it's not even an issue of probability insofar as objective logic goes at all.  The imperatives of organic logic hold that it was endowed! 

Which of the two options is consistently rational?

The second one, of course! 


Does this still mean that the first option could be true?

Yes. 

But not because there exists anything demonstrably rational or empirical supporting that notion.  It's purely a notion of possibility against logic and probability.  It's a purely subjective belief supported by nothing but emotionalism!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> poor widdew justin



So instead of throwing "temper tantrums"
should we throw a huge "pity party" for all these
atheists left off the guest list of the TAG after-party in heaven
or the Theists who tried to be nice but then gave up?
==============================

Dear M.D. Rawlings Boss and Justin Davis:
Again, I see no problem with you each talking about 
God, logic and man's realm on different levels.

I think the problem comes from taking Boss's way out of context
with Boss's layout, and putting it into MD's system, etc.

These do not cross correlate directly.

My approach of 'relative expression' does not work within Justin's system either!

If we keep mixing and matching contexts,
we run into blatant contradictions that make no sense.

May I suggest we each stick with our own set ups.
And then try to ALIGN like or parallel parts.

So with MD, when his approach says to  use logic and
"not science" which doesn't prove or disprove but only verifies or falsifies,
that aligns with what I was saying that human knowledge is limited compared with God.

We don't use the word logic the same way, but I can translate
into his own terms using science.

[However when it comes to the atheists, and he rejects science, they have a cow!
They rely on science, so that is where I propose to use Spiritual Healing
as a way to show where science and faith-based teaching can talk about the same process
without negating or conflicting with each other.]

Boss with you and M.D. you do not use the term logic in the same context,
so this is going to trip you both up.

You are talking about two totally different levels and constructs,
so your meanings do not align. I don't see how it is fair to fault either one of you for that.


----------



## amrchaos

You know

GT's avatar + GT's comments=Golden


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> You know
> 
> GT's avatar + GT's comments=Golden


Lol

That's my baby girl Kylie. She's pretty amazing. : )


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> You know
> 
> GT's avatar + GT's comments=Golden



I think it is GT's openness and willingness to try to work things out,
despite running into walls and slaps in the face, that is remarkable.

Thanks also, amrchaos! 
I think this really helps, and I hope we all get better at working out or around our differences.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Emily!
*
I gave you some revised posts to think very carefully about.

You claimed that Godel believed something he never believed or asserted in his life as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You expressed this idea as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You clearly believed this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You got this false idea from GT, apparently, and because it played into your bias, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without bothering to verify whether or not it is a literal truth, a literal historical fact.

Then you repeated it.

It is ridiculous for you to hold that anyone reading your post could have possibly interpreted your statement in any other way, especially given the fact that you lectured me in another post with this very same notion as if I failed to understand this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact.  I wouldn't have even noticed this post until you startled me with a post suggesting that all the things I have argued about the mathematical proofs for God's existence on this thread were unknown to me!

Whaaaaaaa?

Because I do not think as you do, anthropomorphically subjectively, but theologically objectively, I will always see right through the manifest intellectual duplicity of others. I think like God because I believe God’s testimony, not that of any finite creature.

* I don't even trust myself.
*
You suggested that I was an arrogant asshole. Maybe you’re just a gullible, dogmatically fanatical religionist . . . a closed-minded, arrogant asshole.

How about this idea. Maybe you and others can't countenance a person who doesn’t care what you think or what you have to say about him when he tells you the truth about yourself. You can't countenance a person who believes God, instead of you.

Your wont is to worship self, rather than the Creator Who is blessed forever. Your wont is to chase after your personal conceits that do not follow from the logical testimony that God has given you about Himself.



> *With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*
> Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle



Godel's incomplete theorems *prove* no such *truth*!

That is a lie.

The author of this piece worships self. His wont is to justify what cannot be rationally justified*: *the self-serving falsehoods and incoherencies of relativism. Is that your wont?  I don't believe _him_. I don't believe _you_. I believe _God_, and let every man who says otherwise be a liar.

On the contrary, Godel's theorems, in *truth*, what are ultimately the objective *facts* of human cognition endowed to us by God, *prove* that mankind _can_ *know* *truths* with absolute confidence. We *know* that the various theorems for the numerical sets of the natural numbers of the number line of infinity, albeit, as supplemented by the theorems that account for the exceptions of general rules, inherently hold *true*, and we *know* this to be *true* with absolute confidence because the laws of organic thought hold this to be *true*.

The other thing that these objective *facts* of human cognition (incompleteness theorems) *prove* to be *true* is that we cannot comprehend or contain the entirety of *truth* in our finite minds, not just at the transcendental level of being, which is something we've always *known* to be *true* intuitively, but not at the rational level of being, either, in terms of numerical/mathematical logic . . . something we once thought to be possible 'til Gödel came along and proved that to be an illusion.

That is the absolute *truth* regarding what these theorems *prove*, and they *prove* nothing else but these *truths*. That statement is logically *true*, necessary and coherent.

They do not *prove*, as the author absurdly and contradictory claims, indeed, as he necessarily claims, in the very same breath, that nothing can be *proven* or *known* to be *true*, but the *truth* that no *truths* can be *known*. Whaaaaa?   Hence, the *truth* that no *truths* can be *proven* or *known* cannot be *proven* or *known *to be *true*.

That is logically false, impossible, irrational, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite.  The theorems do  *prove *things to be *true, *things that are *known* to be _*true*_. But not only do the theorems prove  these things.  They  *prove *that human consciousness _*does not*_ have primacy over existence!  Existence is what it is, and it has primacy over human consciousness.  More at, these things underscore the absolute, incontrovertible laws of human thought!

*Truth is not relative in human logic, but absolute!*

Subjective opinions that do not line up with organic logic are necessarily false according to organic logic.

Indeed, the author's guff that all our notions are "based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)" is more incoherent baby talk.

_A priori _knowledge consists of the universally absolute axioms and tautologies of organic logic. The scripture of any given religious system of thought is clearly _a posteriori _in nature, not prior. Hence, the author's statement has no bearing on the issue of what can be known or proven to be true whatsoever. Illusion.

The author is a gullible fool. God is not an idiot or a liar. He is perfect. The logic He endowed on us does not lie. And not only does the author's guff not square with itself due to the inescapable laws of organic logic, it obviously doesn't square with the facts/truths of the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence in organic and modal logic.

Hence, this nonsense of yours about people rejecting _me_ is the self-serving crap of gullible fools who cannot justify their idiocy or their lies of relativism no matter how hard they try.

*It's not about me and never has been about me. It's about God's truth or, objectively speaking, at the very least, it's about what objective logic proves as opposed to the irrationality of subjective relativism!*

This cheap, transparently hypocritical ploy of yours is just you projecting _your _group-think psychology on me.

It is _I _and other folks like me who believe God who have been doing the rejecting around here, _not_ you.

_I _reject _your_ relativistic guff. I reject Hollie the Hate-Filled Luntic's, GT the Missing Links', Jake the Drug Addled Mind's, Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet's, Boss the Obtuse's, sealybobo the Magical's, QW the Sneak's, Brucethenonthinker's, Clayton Jones The Sociopath's . . . guff.

It's the other way around.

I believe the logic.  You guys believe in something else that's purely subjective and irrational.

Apparently, you need the herd mentality's stamp of approval. I don't. I put no stock in my opinions or yours or those of anyone else. I put my stock in what God has to say on the matter, what His logic proves about the matter, what you don't have the faith to believe in because you have no faith in anything but the lies you tell yourself and the lies of the herd mentality.

Check?


----------



## G.T.

"Emily, you don't think for yourself If you don't agree with ME!"

-MD FRAWLING


----------



## amrchaos

Funny thing about all this

It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.

However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.

I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
Click to expand...


Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything. 

Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.


----------



## G.T.

Pop quiz hawt shawts:

Boobs, and buns:

A: inductive
B: deductive
C: destructive
D: seductive
E: c & d


----------



## amrchaos

That depends on the boobs n buns in question!!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
Click to expand...

I'm not responsible for your failings. 

Your creepy stalking is cause for concern.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
Click to expand...

You have a stuttering problem.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> "Emily, you don't think for yourself If you don't agree with ME!"
> 
> -MD FRAWLING



Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another  whimper.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
Click to expand...


Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a pathology shared by the religiously insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a better argument than you have offered so far.
> 
> I've humiliated you and your pointless "seven phony things" fraud. You're left to stutter and mumble as your sick account of "Justin", does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lies and insults is everyone of your posts since you came here.  Rawlings, Abba, Where are my Keys and I and others tried to be nice to you earlier but no those posts just got more lies and insults.  Phony.  Your seven stupid things.  Phony.  Go back to the other threads.  Maybe you can shut those down the way you always do everywhere else.
> 
> You don't believer you exist?  Liar.  You don't believe the universe exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that it's possible the universe might not have always existed but was caused to exist by God?  Liar.  If God, God wouldn't have to be the greatest thing that exists?  Liar.  You don't believe that science cannot show God's existence or nonexistence?  Liar.  You really believe it's logically possible to say that God doesn't exist?  How can you know that?  Liar.  All you atheists are liars and phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin:
> Funny, I usually have no problem talking and sharing common truths with nontheists, including atheists,
> because I do not treat them as hostile or see any reason to insult or reject them.
> 
> I find we can agree on universal laws and truth even if we don't agree how these came into existence,
> if there is a starting point or God, or if all things are collectively the forces of God, etc.
> 
> I am sorry you are going through this,
> but maybe it is necessary that you do.
> 
> After you are done being tested, and coming to peace that understanding of God is
> NOT dependent on ANY of these things, maybe you will find the rest of the answers.
> 
> This path seems to be a negative dead end, so
> maybe there is a better way for you to connect with others.
> 
> I pray that you and I and all others be joined closer to God through Christ or Conscience
> so that we may understand greater truth and this shall set us free from all this negative strife dividing us right now.
> 
> God must be using that to bring out the areas we need to resolve issues
> so that we can be made whole or perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect.
> In Jesus name I pray for you MD. Boss and all others here, theists and nontheists alike
> to be  uplifted and filled with wisdom and understanding of God's universal laws regardless of our views.
> 
> Amen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because your posts don't directly challenge relativism, which I finally got after trying to discuss things from a different basis.  At first I thought Rawlings basic approach from the beginning was wrong though I agreed with most of the details but now I see that he was right all along.  The reason some people think we're the same guy is because we're both absolutists.  The reason we agree on most things is because we both start with the same premise and try to figure out what objective logic shows.  It all comes down to absolutism verses relativism or maybe it's versus materialism.  I'm not sure.  But either way it's what the objective facts say versus somebody's subjective opinion and the subjective opinions about the logic of God are always illogical.   The real truth is that the more I think about the things we have disagreed on the more we agree because I start seeing things I didn't see before very good.  That's what 's freaking people out.  But they're not thinking objectively like we are, but subjectively.  So does The Natural Human Being, Where Are my Keys, Abba and Peach.  The subjectivist just won't let themselves see the pattern. Everyone knows that Hollie knows the seven things are logically true.  All she's really saying is that she doesn't believe they are ultimately true.  But the absolutists are not saying they can prove them to be ultimately true but that they are logically true and the relativists  just lie or curse you out just like Boss cursed my out.  Phonies.
Click to expand...

Have you ever served time or been under indictment for stalking?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.



Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?


----------



## amrchaos

Hey, this is the TAG after party, right?

I got the perfect song/video to kick it off


Kind of remind you of someone, doesn't it?


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
Click to expand...

So who made my shit stink?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.



Yeah.  And all your arguments were utterly demolished precisely because they are inductively subjective.

*Amrchaos the Confused:*  "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


*Rawlings:*  "Well, putting aside the baby talk of  "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: * "Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot,  may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say,  somewhere outside our minds. Hmm.  Wait a minute!  I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . .  Well, you know what I mean.  They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .   Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"


*Rawlings:*  "Yep.  You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a  little Freudian solip action, you ninny."


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  And all your arguments were utterly demolished precisely because they are inductively subjective.
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:*  "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Well, putting aside the baby talk of  "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: * "Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot,  may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say,  somewhere outside our minds. Hmm.  Wait a minute!  I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . .  Well, you know what I mean.  They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .   Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Yep.  You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a  little Freudian solip action, you ninny."
Click to expand...


Nailed it!  

*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet:  *"They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .  Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Hey, this is the TAG after party, right?
> 
> I got the perfect song/video to kick it off
> 
> 
> Kind of remind you of someone, doesn't it?



*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . . Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?
Click to expand...



The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
Click to expand...


I love watching you guys fight.  LOL


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  And all your arguments were utterly demolished precisely because they are inductively subjective.
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:*  "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Well, putting aside the baby talk of  "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: * "Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot,  may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say,  somewhere outside our minds. Hmm.  Wait a minute!  I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . .  Well, you know what I mean.  They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .   Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Yep.  You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a  little Freudian solip action, you ninny."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nailed it!
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet:  *"They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .  Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"
Click to expand...



Flail those Pom Poms.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
Click to expand...


Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.

You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.  

So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".  

And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  And all your arguments were utterly demolished precisely because they are inductively subjective.
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:*  "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Well, putting aside the baby talk of  "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: * "Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot,  may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say,  somewhere outside our minds. Hmm.  Wait a minute!  I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . .  Well, you know what I mean.  They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .   Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*  "Yep.  You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a  little Freudian solip action, you ninny."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nailed it!
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet:  *"They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond. . . .  Wait a minute!  That doesn't make sense.  What do I mean?  I'm so confused.  Am I out of my mind?"
Click to expand...


Yes you are.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.
> 
> So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts?  Can you give me a couple examples?
> 
> No one is lying Justin.  We truly don't believe in your gods.  And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.
> 
> It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know.  But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
> 
> _“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _



There are no fatal flaws.  You sure as heck haven't proved that. Atheists like you are just never real about anything.  I know real atheists who are. I know real atheists who know the seven things are logically true.  You guys aren't real atheists.  You're just cranks making things up.  Rawlings and I have showed why Amrchaos can't right about half the things he's said so many times now but he still goes on with jack that he knows can't be right.  It's sick.  Childish.  You  won't even be real about the seven things.  We all know they're logically true whether God exists ultimately or not. The denial of that is just plain silly. 

Fatal flaws?  The fact of the reduction ad absurdum proves that can't be true all by itself. None of you believe something comes from nothing, and all of us know that science and logic don't start with things that are logically absurd.  So change the subject? Babble about sins that are committed mostly by people who don't believe in God.  Okay, so here's a real question for discussion while you're laughing.  Why are these things bad?  How do you know they're bad.  There's no God, no universal truth, no universal logic, no universal anything according to the atheist. Got an answer for that? Are you able to stick with the issues?  Nah.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
Click to expand...


Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well. 

You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.




Issues?  Arguments?  Nah.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because there isn't one argument for god that isn't without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation.
> 
> So you think theists have proved god exists without a shadow of a doubt with facts?  Can you give me a couple examples?
> 
> No one is lying Justin.  We truly don't believe in your gods.  And we call you idiot and fool because that is what believing in god makes you.
> 
> It's ok to believe there is a god if you admit you don't know.  But the minute you start telling us about virgin births and living in whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it, is when we stop listening and start laughing at you.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
> 
> _“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no fatal flaws.  You sure as heck haven't proved that. Atheists like you are just never real about anything.  I know real atheists who are. I know real atheists who know the seven things are logically true.  You guys aren't real atheists.  You're just cranks making things up.  Rawlings and I have showed why Amrchaos can't right about half the things he's said so many times now but he still goes on with jack that he knows can't be right.  It's sick.  Childish.  You  won't even be real about the seven things.  We all know they're logically true whether God exists ultimately or not. The denial of that is just plain silly.
> 
> Fatal flaws?  The fact of the reduction ad absurdum proves that can't be true all by itself. None of you believe something comes from nothing, and all of us know that science and logic don't start with things that are logically absurd.  So change the subject? Babble about sins that are committed mostly by people who don't believe in God.  Okay, so here's a real question for discussion while you're laughing.  Why are these things bad?  How do you know they're bad.  There's no God, no universal truth, no universal logic, no universal anything according to the atheist. Got an answer for that? Are you able to stick with the issues?  Nah.
Click to expand...


How are they real atheists and agree the 7 things are real?  If that's possible, ok fine the 7 things are real.  So what then?  

Oh, and you are wrong.  Why?  Because the fact is, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

So then normally a theist comeback would be to say “God is outside of time”. This claim does not make your speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

See? Fatal flaws.


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
Click to expand...


I believe in "something"?  Sure.  I just don't know what it is yet.  You think you know.  You don't.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issues?  Arguments?  Nah.
Click to expand...


You guys made up already?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gong Hollie on us, Boss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
Click to expand...


You go off the train.  The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves.  God didn't create logic because God created everything!  Moonbat crazy.  Boss in the gap.  You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.
Click to expand...


Don't know, you'd have to ask one. I'm not a solipsist nor do I argue against TAG. I only stated that I believe in a God who created everything, who is omnipotent. You have a problem with that because you think God didn't create logic and is somehow bound by it, but illogically omnipotent at the same time.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.
Click to expand...


I know. Right?


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, Justin. If all you're going to do is insult me and be a troll, go to hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go off the train.  The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves.  God didn't create logic because God created everything!  Moonbat crazy.  Boss in the gap.  You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.
Click to expand...


*God didn't create logic because God created everything! *

Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.



The real funny thing about all this is that you're solipsist arguing against the TAG or arguing against the seven things that aren't true outside your mind, and none of atheist have enough sense to come in out of the rain and realize how moonbat stupid you are.  You atheists don't think, you pom pom each other no matter how stupid the things you say are.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Right?
Click to expand...


Rawlings is a total Jackass.
Justin is an Eddie Murphy cartoon wannabe jackass who follows Rawlings around offering to make waffles!


----------



## sealybobo

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go off the train.  The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves.  God didn't create logic because God created everything!  Moonbat crazy.  Boss in the gap.  You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God didn't create logic because God created everything! *
> 
> Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?
Click to expand...


Lets start over please, from the beginning.  Who is god?  Where can I see him?  How do you know this god exists?  

And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies?  Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?

Then you are dumb.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real funny thing about all this is that you're solipsist arguing against the TAG or arguing against the seven things that aren't true outside your mind, and none of atheist have enough sense to come in out of the rain and realize how moonbat stupid you are.  You atheists don't think, you pom pom each other no matter how stupid the things you say are.
Click to expand...


You said that you know atheists who agree that the 7 things are true.  I asked you, "how is it then they are still atheists?".

And if I can agree your 7 things are correct and still be an atheist, fine, your 7 things are 100% correct.  So what?  If it doesn't prove anything to your atheists friends, then why do you think it will prove anything to us?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create logic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THEN GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT!*
Click to expand...


God is omnipotent; therefore he created logic.  Boss in the gap, no minor premise, no connection at all.  God is omnipotent; therefore he created himself.  God is omnipotent; therefore he created the tooth fairy.  God is omnipotent; therefore he created Santa Clause.  My dog has four legs; therefore my dog is a cat. Santa Clause has boots; therefore Santa Clause created God.  Humans have sentience; therefore God doesn't. 

Major premise.
Minor premises.
Conclusion. 

Boss' argument, major premise jumps to non sequitur.  It's moonbat crazy.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... NOW we have "commonsensical" logic! This is presumably logic which comes from our "common sense" (aka: conventional wisdom)
> 
> Do I need to chronicle the plethora of "common sense" beliefs humans have held through history, which turned out to be totally incorrect? I'm not sure if USMB can handle the bandwidth!
Click to expand...


LMFAO ...  LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...

Shades of Hollie.  Boss, "I'll just pretend I don't understand."

God is omnipotent; therefore he created logic. Boss in the gap, no minor premise, no connection at all. No common sense.   God is omnipotent; therefore he created himself. God is omnipotent; therefore he created the tooth fairy. God is omnipotent; therefore he created Santa Clause. My dog has four legs; therefore my dog is a cat. Santa Clause has boots; therefore Santa Clause created God. Humans have sentience; therefore God doesn't.

Major premise.
Minor premises.
Conclusion.

Boss' argument, major premise jumps to non sequitur. It's moonbat crazy.

LMFAO ...  LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...

God is omnipotent.
Humans have sentience.
God doesn't have sentience.
I know he doesn't have sentience because I told myself he doesn't have sentience.
We can only believe what's true, not known what's true.
I know its true that God doesn't have sentience.
I know its true that God created logic.
Logic is created.
Santa Clause exists.
My dog is a cat.
Elvis lives. 
I believe what I believe.
I know what I know. 
I don't know what I know.
I only believe. 
The tooth fairy exists. 
God is not God.
I'm God.


----------



## G.T.

Yepp....they're the same dude.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is defiantly coming back in the not to far off distant future and then you will have the absolute proof.
> When the antichrist desecrates the third temple, He will return in 3 1/2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss & Emily.  How do you expect us to intelligently communicate with a nut job like this?  It's like trying to tell a Muslim that Allah is not Akbar.  You think he's going to listen to you?
> 
> This poster is a great example of whats wrong with religion.  I can handle people like boss.  It's people like this who can't understand that their bullshit man made up religion is no different from all the rest.
> 
> Want to tell me you believe in God and give me phylisophical reasons?  Fine.  Try to tell me god talked to you or your ancestors and I'm going to think you are a fucking retard of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You relativists are the nutjobs, nutjob!*
> 
> *Duuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh*
> 
> 
> *There are no absolute truths except the absolute truth that there are not absolute truths; therefore, the absolute truth that there are not absolute truths must be absolutely false!*
> 
> *Duuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> 
> That's you nutjob, not I!*
> 
> *There can be no mutual process of* *connection on the grounds of relativism.*
> 
> Relativism is irrationalism! Indeed, it's the circular reasoning of self-negation that necessarily and positively proves the opposite is logically true. Hence, the relativist himself necessarily proves that his claim is utter crap, that truth is necessarily absolute, that truth is not merely something we believe, but is something that we know; that is to say, our truth according to the logic we have is the only truth we can believe or know.
> 
> Since that very same logic tells us that God is a perfect Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself in organic logic, that is the only thing we can rationally believe or know to be true.
> 
> If this's not true, then nothing's true. Atheistic _or_ theistic subjective relativists have got nothin' to say to me that I need to give a damn about.
> 
> They’re the ones claiming that nothing is true or nothing can be known to be true.
> 
> So they need to shut up!
> 
> This absolutist who believes the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof doesn’t give a rat's ass for anything they have to say, because according to their very own claims nothing they have to say is true . . . except for the fact that every time they open their yaps and assert relativism, they necessarily prove that I am right or at the very least UNCONSCIOUSLY, UNWITTINGLY tell me that they actually hold truth to be absolute after all!
> 
> They don't even know what they’re doing or saying or thinking or actually proving.
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I am an absolutist because that’s what the objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof prove to be true. I believe. I have faith. I hold that these things are true. I believe God. I have faith in God. I trust that what He is telling me is true. Hence, I believe the truth, and I know the truth, because God has given me the truth.
> 
> My truth is the simple truth. There is nothing complex about my arguments. No, sir! They are simple. It's just that simpletons demand proof for what the simpletons already know to be true, logically, so I show them the facts of the matter that prove these things must be true. They make simple things complex.
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition via the objective logic thereof is the only thing that is rational. My faith is rational.
> 
> The faith of the relativist is based on the irrational notion that what he himself proves to be true via his very own logic is not really true at all.
> 
> So how does he know that?
> 
> Answer: he doesn't, and he has no justifiable basis to stand on at all. It’s utter rubbish, guess work, maybe, perhaps, duh, uh, um, la-la, duck, dodge, derp-derp logic, Koolaid. . . .
> 
> The relativist is a boorish nitwit contradictorily claiming nothing to be known as true and all kinds of things to be known as true at the same time.
> 
> Shut up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin: Can you please help me explain to MD?
> I said there was a difference between Absolute truth and Relative EXPRESSIONS OR PERCEPTIONS of truth.
> 
> So these Relative truths are what humans use such as science and empirical experience.
> Sealybobo has no experience with spiritual healing but my other friends do,
> so their relative truths are different.
> 
> Can you please explain to MD this does not contradict absolute truths?
> 
> We can have both.
> 
> Two people can play on the same baseball team,
> and the score is tied 3 to 3 -- absolutely.
> 
> But one person says the game was fair, because mistakes were made on both sides, and it came out even to them;
> and the other person can say the game was unfair because X Y Z were unfair calls and one team should have won.
> 
> That's not a perfect example,
> but I hope you get what I mean.
> 
> The score is absolutely unquestioned,
> but the interpretation of whether the game was evenhanded or not is relative.
> One person sees it one way and the other sees it another way,
> and they are both right from their perspective.
Click to expand...


He knows the difference better than any of us.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Pride, foolish pride:  that's what we have here!
> 
> God _is_ Love.  Did God create love?
> 
> God _is_ Truth.  Did God create truth?
> 
> God _is_ Omniscience.  Did God create omniscience?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipotence.  Did God create omnipotence?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?
> 
> God _is_ Rationality and Order.  Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?
> 
> Where is the contradiction in that?
> 
> Answer:  there is no contradiction!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?
> 
> That's your argument?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> What's wrong with that argument?
> 
> Answer:  everything!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> A perfect God is not bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is  God rational or is He irrational?  He is rational!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order?  Yes or no?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> *A:  A = A.*
> 
> God = Not-God?!  Is that your argument?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is that argument sensible?
> 
> Answer:  No, it's not!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> God ≠ Not-God.
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Is your logic right?
> 
> Answer:  No, it's not!  It's incoherent and insane.
> 
> Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn:  for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.
> 
> Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement?  Yes or no?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, you are!
> 
> Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it does!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer:  Yes, it is!
> 
> Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!
> 
> Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!
> 
> *God did not create logic!*


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy *
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
> 1.*  Humans can only  think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:*  human logic and human emotions.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> *Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
> [*4.*  Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss:  "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
> 1.*  Rawlings does not support his argument.
> *2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
> *3.*  Rawlings is irrational.
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Hogwash!  See *Post #4191*."]
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic.  The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
> *2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*.  If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.  But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age  older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]





Common sense.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy *
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
> 1.*  Humans can only  think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:*  human logic and human emotions.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> *Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
> [*4.*  Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss:  "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
> 1.*  Rawlings does not support his argument.
> *2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
> *3.*  Rawlings is irrational.
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Hogwash!  See *Post #4191*."]
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic.  The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
> *2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*.  If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.  But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age  older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.
Click to expand...


Flail those Pom Poms.


----------



## Justin Davis

amrchaos said:


> Emily
> 
> Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.
> 
> Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.
> 
> It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.
> 
> There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.
> 
> There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.
> 
> Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.





And there are people with false, hypocritical personalities who manipulate the truth, who say stupid things and mock the simple truths of common sense.


----------



## amrchaos

After that last statement by Sealybobo--'you aren't converting atheist with your trash'-- they are still posting?

That is just sick.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy *
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
> 1.*  Humans can only  think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:*  human logic and human emotions.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
> *1.*  God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, God created logic.
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> *Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*
> 
> *1.*  Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
> [*4.*  Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss:  "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]
> 
> 
> 
> Yep!  Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
> 1.*  Rawlings does not support his argument.
> *2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
> *3.*  Rawlings is irrational.
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Hogwash!  See *Post #4191*."]
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic.  The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
> *2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
> *3.*  Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
> [*4.*  Rawlings:  "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*.  If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.  But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age  older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.
Click to expand...


Only to the senseless.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

peach174 said:


> [
> 
> He created everything in this universe.
> We know very little or next to nothing yet about parallel worlds.



God did not create everything that exists in this universe.  God created everything that exists apart from Himself.  God did not create the logic that exists in this universe.  The logic that exists in this universe was bestowed on it by God.  Our logic is God's logic.  Logic has always existed in God from eternity.  Logic was not created.


----------



## amrchaos

Maybe they are not reading responses?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> After that last statement by Sealybobo--'you aren't converting atheist with your trash'-- they are still posting?
> 
> That is just sick.



Why are you still posting?  This is just sick.



Behold the atheist mentality: everything is about him.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.
> 
> Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.
> 
> It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.
> 
> There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.
> 
> There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.
> 
> Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are people with false, hypocritical personalities who manipulate the truth, who say stupid things and mock the simple truths of common sense.
Click to expand...

And you count yourself among them, right?


M.D. Rawlings said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> He created everything in this universe.
> We know very little or next to nothing yet about parallel worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create everything that exists in this universe.  God created everything that exists apart from Himself.  God did not create the logic that exists in this universe.  The logic that exists in this universe was bestowed on it by God.  Our logic is God's logic.  Logic has always existed in God from eternity.  Logic was not created.
Click to expand...

"...... because I say so"


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> None of you believe something comes from nothing ...



that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being. 

the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

sealybobo said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing about all this
> 
> It is so easy to make an inductive argument for any religion based on the experiences of "all" the followers, from its inception to present.
> 
> However, deductive arguments are difficult to make for the most simplest of things that exist.
> 
> I think the op is running a really bad joke, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real funny thing about all this is that you're solipsist arguing against the TAG or arguing against the seven things that aren't true outside your mind, and none of atheist have enough sense to come in out of the rain and realize how moonbat stupid you are.  You atheists don't think, you pom pom each other no matter how stupid the things you say are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said that you know atheists who agree that the 7 things are true.  I asked you, "how is it then they are still atheists?".
> 
> And if I can agree your 7 things are correct and still be an atheist, fine, your 7 things are 100% correct.  So what?  If it doesn't prove anything to your atheists friends, then why do you think it will prove anything to us?
Click to expand...


Me and the wife had friends over two weekends ago, mostly Christian friends but also my atheists friends since high school.  I showed them the seven things.  They know they are true because they understand the laws of  logic. They agree that the seven things are logically true.  Two of them even see why number six is logically true.  The other two weren't sure.  The funniest thing is that the two who could see it were trying to explain it to the other two and kept asking them why can't you see that.  It's logically true.   Finally, they got it after they stopped trying to think about it the wrong say.  One of them already  knew about the  seven things, though not like that, just that she had thought about those kinds of things before and knew about the TAG. They're new to the others, but she said that doesn't mean they're true spiritually.  Her words but I know what she meant.  She says that they are logically true but what if nature just wired us like that and that's all.  One of the others said that he never realized that logic says God exists before and I could tell that it was on his mind the rest of the night.  It does prove something. They're logically true.  Stop being thick. I've talked to other atheists on Facebook who agree they're logically true, but they say that evolution just did things that way.  So everybody's got their own reason. Everyone can see the seven things are logically true.  Some believe their true because God is behind them, some believe that nature just did that.  Your question doesn't make any sense.  What do you mean what do they prove?  They prove your crazy if you can't see that they're logically true. Whether you believe what they're saying is true ultimately is up to you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO... NOW we have "commonsensical" logic! This is presumably logic which comes from our "common sense" (aka: conventional wisdom)
> 
> Do I need to chronicle the plethora of "common sense" beliefs humans have held through history, which turned out to be totally incorrect? I'm not sure if USMB can handle the bandwidth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO ...  LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...
> 
> Shades of Hollie.  Boss, "I'll just pretend I don't understand."
> 
> God is omnipotent; therefore he created logic. Boss in the gap, no minor premise, no connection at all. No common sense.   God is omnipotent; therefore he created himself. God is omnipotent; therefore he created the tooth fairy. God is omnipotent; therefore he created Santa Clause. My dog has four legs; therefore my dog is a cat. Santa Clause has boots; therefore Santa Clause created God. Humans have sentience; therefore God doesn't.
> 
> Major premise.
> Minor premises.
> Conclusion.
> 
> Boss' argument, major premise jumps to non sequitur. It's moonbat crazy.
> 
> LMFAO ...  LMFAO ... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO... LMFAO...
> 
> God is omnipotent.
> Humans have sentience.
> God doesn't have sentience.
> I know he doesn't have sentience because I told myself he doesn't have sentience.
> We can only believe what's true, not known what's true.
> I know its true that God doesn't have sentience.
> I know its true that God created logic.
> Logic is created.
> Santa Clause exists.
> My dog is a cat.
> Elvis lives.
> I believe what I believe.
> I know what I know.
> I don't know what I know.
> I only believe.
> The tooth fairy exists.
> God is not God.
> I'm God.
Click to expand...


Actually, except for all the LMFAOs, that does look like something I might write . . . sort of, though I would show the logic of what he's actually arguing for real.  But basically that's what he's doing:  because of _A_, therefore _B_.  There's no connection!   Stop morphing, Justin!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bang (a real counterargument), but another whimper.  More relativist crap for which there is no defense but insults and bald denials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... question is, why do you and Justin continue doing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is why a solipsist is arguing against the TAG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rawlings is a total Jackass.
> Justin is an Eddie Murphy cartoon wannabe jackass who follows Rawlings around offering to make waffles!
Click to expand...



Sorry, Boss, but you're wrong again.  I'm not the jackass around here.  I'm the guy pinning the tails on the prideful jackasses.   Remember?  I'm the guy who spoke to you civilly about this obvious error in your logic, proved it beyond dispute.  I even allowed, objectively speaking, that you might be ultimately right, but not because anything existed rationally or empirically to support your position.  If you are right, then our logic would have to be all wrong.  You're the one who got all butt hurt and abusive when I wouldn't agree with _you_!  You're the one who started the mocking while standing on utter bullshit, more at, standing on nothing but blind faith.  

Here's the real fascinating dynamic of human psychology, i.e., the herd mentality.  Now everyone can see that your argument is syllogistic in nature, can see that it's utter tripe.  The major premise is clearly false.  There's no minor premise.  The conclusion is a non sequitur; in fact, it's hanging in midair, floating, tied to nothing but smoke and mirrors. There's no connection at all to anything.  Yet three people agreed with you.  LOL!  No one appreciates the gad fly.  Folks prefer their delusions.


*The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy * 

*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
*1.* God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, God created logic.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
*1.* Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
1.* Humans can only think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:* human logic and human emotions.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
*1.* God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, God created logic.

*Or:*

*1.* Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.

*Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*

*1.* Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
[*4.* Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss: "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]



Yep! Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.



*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
1.* Rawlings does not support his argument.
*2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
*3.* Rawlings is irrational.
[*4.* Rawlings: "Hogwash! See *Post #4191*."]

*Or:*

*1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic. The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
*2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
[*4.* Rawlings: "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*. If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it. But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you believe something comes from nothing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.
> 
> the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time  that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity.  That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore.  Ask Rawlings about that.  What's this got to do with God?  Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it.   We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense.  Mind or matter and something had to come first.   That's our choice.  So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another phony.  Your arguments are total crap.  They're retarded.  They're stupid and contradictory.  Yeah and this filth is all you got left.  Are you Hollie?  Did Hollie hijack your account?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go off the train.  The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves.  God didn't create logic because God created everything!  Moonbat crazy.  Boss in the gap.  You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God didn't create logic because God created everything! *
> 
> Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?
Click to expand...


You know what I meant.  I said it wrong that's all.  I meant to say that God created  logic because God created everything, because that's your idea.   Everyone knows it makes no sense to say that God created everything. That's moonbat crazy.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Emily!
> *
> I gave you some revised posts to think very carefully about.
> 
> You claimed that Godel believed something he never believed or asserted in his life as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You expressed this idea as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You clearly believed this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You got this false idea from GT, apparently, and because it played into your bias, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without bothering to verify whether or not it is a literal truth, a literal historical fact.
> 
> Then you repeated it.
> 
> It is ridiculous for you to hold that anyone reading your post could have possibly interpreted your statement in any other way, especially given the fact that you lectured me in another post with this very same notion as if I failed to understand this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact.  I wouldn't have even noticed this post until you startled me with a post suggesting that all the things I have argued about the mathematical proofs for God's existence on this thread were unknown to me!
> 
> Whaaaaaaa?
> 
> Because I do not think as you do, anthropomorphically subjectively, but theologically objectively, I will always see right through the manifest intellectual duplicity of others. I think like God because I believe God’s testimony, not that of any finite creature.
> 
> * I don't even trust myself.
> *
> You suggested that I was an arrogant asshole. Maybe you’re just a gullible, dogmatically fanatical religionist . . . a closed-minded, arrogant asshole.
> 
> How about this idea. Maybe you and others can't countenance a person who doesn’t care what you think or what you have to say about him when he tells you the truth about yourself. You can't countenance a person who believes God, instead of you.
> 
> Your wont is to worship self, rather than the Creator Who is blessed forever. Your wont is to chase after your personal conceits that do not follow from the logical testimony that God has given you about Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*
> Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godel's incomplete theorems *prove* no such *truth*!
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> The author of this piece worships self. His wont is to justify what cannot be rationally justified*: *the self-serving falsehoods and incoherencies of relativism. Is that your wont?  I don't believe _him_. I don't believe _you_. I believe _God_, and let every man who says otherwise be a liar.
> 
> On the contrary, Godel's theorems, in *truth*, what are ultimately the objective *facts* of human cognition endowed to us by God, *prove* that mankind _can_ *know* *truths* with absolute confidence. We *know* that the various theorems for the numerical sets of the natural numbers of the number line of infinity, albeit, as supplemented by the theorems that account for the exceptions of general rules, inherently hold *true*, and we *know* this to be *true* with absolute confidence because the laws of organic thought hold this to be *true*.
> 
> The other thing that these objective *facts* of human cognition (incompleteness theorems) *prove* to be *true* is that we cannot comprehend or contain the entirety of *truth* in our finite minds, not just at the transcendental level of being, which is something we've always *known* to be *true* intuitively, but not at the rational level of being, either, in terms of numerical/mathematical logic . . . something we once thought to be possible 'til Gödel came along and proved that to be an illusion.
> 
> That is the absolute *truth* regarding what these theorems *prove*, and they *prove* nothing else but these *truths*. That statement is logically *true*, necessary and coherent.
> 
> They do not *prove*, as the author absurdly and contradictory claims, indeed, as he necessarily claims, in the very same breath, that nothing can be *proven* or *known* to be *true*, but the *truth* that no *truths* can be *known*. Whaaaaa?   Hence, the *truth* that no *truths* can be *proven* or *known* cannot be *proven* or *known *to be *true*.
> 
> That is logically false, impossible, irrational, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite.  The theorems do  *prove *things to be *true, *things that are *known* to be _*true*_. But not only do the theorems prove  these things.  They  *prove *that human consciousness _*does not*_ have primacy over existence!  Existence is what it is, and it has primacy over human consciousness.  More at, these things underscore the absolute, incontrovertible laws of human thought!
> 
> *Truth is not relative in human logic, but absolute!*
> 
> Subjective opinions that do not line up with organic logic are necessarily false according to organic logic.
> 
> Indeed, the author's guff that all our notions are "based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)" is more incoherent baby talk.
> 
> _A priori _knowledge consists of the universally absolute axioms and tautologies of organic logic. The scripture of any given religious system of thought is clearly _a posteriori _in nature, not prior. Hence, the author's statement has no bearing on the issue of what can be known or proven to be true whatsoever. Illusion.
> 
> The author is a gullible fool. God is not an idiot or a liar. He is perfect. The logic He endowed on us does not lie. And not only does the author's guff not square with itself due to the inescapable laws of organic logic, it obviously doesn't square with the facts/truths of the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence in organic and modal logic.
> 
> Hence, this nonsense of yours about people rejecting _me_ is the self-serving crap of gullible fools who cannot justify their idiocy or their lies of relativism no matter how hard they try.
> 
> *It's not about me and never has been about me. It's about God's truth or, objectively speaking, at the very least, it's about what objective logic proves as opposed to the irrationality of subjective relativism!*
> 
> This cheap, transparently hypocritical ploy of yours is just you projecting _your _group-think psychology on me.
> 
> It is _I _and other folks like me who believe God who have been doing the rejecting around here, _not_ you.
> 
> _I _reject _your_ relativistic guff. I reject Hollie the Hate-Filled Luntic's, GT the Missing Links', Jake the Drug Addled Mind's, Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet's, Boss the Obtuse's, sealybobo the Magical's, QW the Sneak's, Brucethenonthinker's, Clayton Jones The Sociopath's . . . guff.
> 
> It's the other way around.
> 
> I believe the logic.  You guys believe in something else that's purely subjective and irrational.
> 
> Apparently, you need the herd mentality's stamp of approval. I don't. I put no stock in my opinions or yours or those of anyone else. I put my stock in what God has to say on the matter, what His logic proves about the matter, what you don't have the faith to believe in because you have no faith in anything but the lies you tell yourself and the lies of the herd mentality.
> 
> Check?
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings
Are you replying to old msgs?
Twice already I said to drop that interpretation of Godel since you didn't agree.

What I was TRYING to say is what you mean when you
say humans cannot prove things using science.

So I agree to stick to YOUR way of saying it.
That is what I mean.

What YOU mean by saying science does not prove things
this is close enough to what I mean by human knowledge is finite
and God's knowledge being infinite exceeds human science.

I said that was close enough and agreed to drop any
interpretation of Godel and just stick with your way of saying it
to keep it simple.

Thanks and sorry you missed those two msgs
where I agreed to drop it.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> "Emily, you don't think for yourself If you don't agree with ME!"
> 
> -MD FRAWLING



Hi GT and M.D.

1. on the absolutes and universal points we already agree
2. where M.D. is getting tripped out is he doesn't get that
how we EXPRESS these things can vary for different people.

You cannot use the same words literally if people are using them differently.

For example, M.D. does not get what Boss and I mean by saying people cannot know the truth.
the way M.D. "says the same thing in HIS system"
is people cannot use science to PROVE things.

He has a different way of saying the equivalent concept.
So unless he makes this connection, he jumps on me and on Boss for saying it in a different way.

When Boss makes a distinction between God's logic that is beyond our grasp (though MD and I argue that this can be Represented using finite logic) and man's logic that is like the science created BY GOD,
the M.D. jumps on Boss for this statement about logic.

But in M.D.'s system, he uses SCIENCE to say the equivalent thing:
that science is limited and cannot prove things.

We are talking in circles unless either
Boss agrees to use M.D.'s language
or M.D. agrees to recognize these as "equivalent" parallels in our respective systems
or something.

I tried to explain to M.D. several times that I am OK
with using M.D.'s way of saying the same concept but using the term science.

And M.D. still wants to argue about how I said it before which I agreed to drop.

So Justin and M.D. DO NOT GET this concept
about people's relative expressions for the same concept!

They will continue to nitpick over the letter of the terminology
if they don't learn to look at the CONCEPTS and align those.
The symbols should FOLLOW the concepts, not be a stumbling block.

I may have to talk about this concept separately using a total neutral context.

Like saying if
Boss were Spanish and Gateaux sounds like CAT
but M.D. is French where Gateaux means CAKE
then they can argue back and forth what GATO means because they use the same
phonetic sounds to mean two totally different concepts.

But if they focus on the CONCEPTS then they can distinguish CAT from CAKE
and then learn what terms both people use for each where they don't confuse the two.

M.D. does not get that Boss means something different by logic
on two levels: teh human level is like SCIENCE that cannot prove things,
and the level of logic that is on God's level Boss considers that beyond man's grasp
and we cannot conjecture about that because we can't know this.

For some reason I am not able to explain to M.D.
this is close to what he was saying that man's science cannot prove things (what Boss
aligns with logic on a human level)
and so he is trying to use the universal preexisting logic that just exists on its own.

Somehow we are getting our terms and levels of logic/laws/knowledge
mixed up or divided differently on the spectrum.

In Buddhism there are more vocabulary worlds for the different levels of awareness, mindfulness, consciousness, understanding, views, etc.

Maybe what Boss is talking about is a different level that requires a distinct term
apart from what M.D. is talking about.

We all have our own words and ways.
Since we are trying to describe the same universal laws and truths out there,
these should align when we agree what terms to use to mean which level and not get them confused.

Justin and M.D. have zero experience and do'nt seem to have any
concept of this alignment process, but I have to go through it every time
I talk to someone about religion and politics because we label things differently on the spectrum
and have to calibrate our scales to align which things or levels we are referring to.

I do this all the time, and J and M the absolutists have never bothered
adjusting ot other people's cultural ways of saying similar things,
but always expected other people to adjust to them.

The concepts are the same, but the terms are relative.

I have not found one system that works for all people, but each
person uses different terms and align with like groups.

It is ironic that Justin and M.D. are so big on absolutes
but have no concept of relative cultural expressions.
what do you think the different religious tribes are for?
these are all languages for the same laws. 
Amazing they don't seem to have anygrasp or experience with that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who made my shit stink?
Click to expand...


Whatever you ate made it come out that way.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww.. .what's the matter boo? A few days ago you were falling all over yourself to THANK my posts, you and MD both! Now you've suddenly decided to turn into rabid dogs on me because I don't agree with you that logic wasn't created by God. Sorry I am not a member of your cult, I believe in a God who created everything.
> 
> Nothing I've said is contradictory, nothing is illogical or irrational... or STUPID and RETARDED. That is just YOU venting frustration because you lack the arguments to refute what I have said. Whenever you try, you sound like a moron. That has obviously caused you to get all butt-hurt and decide we aren't friends anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do you see why we don't believe there is a god?  Most of you theists are simply bat shit stupid/crazy.
> 
> You're probably my favorite theist on USMB and I think you are a fucking retard too don't get me wrong, but of all the dumb retarded theists you are the least dumb and retarded.
> 
> So just remember that when you say you believe in god because "we" have always believed in god.  Yes Boss, idiots like Justin and MD's primitive ancient ancestors believed in god 20,000 years ago, and they argued about bullshit like "did god create logic?".
> 
> And I would agree with you.  If there is a god and he created all this on purpose, of course he created logic too.  But the truth is there is no god so no god created you or the logic in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, MD's argument is a pretty good one, and I don't disagree with it. Where MD fails is when he goes off the rails on the crazy train and starts applying human characteristics and attributes to God. Of course, this is where most organized religions fail as well.
> 
> You're already on record silly boob, you believe in something greater than self, you've admitted it in the past, and you tepidly admit that here. Your problem is, you don't want to openly admit that because you think it lends some kind of credibility to religious beliefs. You're anti-religion because they pose a threat to your immoral viewpoints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go off the train.  The vast majority of theists in the world believe that God does have sentience, just like logic proves.  God didn't create logic because God created everything!  Moonbat crazy.  Boss in the gap.  You're arguing just like the atheist flakes now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *God didn't create logic because God created everything! *
> 
> Does anyone else find this sentence to make any sort of rational sense whatsoever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets start over please, from the beginning.  Who is god?  Where can I see him?  How do you know this god exists?
> 
> And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies?  Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?
> 
> Then you are dumb.
Click to expand...


Hi Sealybobo
People experience God/Life in different ways.

If you are okay just calling things the forces in life or forces of nature
that's still referring to universal laws of how the world works.

Some ppl personify God and talk to God as a personal connection.
Some people receive insights or wisdom from a higher source but don't see this as personal.

So there is every variation in between.

the issue is how does each indvidual relate to the
collective whole: collective truth or knowledge, collective society or humanity, collective laws.

If we understand that we connect by CONSCIENCe
this is what people use Christ to symbolize.

If we believe there is a unifyig spirit of Justice that all humanity can embrace
and agree to embodyand enforce equal laws and protection for all,
this is what receiving Jesus is used to symbolize to bring peacea nd salvation to all humanity.

If we don't have faithin Jesus or Justice saving humanity,
then we work through our forgiveness issues until we establish a common
agreement on truth and good will for all people.

So this is the same process for all people, regardless if someone
personifies Truth and Justice as God and Jesus or keeps in impersonal and nontheistic.

it's the same universal laws and spiritual process of humans coming to peace with 
truth by free will where we reconcile and unite in harmony.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Boss and MD
Since MD talks about logic on a level that is different from how Boss places logic,
I offer that we focus on DEMONSTRATING spiritual healing using science.

so regardless if God created logic or logic was selfexistent and bestowed by God
and whether MD's logic is the same logic of God or MD's way is relative but he sees it as one with the
absolute truth of God, etc etc

at least we can focus on science that can demonstrate the validity
of the spiritual healing process as natural, and different people
including atheists can relate to this level of SCIENCE.

I propose we start there, get that level straight,
and then go back and see if we can resolve the other levels of logic either self-existent or createdb y God,e tc.

Because the process of studying spiritual healing
tends to bring out healing and forgiveness around it,
this will help indirectly resolve other issues and conflicts.

these other arguments are not making meaningful connections with the atheists and nontheists,
but scientific studies and demonstration of spiritual healing would appeal to the
level they process information. so this will help on several levels and make things easier.


----------



## Boss

sealybobo said:


> Lets start over please, from the beginning.  Who is god?  *Where can I see him?*  How do you know this god exists?
> 
> And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies?  Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?
> 
> Then you are dumb.



Let me talk about this emphasis you place on "seeing" something. You have to realize that human sight is a particular sensory perception we have, where we are able to detect reflection of light frequency bouncing off material objects. An orange is not actually orange, it is absorbing all colors other than orange. God is not a material object and doesn't reflect light since it is the source of all light. God is omnipresent, so if you could "see" God, you would be unable to "see" anything else. i.e.; You would be blind. 

That said, God is also omnipotent. Therefore, it is not impossible that God could manifest itself into material form which could be "seen" by humans. This means stories of the past could be true, I have no way of confirming it or denying it. Faith is required to believe those accounts. 

Now... How do I know God exists? Well, you admit you know 'something' exists. This is because you are intrinsically spiritually aware of something greater than self. Rawlings' argument demonstrates how it's impossible for us as humans to deny this awareness. So it's not "dumb" but rather very natural and normal. Only about 5% claim to not have this awareness, but we don't know how many of those are being simply dishonest about that. We know that humans have the capacity to make themselves believe untruths.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Everyone knows it makes no sense to say that God created everything. That's moonbat crazy.



God created everything that is a thing. 

You speaking for everyone doesn't impress me. 

Thanks for the prognosis of my mental state but I'm good.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets start over please, from the beginning.  Who is god?  *Where can I see him?*  How do you know this god exists?
> 
> And it doesn't bother you that every organized religion(s) stories about meeting him in the past are all a bunch of lies?  Doesn't make you wonder if the entire premise is made up?
> 
> Then you are dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me talk about this emphasis you place on "seeing" something. You have to realize that human sight is a particular sensory perception we have, where we are able to detect reflection of light frequency bouncing off material objects. An orange is not actually orange, it is absorbing all colors other than orange. God is not a material object and doesn't reflect light since it is the source of all light. God is omnipresent, so if you could "see" God, you would be unable to "see" anything else. i.e.; You would be blind.
> 
> That said, God is also omnipotent. Therefore, it is not impossible that God could manifest itself into material form which could be "seen" by humans. This means stories of the past could be true, I have no way of confirming it or denying it. Faith is required to believe those accounts.
> 
> Now... How do I know God exists? Well, you admit you know 'something' exists. This is because you are intrinsically spiritually aware of something greater than self. Rawlings' argument demonstrates how it's impossible for us as humans to deny this awareness. So it's not "dumb" but rather very natural and normal. Only about 5% claim to not have this awareness, but we don't know how many of those are being simply dishonest about that. We know that humans have the capacity to make themselves believe untruths.
Click to expand...

Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?

Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system. 

There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?
> 
> Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.
> 
> There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.



Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality. 

Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?
> 
> Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.
> 
> There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.
> 
> Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.
Click to expand...

It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth. 

You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?

Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?
> 
> Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.
> 
> There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.
> 
> Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.
> 
> You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?
> 
> Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.
Click to expand...


People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming. 

Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?
> 
> Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.
> 
> There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.
> 
> Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.
> 
> You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?
> 
> Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.
Click to expand...

People's religion is the result of their indoctrination with cultural and familial influences. 

There is no such thing as "spiritual awareness". Your invented term is meaningless. 

Dud you know that per government sources, 100% of the population in the KSA is Moslem? Remarkable, don't you think. I suppose that the Allah gawd has the service area franchise for that geographic area because 100% of the population has an intrinsic spirit realm connection to Muhammad.


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who made my shit stink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you ate made it come out that way.
Click to expand...

But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.


----------



## amrchaos

Hey Boss

Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs

How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.

In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.

At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.

I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.


What do you think?


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?



Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.


----------



## amrchaos

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
Click to expand...


I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.

The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.

I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who made my shit stink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you ate made it come out that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.
Click to expand...


According to Boss, you don't know that.
You just believe you are smelling your own poop!


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than for propaganda purposes, why continue your "5%" slogan?
> 
> Your "intrinsically spiritually aware" slogan is another falsehood you slather on about. It's silly. People overwhelmingly make no considered choice about religion. People overwhelmingly accept the dominant religion of their cultural, familial surroundings and never bother to question the veracity of the belief system.
> 
> There's nothing "natural or normal" about some awareness of supernaturalism you religious zealots rattle on about. You simply accept the traditions of fear and superstition you were raised with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because the 5% statistic is true. Worldwide, 95% of the species believes in some power greater than self and 5% report to be Nihilists who believe in nothing. Here in this very thread, the poster I am responding to (silly boob) admits he believes in 'something' but also claims to be an "agnostic-atheist" ...or is that "atheist-agnostic" silly boob? In any event, it has nothing to do with "religion" which you continue to conflate with spirituality.
> 
> Yep... by and large, people do tend to accept their cultural religious beliefs... proving once more that humans are intrinsically aware of something greater than self. They can't help it. There isn't anything supernatural about it, this is a very natural and normal aspect to human function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's fine to invent your "5%" slogan and claim it's true but that only serves to promote your slogan, not truth.
> 
> You apparently are so convinced your invented slogans are true, you ignore the obvious demographics. I suppose you're hoping to suggest that the islamist Middle East is overwhelming islamist because people there have an "intrinsic" affiliation with Islam? Similarly, we can attribute Hinduism in India with an "intrinsic" affiliation with those gawds?
> 
> Nonsense. Overwhelmingly, people's religion is nothing more than accepting the religion of their cultural, familial surroundings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People's religion is the result of their intrinsic spiritual awareness. It doesn't make their religion true, it makes their spiritual awareness true. This cannot be denied, the evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> Did you know, in Sweden, the most "atheist" country in the world, 33% report to be atheists... only 15% say they absolutely don't believe in the possibility of anything greater than self. You'd think with "atheists" that number would be significantly higher. But nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People's religion is the result of their indoctrination with cultural and familial influences.
> 
> There is no such thing as "spiritual awareness". Your invented term is meaningless.
> 
> Dud you know that per government sources, 100% of the population in the KSA is Moslem? Remarkable, don't you think. I suppose that the Allah gawd has the service area franchise for that geographic area because 100% of the population has an intrinsic spirit realm connection to Muhammad.
Click to expand...


Yes and no Hollie.
The same way Homosexuality is spiritually part of someone's being and path in life,
so is their religious or political affiliation which is the people they associate with and work with
on either problems or solutions. 

It is not always "external" or environmental choice. It depends on the PERSON how much
is external environment and how much is internal with how they are as a person.
As with homosexuality, or if someone is born with musical gifts or athletic talents,
sometimes there is a spiritual/personality factor that makes someone lean in certain directions.

Hollie I don't know how many people you know or work with close enough,
but I have friends in the Peace and Justice community who are prolife Catholic,
two who are Atheist who are well respected and award honored leaders of the community,
Muslim who has also won awards for his civil rights and peace and justice outreach in the broader community,
a lot of secular humanists who use the Peace and Justice outreach as their main way of congregating and
actively sharing charity and advocating for sustainable society, and other Christians, Constitutionalists even
Anarchists and some socialists/marxists/communists.

This is not just who they happened to hang out with that they picked this up.
They all had certain callings or purpose they wanted to follow, and then found
the affiliation and the PEOPLE in groups they related to on common goals and how to express their
religious or political beliefs, and so they work with THOSE people.

So yes, some of it IS like what language or culture you are brought up around in life.
Like the influences Obama had with his mother and father.

But some of it is someone's personal calling internally.

These different religions are like Languages for the laws,
and some people feel more comfortable expressing their experiences
through Natural laws, science or "secular" terms (Gentiles)
while other relate to one or more of the churched tribes or sacred laws (Jewish Christian or Muslim).

And politically people align with either Constitutionalist, left, right, extreme feminist,
radical jihadist, etc. Some of that is social influence, and some of it is internalized.

Hollie, it is not the same for all people.

Even with homosexuality, some people will say for them it was a choice
and they were able to change it; and some people will say they were always
that way and it is part of their identity and not a social choice on the outside.

We make mistakes by trying to say it is the same for all people.


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emily
> 
> Kindness can only reach people that are receptive to it.
> 
> Tolerance is for those who might mean no harm.
> 
> It is a brave thing to offer either to people you do not know.  But make no mistake in assuming everyone will reciprocate your kindness or mean no harm.
> 
> There is a point when you must stop.  If, at least, for the sake of your sanity.
> 
> There are people with dark personalities.  They will not reciprocate your kindness, and they will take advantage of your tolerance.
> 
> Please keep what I said in mind as this thread continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there are people with false, hypocritical personalities who manipulate the truth, who say stupid things and mock the simple truths of common sense.
Click to expand...


You sound just like my dad.  Highschool educated.  I try to explain to him how/why science explains that we made up this god character and all he can say is, "doesn't make sense, something must have..."

You and he are no different.  Our primitive ancestors were debating the same shit 200,000 years ago.  All your arguments and terms you use come from the ancient Greek philosophers.  Although I googled sophers and I think that's Hebrew.  Anyways, my point is, we've been arguing this for thousands of years, and no one, not even you my friend, has proven god exists.

But uneducated men like you and my dad say "it doesn't make sense".

That's basically all the proof you have.  But it's in your head so it's real, to you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
Click to expand...


Then straighten out the problem and show that we are talking about the same things.

MD. makes a distinction between human science and this higher absolute logic that God has inherently
which he says we can access also. That's fine.

You are saying man's logic that is based on the world that God created
was also created with the world, and that is what MD uses "science" to mean, most likely.

So we are just using different terms to distinguish these levels.

Where you and MD don't agree  is that you are saying ALL of "God's logic" is outside man's comprehension.
I am saying it is limited, and we can represent parts of God's knowledge.
And MD is absolutely convinced he can know God's absolute truth and express it perfectly as God, whatever.

So I am somewhere in between you and MD.
I say we are not perfectly unbiased and all inclusive so we have relative angles and parts of God's truth.
You seem to be even more on the side of this relativity makes it belief and not knowing, which MD and Justin
cannot stand because it negates ANY of the truth that they DO feel 100% certain to be true, so they don't
want relativity to throw out the absolutes.

I am saying there is both.

YES we can establish some parts of the absolutes,
but we still have to deal with relative expressions because people have different preferences, biases
and cultural/personal ways of seeing/saying things. We are unique personalities and that is part of the communication.

Justin and MD are afraid to acknowledge there is anything valid with the relative approach
because they FEAR it means throwing out the absolutes they want to establish.

I am saying all the relative approaches STILL follow the same universal patterns.
so it is like having independent witnesses to the same absolute common truths motivating all of us, despite
our differences in how we communicate these things.

So I am not afraid but am confident the relatives support the absolutes.
and I think that is where MD and Justin's faith is weak and needs some help.

If there were truly at peace with the absolutes they would include the relatives
and not feel so threatened. They are still afraid of some manipulation.

And that is where the accusations come from, that fear that you or I are going to undermine their arguments
instead of support them.

Fear is lack of faith, so they could still learn from this how to overcome their fears
and strengthen their faith.

Boss you seem to understand the relative part
but don't seem to get how people can tap into the absolutes and logic of God you say is beyond us.

Yes and no. We can't know everything, so yes we are limited.
But when we see patterns that are universally true across the board,
we can know this as in BELIEVE it and it is still faith based in terms of science,
but it is what Justin and MD MEAN by saying they know these things to be absolutes.

MD acknowledged human science is limited, so he does say the same thing you are saying that we cannot fully know.
He uses science to say that part.
He is using the LOGIC to try to show the core patterns or points that are consistent no matter what.
His wording is not perfect because he is losing most of his audience that doesn't follow it,
but the truth behind the pattern is consistent. that pattern is there, and he doesn't get there can 
still be Relative expressions of the same pattern. So the logic/pattern is absolute/universal
and he is tripping up over the relative perceptions and terms other people need to process the same pattern.

he doesn't get that part
and you don't get the absolute part.

so you are pretty even.

if you don't let the frustration get to you and don't resort to any such namecalling
they will eventually stop also. both of you seem frustrated that you don't get
each other's angles on the absolute part  vs. the relative part.
but that is no reason to insult each other and I hope that stops.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Sealybobo:
People may take SIMILAR approaches
but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.

Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.

I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.

so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.

i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.

This comes from projecting past associations.

So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe

And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!

Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.

You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.

We can't let that skew our judgment
but you can see here, even the best intended people
are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.

at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.

I think that helps.

If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.

It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.



Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?

Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.  

You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.  

And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.

But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.  

Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.

See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.  

Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.


----------



## Taz

emilynghiem said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> God MUST exist, someone had to make my shit stink!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who made my shit stink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you ate made it come out that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Boss, you don't know that.
> You just believe you are smelling your own poop!
Click to expand...

Ya, I know, Boss only thinks he's real. But God still made the smell of my shit.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?
> 
> Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.
> 
> You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.
> 
> And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.
> 
> Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.
> 
> Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.
Click to expand...


Again you are projecting. I am more a secular Gentile, so this "keeping it in church" doesn't even apply to me.

To me, the church is ALL the people, ALL humanity that is working for peace and justice.

The only thing I "settle" for is being okay with each person's way including yours.

If you tell me you are nontheist and nonChristian, I accept that.

So how can you be UPSET that I accept Christians who talk to God their way
if I also accept you and your ways that are different?

The same acceptance applies to ALL, so it is not fair to say let's include you
and let's exclude this other group.

If someone or some group is being UNFAIR and conflicting with their approach by imposing unfairly on others,
I ask them to stick more consistently with their own principles and that checks the problem.
Only if they are ABUSING their faith does that impose on others, but if each faith is practiced consistently
then people can check themselves.

No need to reject, just ask  people to correct what's wrong by using their own principles.

As for God, this means different things to different people
so I work with each person individually.

I do the same for you, without exception, so I see nothing wrong,
unfair, false, inconsistent, hurtful, abusive, or imposing/exclusive about that.

Maybe I am not your usual Universalist.

I find Buddhism, Christianity and Constitutionalism to be Universal.
Where anyone can be of any faith, and still practice and be included in these equally.
You can be Christian and be of any faith and still add Christ to your beliefs and keep them.
(Only if practice dark magic does this clash and you would have to renounce the manipulative part
and just keep the natural law part of the wicca or pagan practices and Christ fulfills the natural laws equally without conflict)
You can be of any faith or no faith and practice the principles in Buddhism.
And Constitutionalism is supposed to include and protect the free exercise of religion, so there should be  no clashes there,
unless you practice violates equal rights and freedoms of others and thus becomes abusive, then it is breaking natural laws.

If Islam is practiced to include all laws then it can be Universal, too,
but if any of these is used to REJECT other people or groups it loses Universality and 
becomes biased and problematic.

If you want to question any of my personal beliefs that's fine.

But it would be a mistake to lump me in with other Christians
as I challenge them just as much to keep the message universal
and inclusive of Secular Gentiles under natural laws, including atheists and nontheists.

There are just as many aspects of God and Jesus that are perfectly secular concepts
such as Truth and Justice, Wisdom and Charity, that there is no need to make symbolism a condition on belief.

You can remove all the symbolism and describe the
spiritual process of humanity in secular psychological or sociological terms
and it is still the same process that is sybmolized in Christianity and the Bible.

It is still the universal message of Justice that is solely attributed to Jesus as the central symbol for salvation for all humanity.
You dn't hve to personify Justice as Jesus to believe in Equal Justice and Peace for all people.


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone had to create divine forgiveness
> or humans would have blown each other off the planet by now, including you! ;-)
> 
> And me for my msgs that induce headaches as well.
> And MD and Justin for either being the same person
> or being two different people, whichever is worse!
> 
> love of creation, love of truth and justice
> has to be greater than forces of destruction of fear and injustice
> or else we wouldn't keep trying to establish truth and justice in the face of utter failure.
> 
> Something in our conscience keeps us driving toward truth and betterment in life,
> so whatever "good will" that drives us by conscience, that can be seen as what God's will means.
> 
> 
> 
> So who made my shit stink?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you ate made it come out that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But god created the smell. Just like he created everything else in the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Boss, you don't know that.
> You just believe you are smelling your own poop!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya, I know, Boss only thinks he's real. But God still made the smell of my shit.
Click to expand...


Sure, TAZ, if that is what you believe.
According to M.D. science can only verify or falsify what you say
but cannot prove it.

Only if you quantify the smell of your poop into Seven Principles
of Universal Logic, then the Logic can prove this by definition,
because you defined your poop to be called poop and
you defined smell to be smell, then of course by definition you set up
then your poop smells. that's just pure logic.

BTW Taz here is the link to how all the world's religions define the same poop:
Religion - The Shit List


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Emily!
> *
> I gave you some revised posts to think very carefully about.
> 
> You claimed that Godel believed something he never believed or asserted in his life as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You expressed this idea as a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You clearly believed this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact. You got this false idea from GT, apparently, and because it played into your bias, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker without bothering to verify whether or not it is a literal truth, a literal historical fact.
> 
> Then you repeated it.
> 
> It is ridiculous for you to hold that anyone reading your post could have possibly interpreted your statement in any other way, especially given the fact that you lectured me in another post with this very same notion as if I failed to understand this to be a literal truth, a literal historical fact.  I wouldn't have even noticed this post until you startled me with a post suggesting that all the things I have argued about the mathematical proofs for God's existence on this thread were unknown to me!
> 
> Whaaaaaaa?
> 
> Because I do not think as you do, anthropomorphically subjectively, but theologically objectively, I will always see right through the manifest intellectual duplicity of others. I think like God because I believe God’s testimony, not that of any finite creature.
> 
> * I don't even trust myself.
> *
> You suggested that I was an arrogant asshole. Maybe you’re just a gullible, dogmatically fanatical religionist . . . a closed-minded, arrogant asshole.
> 
> How about this idea. Maybe you and others can't countenance a person who doesn’t care what you think or what you have to say about him when he tells you the truth about yourself. You can't countenance a person who believes God, instead of you.
> 
> Your wont is to worship self, rather than the Creator Who is blessed forever. Your wont is to chase after your personal conceits that do not follow from the logical testimony that God has given you about Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *With these two theorems, Godel proved that only God(s) can know truth(s). The rest of us have beliefs based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah).*
> Friday letters Ashby high-rise Obamacare faith - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godel's incomplete theorems *prove* no such *truth*!
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> The author of this piece worships self. His wont is to justify what cannot be rationally justified*: *the self-serving falsehoods and incoherencies of relativism. Is that your wont?  I don't believe _him_. I don't believe _you_. I believe _God_, and let every man who says otherwise be a liar.
> 
> On the contrary, Godel's theorems, in *truth*, what are ultimately the objective *facts* of human cognition endowed to us by God, *prove* that mankind _can_ *know* *truths* with absolute confidence. We *know* that the various theorems for the numerical sets of the natural numbers of the number line of infinity, albeit, as supplemented by the theorems that account for the exceptions of general rules, inherently hold *true*, and we *know* this to be *true* with absolute confidence because the laws of organic thought hold this to be *true*.
> 
> The other thing that these objective *facts* of human cognition (incompleteness theorems) *prove* to be *true* is that we cannot comprehend or contain the entirety of *truth* in our finite minds, not just at the transcendental level of being, which is something we've always *known* to be *true* intuitively, but not at the rational level of being, either, in terms of numerical/mathematical logic . . . something we once thought to be possible 'til Gödel came along and proved that to be an illusion.
> 
> That is the absolute *truth* regarding what these theorems *prove*, and they *prove* nothing else but these *truths*. That statement is logically *true*, necessary and coherent.
> 
> They do not *prove*, as the author absurdly and contradictory claims, indeed, as he necessarily claims, in the very same breath, that nothing can be *proven* or *known* to be *true*, but the *truth* that no *truths* can be *known*. Whaaaaa?   Hence, the *truth* that no *truths* can be *proven* or *known* cannot be *proven* or *known *to be *true*.
> 
> That is logically false, impossible, irrational, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite.  The theorems do  *prove *things to be *true, *things that are *known* to be _*true*_. But not only do the theorems prove  these things.  They  *prove *that human consciousness _*does not*_ have primacy over existence!  Existence is what it is, and it has primacy over human consciousness.  More at, these things underscore the absolute, incontrovertible laws of human thought!
> 
> *Truth is not relative in human logic, but absolute!*
> 
> Subjective opinions that do not line up with organic logic are necessarily false according to organic logic.
> 
> Indeed, the author's guff that all our notions are "based on our perception of facts and accepted prior knowledge (e.g. Scripture, the Bible, Koran, Torah)" is more incoherent baby talk.
> 
> _A priori _knowledge consists of the universally absolute axioms and tautologies of organic logic. The scripture of any given religious system of thought is clearly _a posteriori _in nature, not prior. Hence, the author's statement has no bearing on the issue of what can be known or proven to be true whatsoever. Illusion.
> 
> The author is a gullible fool. God is not an idiot or a liar. He is perfect. The logic He endowed on us does not lie. And not only does the author's guff not square with itself due to the inescapable laws of organic logic, it obviously doesn't square with the facts/truths of the ontological and transcendental proofs for God's existence in organic and modal logic.
> 
> Hence, this nonsense of yours about people rejecting _me_ is the self-serving crap of gullible fools who cannot justify their idiocy or their lies of relativism no matter how hard they try.
> 
> *It's not about me and never has been about me. It's about God's truth or, objectively speaking, at the very least, it's about what objective logic proves as opposed to the irrationality of subjective relativism!*
> 
> This cheap, transparently hypocritical ploy of yours is just you projecting _your _group-think psychology on me.
> 
> It is _I _and other folks like me who believe God who have been doing the rejecting around here, _not_ you.
> 
> _I _reject _your_ relativistic guff. I reject Hollie the Hate-Filled Luntic's, GT the Missing Links', Jake the Drug Addled Mind's, Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet's, Boss the Obtuse's, sealybobo the Magical's, QW the Sneak's, Brucethenonthinker's, Clayton Jones The Sociopath's . . . guff.
> 
> It's the other way around.
> 
> I believe the logic.  You guys believe in something else that's purely subjective and irrational.
> 
> Apparently, you need the herd mentality's stamp of approval. I don't. I put no stock in my opinions or yours or those of anyone else. I put my stock in what God has to say on the matter, what His logic proves about the matter, what you don't have the faith to believe in because you have no faith in anything but the lies you tell yourself and the lies of the herd mentality.
> 
> Check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings
> Are you replying to old msgs?
> Twice already I said to drop that interpretation of Godel since you didn't agree.
> 
> What I was TRYING to say is what you mean when you
> say humans cannot prove things using science.
> 
> So I agree to stick to YOUR way of saying it.
> That is what I mean.
> 
> What YOU mean by saying science does not prove things
> this is close enough to what I mean by human knowledge is finite
> and God's knowledge being infinite exceeds human science.
> 
> I said that was close enough and agreed to drop any
> interpretation of Godel and just stick with your way of saying it
> to keep it simple.
> 
> Thanks and sorry you missed those two msgs
> where I agreed to drop it.
Click to expand...



It's my fault that I missed them, not yours. I do have the alert thingy on. I just forgot to use it.

Ultimately, my real concern in all this is that you have a solid scientific foundation for spiritual healing, which I believe in. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In order to have such a foundation you must uphold the correct, formal terms and conventions of logic and science. Then and only then do you have a bullet proof, scientific foundation from which to assert a legitimate and compelling case for spiritual healing in terms of inductive probability based on comparative empirical data. But when you start dragging religious biases into the matter, like the notion that the ultimate cause of spiritual healing could not or is not an operation of divine healing, well, there goes your scientific foundation. Leave religion out of it.  Stick with the comparative empirical data.  Whatever religious convictions, if any, others bring to its purely scientific, evidentiary probability as they apply the recommended principles is fine, just don't arbitrarily precluded this or that potentiality in the name of science. Otherwise, people are perfectly justified to dismiss spiritual healing as religious mumbo jumbo.

This is what I was getting at here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10077386/


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

sealybobo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?
> 
> Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.
> 
> You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.
> 
> And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.
> 
> Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.
> 
> Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.
Click to expand...


That's weird.  I've never known any churches that work people up to hate atheists.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you believe something comes from nothing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.
> 
> the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time  that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity.  That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore.  Ask Rawlings about that.  What's this got to do with God?  Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it.   We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense.  Mind or matter and something had to come first.   That's our choice.  So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?
Click to expand...

.



> That's all we know scientifically ... quantum vacuum caused the singularity



is that what you were asked - *"but I told you the first time"* -


you have the manners of a pig.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.



*On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*

Speaking for myself, that's not what's happening from this end of things at all, Emily.

The veracity of the universal, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are being challenged on the self-negating basis of relativism, and I'm simply showing why relativism fails. The fact of the matter is that relativism affirms that human reasoning _is_ absolute, for we cannot escape that which is universally hardwired bioneurologically. *Relativism is necessarily self-negating and positively proves the opposite to be logically true due to the absolute laws of organic thought*.

It's this very same operative principle that's in effect when someone attempts to negate the incontrovertible axiom of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. It can't be done linguistically or mathematically. It can't be done in any alternate form of analytic logic, either, without contradiction and chaos.

People are unwittingly claiming that contradiction and chaos carry more weight than rational consistency and order. It's sheer madness.

People are deluding themselves, essentially defrauding themselves into believing something that's irrational as they proclaim truth to be relative when in actuality their premise proves that truth is not relative at all, but absolute according to the laws of organic thought.

People are walking around with a notion that something unreal in logic is real in logic.

Illusion.

That is a serious intellectual and spiritual problem standing in the way of them apprehending the realities of what the laws of thought reveal about the idea of God and standing  in the way of a rewarding experience of a genuinely well-grounded faith in the rational and scientific enterprises of human consciousness. Moreover, it's a serious problem standing in the way of people coming to terms with the objective, scientific facts of "spiritual healing" relative to the empirical data of comparative probability.

It's impossible to form a consensus around or to come to a place of neutrality on the basis of any subjective or relativistic systems of belief, for the former are only discernibly legitimate/demonstrable if they consistently hold with the universal, objective facts of human cognition, while the latter defy coherency and order and, in any event, actually prove absolutism, logically.

So cut to the chase!

The foundation of absolute objectivity, the ground zero of neutrality, as it were, the only perspective from which one can back out of one's subjective paradigm in order to apprehend the actualities of the universal facts of human cognition and accurately apprehend the discrete, personal belief systems of others, from premise to conclusion, is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of the highest conceivable standard for divine attribution and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.


The transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question or arbitrarily preclude any potentially lower standard of divinity is*:*

*The highest conceivable standard for divine attribution + From nothing, nothing comes = God the Creator.*

(People are getting hung on the semantics of distinction that make no difference to the fact that what we're thinking/talking about is the eternal, uncaused Cause/Agent of the existence of all other things that exist apart from this transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin.)


The material alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question is:

*Mindless inanimateness + From nothing, nothing comes = An eternally existent materiality.*

(The notion that _something can arise from nothing_ remains an absurdity in logic and a mere hypothetical potentiality in science. Neither logic nor science proceed from absurdities and/or the mere potentialities of human imagination. Until such time that it can be rationally or empirically demonstrated that something can arise or has arisen from nothing, though how an origin of nothingness could ever be rationally or empirically demonstrated appears to be yet another absurdity, this notion is of the same substance of human imagination as winged "fairies with boots you've got to believe me!", leprechauns, the unicorns of pagan mythology, flying pink elephants. . . .)


Hence, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for every problem confronting mankind regarding his existence and his origin, which means that it is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for the various concerns of logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*

Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*

*1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
*2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
*3.* God created human beings.
*4.* Human beings have logic.
*5.* Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of you believe something comes from nothing ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is relative to the moment of Singularity neither you nor rawlings were willing to ascribe as which state existed before or prior to the event - that would be similar to the confluence between thought and absolute knowledge as the preface for becoming a Spiritual being.
> 
> the likelihood whether there was a prior God or not after an original event being irrelevant to the creation of a new one.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what Rawlings told you but I told you the first time  that the quantum vacuum caused the singularity.  That's all we know scientifically. I don't know quantum physics good enough to say anymore.  Ask Rawlings about that.  What's this got to do with God?  Either the material stuff always existed in some kind of state or God always existed and created it.   We only know of two different kinds of things in the ultimate sense.  Mind or matter and something had to come first.   That's our choice.  So who came before that God and before that God and before that God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all we know scientifically ... quantum vacuum caused the singularity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that what you were asked - *"but I told you the first time"* -
> 
> 
> you have the manners of a pig.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I don't know why you're getting mad at me now.  All I said is that nothing has changed to my knowledge and that's all we know scientifically.  I thought maybe you were alluding to something new in science that I haven't heard about.  The only thing we know scientifically as far as I've heard is that the singularity came out of the quantum vacuum. The only other thing I can say after that is the ultimate origin of stuff is either mind or matter.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*
> 
> Speaking for myself, that's not what's happening from this end of things at all, Emily.
> 
> The veracity of the universal, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are being challenged on the self-negating basis of relativism, and I'm simply showing why relativism fails. The fact of the matter is that relativism affirms that human reasoning _is_ absolute, for we cannot escape that which is universally hardwired bioneurologically. *Relativism is necessarily self-negating and positively proves the opposite to be logically true due to the absolute laws of organic thought*.
> 
> It's this very same operative principle that's in effect when someone attempts to negate the incontrovertible axiom of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. It can't be done linguistically or mathematically. It can't be done in any alternate form of analytic logic, either, without contradiction and chaos.
> 
> People are unwittingly claiming that contradiction and chaos carry more weight than rational consistency and order. It's sheer madness.
> 
> People are deluding themselves, essentially defrauding themselves into believing something that's irrational as they proclaim truth to be relative when in actuality their premise proves that truth is not relative at all, but absolute according to the laws of organic thought.
> 
> People are walking around with a notion that something unreal in logic is real in logic.
> 
> Illusion.
> 
> That is a serious intellectual and spiritual problem standing in the way of them apprehending the realities of what the laws of thought reveal about the idea of God and standing  in the way of a rewarding experience of a genuinely well-grounded faith in the rational and scientific enterprises of human consciousness. Moreover, it's a serious problem standing in the way of people coming to terms with the objective, scientific facts of "spiritual healing" relative to the empirical data of comparative probability.
> 
> It's impossible to form a consensus around or to come to a place of neutrality on the basis of any subjective or relativistic systems of belief, for the former are only discernibly legitimate/demonstrable if they consistently hold with the universal, objective facts of human cognition, while the latter defy coherency and order and, in any event, actually prove absolutism, logically.
> 
> So cut to the chase!
> 
> The foundation of absolute objectivity, the ground zero of neutrality, as it were, the only perspective from which one can back out of one's subjective paradigm in order to apprehend the actualities of the universal facts of human cognition and accurately apprehend the discrete, personal belief systems of others, from premise to conclusion, is the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion of the highest conceivable standard for divine attribution and that _from nothing, nothing comes_.
> 
> 
> The transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question or arbitrarily preclude any potentially lower standard of divinity is*:*
> 
> *The highest conceivable standard for divine attribution + From nothing, nothing comes = God the Creator.*
> 
> (People are getting hung on the semantics of distinction that make no difference to the fact that what we're thinking/talking about is the eternal, uncaused Cause/Agent of the existence of all other things that exist apart from this transcendent (spiritual/immaterial) alternative for ultimate origin.)
> 
> 
> The material alternative for ultimate origin that does not beg the question is:
> 
> *Mindless inanimateness + From nothing, nothing comes = An eternally existent materiality.*
> 
> (The notion that _something can arise from nothing_ remains an absurdity in logic and a mere hypothetical potentiality in science. Neither logic nor science proceed from absurdities and/or the mere potentialities of human imagination. Until such time that it can be rationally or empirically demonstrated that something can arise or has arisen from nothing, though how an origin of nothingness could ever be rationally or empirically demonstrated appears to be yet another absurdity, this notion is of the same substance of human imagination as winged "fairies with boots you've got to believe me!", leprechauns, the unicorns of pagan mythology, flying pink elephants. . . .)
> 
> 
> Hence, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for every problem confronting mankind regarding his existence and his origin, which means that it is the only foundation of absolute objectivity for the various concerns of logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science.
Click to expand...


Hi MD.
A. I'm glad we agree to focus on the objective approach to understanding and scientifically documenting the spiritual healing process. Since I come from a secular background, I am more used to that approach anyway.
I had to learn the Christian language and symbology similar to a second language,
so I consider my native language to be as a Secular Gentile. My goal is to be equally
trilingual where I can speak as comfortably and clearly with nontheists/Buddhists/secular/naturalists
as I can with Jews/Christians/Muslims and with Constitutionalists on all sides of the spectrum from left to right,
extreme and moderate, even anarchists or socialists and still communicate using common principles of natural laws.

B. As for this relativism
I think you and I are talking about two totally different things.

I think you mean the type of relativistic approach where there is no baseline
but people go all over the place and want freedom to choose all kinds of things
without respect for a common baseline standard.

My standard is consent, so whatever people do, you cannot go around
abusing rights or freedoms to the point you impose on someone else, ideologically or physically etc.

So I believe in resolving conflicts so that no one's beliefs, standards, consent or interests
get excluded, violated or imposed upon.

I find it is a natural  law and process that people will express their consent and dissent,
so if we just our our free speech and right to petition to spell out and answer all our grievances
and objections, we could solve problems and come up with some kind of amicable solution as
to what to do or not to do in response to any situation or conflict.

Most of it is addressing the minute there is a conflict, and not waiting for it to escalate or build up
so far out of control that it is emotionally, physically, financially or logically too much to resolve.

Where I differ in terms of relative viewpoints
is that I believe there is both absolute points of truth and agreement
and there are relative ways of expressing, perceiving or arriving at such points.

So I see ways to defend both the absolutes
AND allow for the relatives within that process
and these do not compete or threaten each other.

When I was teaching math,  the rules are the same, the symbols are fixed.
There are absolutes that don't change.

But some students would reject one teacher who they just couldn't follow
and want to work with a different teacher who explained or connected with them differently
where they could follow and understand how to process the math. It's the same content,
the same symbols and process, but sometimes the way of explaining or
the personality of the people made a difference.

People are funny that way.
So I've learned to accept it.

Some parables about the Trinity work perfectly for one person
and fall flat with another person. It's the same CONCEPT
but the connection to understand it can vary from person to person.
It's relative depending on their unique spiritual path and process
to still arrive at the same "universal truth through Christ" as Christians call it,
but the Gentiles may go through natural laws and logical thinking to get to the
same or similar stages of realization. they may not go through the Bible or
church teachings to get to the same understanding of God and Jesus.

it can be as different for each person as our souls are unique.

C. I can see why the "relativism" approach causes such problems.
We can go on and on about examples; like right now, people wanting
legalization because it isn't proven to them yet that marijuana causes
longterm brain impairment. So just because it isn't proven fully by their
standards, then it becomes a belief that pot is harmful and by relative
views, other people's beliefs cannot be imposed on their freedom.
But when it comes to paying for the costs of this damage, who is going
to pay the bill? The taxpayers who opposed pot because they don't
want to encourage more such usage and health problems?

That's just one example where proof becomes legally necessary
to stop people from going through loopholes because it isn't established truth yet.

On that note, I am wondering if the argument can be made
to push to fund research on spiritual healing as better for the public interest
than all the money pushed to study pot only.

If you look at the millions invested in pushing medicinal marijuana
compared with spiritual healing that is free, does not have any side effects,
and is more effective in curing a broader range of ills than pot can be used for,
there is no reason not to develop that instead, UNLESS there is some
political agenda biased TOWARD pushing pot specifically and
AGAINST healing methods coming from Christian practitioners.

I think that might expose the entire bias if we were to push
to fund research and development of Spiritual Healing as
superior to pot in most cases, balancing equal funds as is being spent on
researching pot.

Can you imagine the uproar if this were brought out,
and people still wanted to fund pot studies and avoided studies of spiritual healing.
Wouldn't that expose the bias even more.

Anyway I do think we are getting closer to the time that
medical research will be organized around spiritual healing.

People have to be ready for the massive social change this will involve,
so I think most of the prep work was tilling the soil before planting these seeds.

We have to make room for the garden to bloom and grow,
instead of letting everything get overgrown with weeds.

If the timing is right, it will come together and happen.
So I wonder if the push for research into medical marijuana
could open the door to fund R&D on spiritual healing that is purely natural,
free and effective, causes no harm and is not contrary to science or medicine,
and can be shown to help more people with a wider range of conditions,
independent of their faith, it works for secular nontheists equally as for Christians
where the key factor is to forgive issues in the past that otherwise block the natural healing process.
that is universal and not dependent on someone's religion, though forgiveness is the key factor.

I would appreciate your honest opinion, advice
or suggestions on how to go about setting up such R&D.

Even helping Veterans heal from PTSD and implementing
spiritual healing into VA programs could be one angle.
I want to apply it to research on diagnosis, early intervention
and either management or cure of criminal illness, so we can reform
the criminal justice and mental health systems.  That would release
a lot of wasted taxpayer funds better invested in more effective sustainable programs
for preventing crime by treating the root causes.

Thanks M.D.!
I can see building a website around this
and promoting outreach to help more people.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.



Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.  A solipsist mocking the TAG?!  What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously?  Well, they would in fact be same  atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who  know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above  once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult.  In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you  had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.   

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb.  You're a snot-nosed punk.  You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:

*Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


*Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond?  Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


*Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​
You fool!  Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.


----------



## G.T.

Any rational person mocks the tag.

Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Any rational person mocks the tag.
> 
> Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.



Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, _a priori_ axioms of logic at all, as you _pretend_ that theists argue from fallacy.  You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think.  Behold*:*  the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument.  FOOLS!


----------



## G.T.

The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.

If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any rational person mocks the tag.
> 
> Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, _a priori_ axioms of logic at all, as you _pretend_ that theists argue from fallacy.  You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.
> 
> You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think.  Behold*:*  the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument.  FOOLS!
Click to expand...


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hi MD.
> A. I'm glad we agree to focus on the objective approach to understanding and scientifically documenting the spiritual healing process. Since I come from a secular background, I am more used to that approach anyway.
> I had to learn the Christian language and symbology similar to a second language,
> so I consider my native language to be as a Secular Gentile. My goal is to be equally
> trilingual where I can speak as comfortably and clearly with nontheists/Buddhists/secular/naturalists
> as I can with Jews/Christians/Muslims and with Constitutionalists on all sides of the spectrum from left to right,
> extreme and moderate, even anarchists or socialists and still communicate using common principles of natural laws.
> 
> B. As for this relativism
> I think you and I are talking about two totally different things.
> 
> I think you mean the type of relativistic approach where there is no baseline
> but people go all over the place and want freedom to choose all kinds of things
> without respect for a common baseline standard.
> 
> My standard is consent, so whatever people do, you cannot go around
> abusing rights or freedoms to the point you impose on someone else, ideologically or physically etc.
> 
> So I believe in resolving conflicts so that no one's beliefs, standards, consent or interests
> get excluded, violated or imposed upon.
> 
> I find it is a natural  law and process that people will express their consent and dissent,
> so if we just our our free speech and right to petition to spell out and answer all our grievances
> and objections, we could solve problems and come up with some kind of amicable solution as
> to what to do or not to do in response to any situation or conflict.
> 
> Most of it is addressing the minute there is a conflict, and not waiting for it to escalate or build up
> so far out of control that it is emotionally, physically, financially or logically too much to resolve.
> 
> Where I differ in terms of relative viewpoints
> is that I believe there is both absolute points of truth and agreement
> and there are relative ways of expressing, perceiving or arriving at such points.
> 
> So I see ways to defend both the absolutes
> AND allow for the relatives within that process
> and these do not compete or threaten each other.
> 
> When I was teaching math,  the rules are the same, the symbols are fixed.
> There are absolutes that don't change.
> 
> But some students would reject one teacher who they just couldn't follow
> and want to work with a different teacher who explained or connected with them differently
> where they could follow and understand how to process the math. It's the same content,
> the same symbols and process, but sometimes the way of explaining or
> the personality of the people made a difference.
> 
> People are funny that way.
> So I've learned to accept it.
> 
> Some parables about the Trinity work perfectly for one person
> and fall flat with another person. It's the same CONCEPT
> but the connection to understand it can vary from person to person.
> It's relative depending on their unique spiritual path and process
> to still arrive at the same "universal truth through Christ" as Christians call it,
> but the Gentiles may go through natural laws and logical thinking to get to the
> same or similar stages of realization. they may not go through the Bible or
> church teachings to get to the same understanding of God and Jesus.
> 
> it can be as different for each person as our souls are unique.
> 
> C. I can see why the "relativism" approach causes such problems.
> We can go on and on about examples; like right now, people wanting
> legalization because it isn't proven to them yet that marijuana causes
> longterm brain impairment. So just because it isn't proven fully by their
> standards, then it becomes a belief that pot is harmful and by relative
> views, other people's beliefs cannot be imposed on their freedom.
> But when it comes to paying for the costs of this damage, who is going
> to pay the bill? The taxpayers who opposed pot because they don't
> want to encourage more such usage and health problems?
> 
> That's just one example where proof becomes legally necessary
> to stop people from going through loopholes because it isn't established truth yet.
> 
> On that note, I am wondering if the argument can be made
> to push to fund research on spiritual healing as better for the public interest
> than all the money pushed to study pot only.
> 
> If you look at the millions invested in pushing medicinal marijuana
> compared with spiritual healing that is free, does not have any side effects,
> and is more effective in curing a broader range of ills than pot can be used for,
> there is no reason not to develop that instead, UNLESS there is some
> political agenda biased TOWARD pushing pot specifically and
> AGAINST healing methods coming from Christian practitioners.
> 
> I think that might expose the entire bias if we were to push
> to fund research and development of Spiritual Healing as
> superior to pot in most cases, balancing equal funds as is being spent on
> researching pot.
> 
> Can you imagine the uproar if this were brought out,
> and people still wanted to fund pot studies and avoided studies of spiritual healing.
> Wouldn't that expose the bias even more.
> 
> Anyway I do think we are getting closer to the time that
> medical research will be organized around spiritual healing.
> 
> People have to be ready for the massive social change this will involve,
> so I think most of the prep work was tilling the soil before planting these seeds.
> 
> We have to make room for the garden to bloom and grow,
> instead of letting everything get overgrown with weeds.
> 
> If the timing is right, it will come together and happen.
> So I wonder if the push for research into medical marijuana
> could open the door to fund R&D on spiritual healing that is purely natural,
> free and effective, causes no harm and is not contrary to science or medicine,
> and can be shown to help more people with a wider range of conditions,
> independent of their faith, it works for secular nontheists equally as for Christians
> where the key factor is to forgive issues in the past that otherwise block the natural healing process.
> that is universal and not dependent on someone's religion, though forgiveness is the key factor.
> 
> I would appreciate your honest opinion, advice
> or suggestions on how to go about setting up such R&D.
> 
> Even helping Veterans heal from PTSD and implementing
> spiritual healing into VA programs could be one angle.
> I want to apply it to research on diagnosis, early intervention
> and either management or cure of criminal illness, so we can reform
> the criminal justice and mental health systems.  That would release
> a lot of wasted taxpayer funds better invested in more effective sustainable programs
> for preventing crime by treating the root causes.
> 
> Thanks M.D.!
> I can see building a website around this
> and promoting outreach to help more people.



Well, as a classical liberal of the Anglo-American tradition and, therefore, a proponent of Lockean natural law, which, by the way, is premised on the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system thought*:* I certainly have no argument with the preservation of individual liberty against the tyrannical depredations of collectivism, the impositions of a renegade state.

But what you're calling the "relative" experiences of life that vary from person to person are not the stuff of relativism proper, but merely the subjective aspect of the human condition that must never be thought of as something that grants human consciousness primacy over existence. Either, our subjective experiences conform with the universal laws of organic logic and the objective facts of human cognition, or they become something that is the stuff of relativism, namely, the stuff of irrationalism.


----------



## sealybobo

emilynghiem said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?
> 
> Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.
> 
> You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.
> 
> And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.
> 
> Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.
> 
> Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you are projecting. I am more a secular Gentile, so this "keeping it in church" doesn't even apply to me.
> 
> To me, the church is ALL the people, ALL humanity that is working for peace and justice.
> 
> The only thing I "settle" for is being okay with each person's way including yours.
> 
> If you tell me you are nontheist and nonChristian, I accept that.
> 
> So how can you be UPSET that I accept Christians who talk to God their way
> if I also accept you and your ways that are different?
> 
> The same acceptance applies to ALL, so it is not fair to say let's include you
> and let's exclude this other group.
> 
> If someone or some group is being UNFAIR and conflicting with their approach by imposing unfairly on others,
> I ask them to stick more consistently with their own principles and that checks the problem.
> Only if they are ABUSING their faith does that impose on others, but if each faith is practiced consistently
> then people can check themselves.
> 
> No need to reject, just ask  people to correct what's wrong by using their own principles.
> 
> As for God, this means different things to different people
> so I work with each person individually.
> 
> I do the same for you, without exception, so I see nothing wrong,
> unfair, false, inconsistent, hurtful, abusive, or imposing/exclusive about that.
> 
> Maybe I am not your usual Universalist.
> 
> I find Buddhism, Christianity and Constitutionalism to be Universal.
> Where anyone can be of any faith, and still practice and be included in these equally.
> You can be Christian and be of any faith and still add Christ to your beliefs and keep them.
> (Only if practice dark magic does this clash and you would have to renounce the manipulative part
> and just keep the natural law part of the wicca or pagan practices and Christ fulfills the natural laws equally without conflict)
> You can be of any faith or no faith and practice the principles in Buddhism.
> And Constitutionalism is supposed to include and protect the free exercise of religion, so there should be  no clashes there,
> unless you practice violates equal rights and freedoms of others and thus becomes abusive, then it is breaking natural laws.
> 
> If Islam is practiced to include all laws then it can be Universal, too,
> but if any of these is used to REJECT other people or groups it loses Universality and
> becomes biased and problematic.
> 
> If you want to question any of my personal beliefs that's fine.
> 
> But it would be a mistake to lump me in with other Christians
> as I challenge them just as much to keep the message universal
> and inclusive of Secular Gentiles under natural laws, including atheists and nontheists.
> 
> There are just as many aspects of God and Jesus that are perfectly secular concepts
> such as Truth and Justice, Wisdom and Charity, that there is no need to make symbolism a condition on belief.
> 
> You can remove all the symbolism and describe the
> spiritual process of humanity in secular psychological or sociological terms
> and it is still the same process that is sybmolized in Christianity and the Bible.
> 
> It is still the universal message of Justice that is solely attributed to Jesus as the central symbol for salvation for all humanity.
> You dn't hve to personify Justice as Jesus to believe in Equal Justice and Peace for all people.
Click to expand...


We should send you into Syria to tell ISIS this.  

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” _


----------



## sealybobo

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any rational person mocks the tag.
> 
> Its abundantly clear that it begs the question and is a poorly formed attempt at a logical proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, _a priori_ axioms of logic at all, as you _pretend_ that theists argue from fallacy.  You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.
> 
> You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think.  Behold*:*  the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument.  FOOLS!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You are so gay for MD Rawlings.


----------



## sealybobo

M.D. Rawlings said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?
> 
> Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.
> 
> You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.
> 
> And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.
> 
> Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.
> 
> Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's weird.  I've never known any churches that work people up to hate atheists.
Click to expand...


What about the town hall meeting full of christians that were furious that  the atheist girl sued the school because of some plaque that was up that had the lords prayer on it?  She won.  The courts ruled in her favor.  Yet these theists were furious.  I'm telling you if they could have lynched her they would have.  

You/They are not much different than they were in the 1700's when they were burning witches at the stake.  Maybe you guys are a little more civilized now but not much.  Religion keeps people from evolving more mentally.  It keeps us ignorant.  It is a stupid idea.  IE You are dumb for believing it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.




It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.

See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *

*The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!

I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.

I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

* 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that knowledge (or anything else) can exist if God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.

* Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*


* 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.  And apparently *Amrchaos* is an intellectual coward too, only his intellectual cowardice is compounded by the foolishness of one who is a solipsist necessarily appealing to empirical materiality in a failed inductive argument.  Hence, he thinks to mock the TAG, but only ends up mocking himself!

Looky here.  The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now.  Sweet!

No one but a fool or a liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!

And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

"I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"

Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

_Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/


Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.




So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
Click to expand...

Oh...so 100% of people believe in god?

That's so weird, this earth you're living on. Its not this one.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.  A solipsist mocking the TAG?!  What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously?  Well, they would in fact be same  atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.
> 
> They are in fact the hypocrites like you who  know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above  once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult.  In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you  had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.
> 
> Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb.  You're a snot-nosed punk.  You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!
> 
> You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond?  Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​
> You fool!  Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.
Click to expand...

"Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."

Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.

You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.
Click to expand...

The laws of logic don't dictate that there's a god, that's a charlatans way of abusing those laws to their own biases.

Snake


Oil


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
Click to expand...


TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.
Click to expand...

He's like stretch Armstrong.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the atheists are denying the laws of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws of logic don't dictate that there's a god, that's a charlatans way of abusing those laws to their own biases.
> 
> Snake
> 
> 
> Oil
Click to expand...


"Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.  A solipsist mocking the TAG?!  What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously?  Well, they would in fact be same  atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.
> 
> They are in fact the hypocrites like you who  know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above  once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult.  In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you  had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.
> 
> Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb.  You're a snot-nosed punk.  You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!
> 
> You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond?  Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​
> You fool!  Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."
> 
> Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.
> 
> You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.
Click to expand...


"Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"  

I don't care who you are that's funnier than a three-legged horse runny in the Belmont Stakes.


----------



## G.T.

Hurt Dee duuuurr durrrr

Dork


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.  A solipsist mocking the TAG?!  What a fool you are you! Those you do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously?  Well, they would in fact be same  atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.
> 
> They are in fact the hypocrites like you who  know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above  once again that do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult.  In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you  had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man our of sheer, foolish pride.
> 
> Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb.  You're a snot-nosed punk.  You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!
> 
> You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself:
> 
> *Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond?  Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​
> You fool!  Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously...."
> 
> Actually, it would be foolish to take seriously your pointless, irrational and self-refuting babbling.
> 
> You hyper-religious loons are more often than not, a danger to yourselves and those around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!"
> 
> I don't care who you are that's funnier than a three-legged horse runny in the Belmont Stakes.
Click to expand...

Horses "runny," now, Mr. Rawlings?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's like stretch Armstrong.
Click to expand...



I'm thinking that your posts are like the stretched out underwear of odor strong.


----------



## G.T.

Don't fire your comedy coach.

He's really great, justin.

Promise!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1! The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an incontrovertible axiom!

(Transcendental Argument:  see Posts #3944, #3945 and #3941.)*


The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom of human cognition!

I've explained this obvious fact to *GT *a number of times as I proved it to be an obvious fact every which way and Sunday.

I now know that *GT* understands the nature of this fact and its significance, yet he continues to attempt to conceal this truth from others.

How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?

_God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.

* 1. *It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that knowledge (or anything else) can exist if God (the Creator) doesn't exist.

That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertible, axiomatic fact of human cognition.

* Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.


2. *What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.


Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves. And apparently *Amrchaos* is an intellectual coward too, only his intellectual cowardice is compounded by the foolishness of one who is a solipsist necessarily appealing to empirical materiality in a failed inductive argument. Hence, he thinks to mock the TAG, but only ends up mocking himself!

Looky here. The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now. Sweet!

No one but a fool or a liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!

Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!

And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?

* "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
*
Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?

But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?

Answer: Yes. We do.

_Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?

The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.


----------



## G.T.

Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.

Concise.

True.

Clean English.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TAG, promoted by those with tin foil hats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's like stretch Armstrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that your posts are like the stretched out underwear of odor strong.
Click to expand...



You're morphing into Eddie Murphy again.  Boss will be furious.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*
> 
> Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.
> 
> The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.
> 
> In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*
> 
> *1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
> *2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
> *3.* God created human beings.
> *4.* Human beings have logic.
> *5.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?



Do you even know what the fuck you're saying dude? This is just a load of convoluted mumbo jumbo that seems to be for the express purpose of making yourself look intellectual. I didn't say "hence" anything, that's YOU loading up my argument with presumptive terminology because that's how you think you can win this argument. 

Logic serves no function except to humans trying to rationalize thought. If God created humans and the human mind, then God created logic as well, because that is the only place logic means anything or has any functional purpose in the universe. The same applies to all this claptrap you are spewing about "laws of identity" and "absolute objectivity" ...those are human concepts developed by the human mind in order to help understand a material and physical universe and reality... which was _*ALL*_ created by God! 

You've NOT contradicted that, you CAN'T contradict that, and if you DO contradict it, it's a false contradiction based on a flawed premise. The more you talk, the more you appear to be a little man with a little mind and an inferiority complex. I totally get why you've attacked me now. But you attacked the wrong dog bud, this dog bites back.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*
> 
> Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.
> 
> The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.
> 
> In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*
> 
> *1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
> *2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
> *3.* God created human beings.
> *4.* Human beings have logic.
> *5.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what the fuck you're saying dude? This is just a load of convoluted mumbo jumbo that seems to be for the express purpose of making yourself look intellectual. I didn't say "hence" anything, that's YOU loading up my argument with presumptive terminology because that's how you think you can win this argument.
> 
> Logic serves no function except to humans trying to rationalize thought. If God created humans and the human mind, then God created logic as well, because that is the only place logic means anything or has any functional purpose in the universe. The same applies to all this claptrap you are spewing about "laws of identity" and "absolute objectivity" ...those are human concepts developed by the human mind in order to help understand a material and physical universe and reality... which was _*ALL*_ created by God!
> 
> You've NOT contradicted that, you CAN'T contradict that, and if you DO contradict it, it's a false contradiction based on a flawed premise. The more you talk, the more you appear to be a little man with a little mind and an inferiority complex. I totally get why you've attacked me now. But you attacked the wrong dog bud, this dog bites back.
Click to expand...


Of course I do, and I'm talking to a man of bluster and foolish pride.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Tag begs the question and is viciously circular.
> 
> Concise.
> 
> True.
> 
> Clean English.




Which shows once again that atheists like you do not care about the objective facts of human cognition, the incontrovertible, _a priori_ axioms of logic at all, as you _pretend_ that theists argue from fallacy. You merely rally around the flag of ignorance and self-deceit, utter phonies and liars and hypocrites and intellectual cowards, who instead of conceding that you must necessarily appeal to the paradoxically contradictory notions of irrationalism, the self-negating assertions of relativism, and to the purely inductively derived, empirical foundation of a materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism that is scientifically unverifiable . . . you resort to the mockery of foolish pride.

You rally around one another, slap each other on the back, an orgasmic pile of the pure emotionalism of group-think. Behold*:* the atheist tribe of the herd-mentality that doesn't even have the integrity to point out to one of their own how insanely stupid it is for a solipsist to assert what would always necessarily have to be an inductive argument, an appeal to experiential materiality against the Transcendental Argument (TAG).

The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves now.  Sweet!


----------



## G.T.

Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.

You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Amrchaos Mocks Himself. Sweet!

*
Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.

*A solipsist mocking the Transcendental Argument?!
*
What a fool you are you! Those who do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above that, once again, do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man out of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself*:
*
*Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


*Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


*Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​

Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.


----------



## Hollie

*The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation. 

The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.
> 
> You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.




So you think to use logic to make what you think to be a logical argument, but don't like logic when it mocks you?  Sweet!


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!*


Yepp.

And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......

That's weird 



Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.


That fish doesn't bite.


Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!


Dopes.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human cognition doesn't lead to what you foolishly assert that it does.
> 
> You make a leap of faith, not logic. You're a lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think to use logic to make what you think to be a logical argument, but don't logic when it mocks you?  Sweet!
Click to expand...

Again in English?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!*
> 
> 
> 
> Yepp.
> 
> And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......
> 
> That's weird
> 
> 
> 
> Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.
> 
> 
> That fish doesn't bite.
> 
> 
> Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!
> 
> 
> Dopes.
Click to expand...



Sweet!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) is a disaster of viciously circular argumentation.
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument is an unqualified disaster!*
> 
> 
> 
> Yepp.
> 
> And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......
> 
> That's weird
> 
> 
> 
> Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.
> 
> 
> That fish doesn't bite.
> 
> 
> Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!
> 
> 
> Dopes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet!
Click to expand...



I think "sweet" should be the new meme for this thread.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Yepp.
> 
> And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......
> 
> That's weird
> 
> 
> 
> Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.
> 
> 
> That fish doesn't bite.
> 
> 
> Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!
> 
> 
> Dopes.



Yeah.  No chance it's a creation because atheist fanatics say so.    Sweet!


----------



## G.T.

The preceding Justin rawlings Davis posts are awarded gt's presupper in 3d seal of approval.

Say them with me.

Dip.

Duck.


Dodge.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yepp.
> 
> And absurd statements like no creator no creation sound nice and all, but its not an absolute that existence is a creation to begin with so......
> 
> That's weird
> 
> 
> 
> Also, from nothing nothing comes sounds nice. But its also not an absolute. And second - overall existence having been eternal requires no 'from,' and existence being eternal or not eternal is neither proven nor disproven so ...... Good luck using unbiased reason getting what a presupper gets out of these comments.
> 
> 
> That fish doesn't bite.
> 
> 
> Its like idiot kid conspiracy theorists. They want it to be true, it sounds nice, its very surface level thinking......MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT BULLETPROOF!!!
> 
> 
> Dopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  No chance it's a creation because atheist fanatics say so.    Sweet!
Click to expand...

Well, no sweety.

Its neither proven a creation or not a creation.

Difference being knowing that you cannot assert one or the other as an absolute, charlatan.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> You're a lame.



You're sweet.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're sweet.
Click to expand...

You're a follower.

Rather be me.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're sweet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a follower.
> 
> Rather be me.
Click to expand...


I'm a thinker following the way of the logic. You're stretched out underwear of odor strong no think.  You might as well be a rock.I'm also funnier and better looking than you.


----------



## G.T.

Oh wow.

What do I look like, dude?

Youre so odd.


----------



## G.T.

Creepy Justin


----------



## Boss

*JUSTIN





Waffles?*​


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*
> 
> Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.
> 
> The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.
> 
> In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*
> 
> *1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
> *2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
> *3.* God created human beings.
> *4.* Human beings have logic.
> *5.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know what the fuck you're saying dude? This is just a load of convoluted mumbo jumbo that seems to be for the express purpose of making yourself look intellectual. I didn't say "hence" anything, that's YOU loading up my argument with presumptive terminology because that's how you think you can win this argument.
> 
> Logic serves no function except to humans trying to rationalize thought. If God created humans and the human mind, then God created logic as well, because that is the only place logic means anything or has any functional purpose in the universe. The same applies to all this claptrap you are spewing about "laws of identity" and "absolute objectivity" ...those are human concepts developed by the human mind in order to help understand a material and physical universe and reality... which was _*ALL*_ created by God!
> 
> You've NOT contradicted that, you CAN'T contradict that, and if you DO contradict it, it's a false contradiction based on a flawed premise. The more you talk, the more you appear to be a little man with a little mind and an inferiority complex. I totally get why you've attacked me now. But you attacked the wrong dog bud, this dog bites back.
Click to expand...


Why are you getting mad all the time now?  You just said that you're absolutely right according to some kind of logic.  So what's this magical logic that works for you but nobody else? See the problem?  That's a sweet syllogism he gave you, now you just need to answer the questions so you can stop using magical logic to rationalize crazy.  Just get rid of it and get back to reality.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*
> 
> Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.
> 
> The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.
> 
> In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*
> 
> *1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
> *2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
> *3.* God created human beings.
> *4.* Human beings have logic.
> *5.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?



I'm taking a stab at this.  We know why the major premise is wrong.  There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.  That's crazy think.  The only reason Boss likes that is because  he can tell himself that logic was created and beg the question.  Sweet.  You left out humans have sentience, self-awareness, faith, knowledge, thought, free will, creative powers, language, mathematics.  Boss says none of that stuff existed before God created it.  So I guess God doesn't have feelings, self-awareness, no beliefs or knowledge, thought, free will, creative powers (ouch!), language and mathematics.  Sounds like Boss' god is a real dummy who never created anything at all since none of that stuff existed until the time when Boss's god didn't create anything.  Sweet.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.



If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God. 

Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God. 

This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion. 

That's really sad to me.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> _
> God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.




TAG_ = God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists = bible


there is nothing in anyone's mind that makes them believe all that exists was artificially created.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Creepy Justin



I'm creepy?  You're saying we should throw out axioms, armchaos is a solipsist using inductive reasoning about physical things against innate ideas, Hollie's Linda Blair in The Exorcist, Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't  tell the difference between created things and bestowed things, sealybobo believes in sin and karma but not God, QW thinks he exists  but the principle of identity doesn't,  BreezeWood gets mad at me because I don't know what came before the quantum vacuum physically, Dirideo Te thinks endless time explains the beginning of time,  Foxfyre's god is a tiny closed minded thing, that creepy Jones guy thinks logic and science formally accept the idea of something from nothing, and all of you believe that guys like me,  Where's My Keyes, Maxgrit, Ninja, Human Being, Rawlings, Abba, Bigrebnc, and peach and other guys who make sense are the crazy ones.  Some of you guys are still saying science proves or disproves, something my science teacher in the eighth grade told me to stop saying.  It's like the lunatics were cut loose from the hospital without their meds.


----------



## G.T.

No, I'm saying you don't know what an axiom is, dope.

But nice rant.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God.
> 
> Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God.
> 
> This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.
> 
> That's really sad to me.
Click to expand...



So your god doesn't know the difference between created things and bestowed things? That's real GT of you. So straw men, lies and crazy mad is all you got now? So the Bible stood the test of time with something stupid? Even Muslims know God didn't create logic. How stupid is the belief that God created logic? Pretty stupid. What a big fat phony. So all the major religions and philosophies in history are stupid, but Boss has the inside track. He's got a new idea that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't make any sense, but he's right. Boss is smarter than all the great philosophers and theologians. They're all a bunch of idiots, but Boss is smart. You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> No, I'm saying you don't know what an axiom is, dope.
> 
> But nice rant.



You're like Boss trying to say something no one's ever heard of before and makes no sense is true. You're not smarter than all the great religions and philosophies, all the great philosophers and theologians.  Until you can scientifically show that materialism is true you don't have a leg to stand on to just arbitrarily throw out an axiom you don't believe in.  Where's your verification for materialism?  Where is it?  What's the name of this theory?  Where's the peer reviewed  paper on it with all the experimental verification?  Got a link?  All I got is a G.E.D. and all these smart people saying some of the stupidest things I've ever heard.


----------



## G.T.

You're an ankle biter, dude.

MD is a shin kicker. 

You are both little fucking gnats, attached at the hip.

I'm being really real with ya here.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God.
> 
> Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God.
> 
> This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.
> 
> That's really sad to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So your god doesn't know the difference between created things and bestowed things? That's real GT of you. So straw men, lies and crazy mad is all you got now? So the Bible stood the test of time with something stupid? Even Muslims know God didn't create logic. How stupid is the belief that God created logic? Pretty stupid. What a big fat phony. So all the major religions and philosophies in history are stupid, but Boss has the inside track. He's got a new idea that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't make any sense, but he's right. Boss is smarter than all the great philosophers and theologians. They're all a bunch of idiots, but Boss is smart. You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
Click to expand...




> You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?




no, I just said you have the manners of a pig - gun slinger ...

.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TAG_ = God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists = bible
> 
> 
> there is nothing in anyone's mind that makes them believe all that exists was artificially created.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



How could anything exist without a Creator of everything else that exists?  Nothing can exist without a Creator.  It's called logic.  Think about it sometime.  And what's an artificial creation?  There's no concept of a divine creator in the human mind.  Never happened. Amazing.  Poof.  It's all gone.  It's magic.  Where did it go?  I know it was right here a minute ago.  The word creator doesn't even exist.  It's just something we say but doesn't exist has no meaning. I just saw it again but it disappeared again.  Scotty beam them up for brain transplants.  Help them Scotty.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> You're an ankle biter, dude.
> 
> MD is a shin kicker.
> 
> You are both little fucking gnats, attached at the hip.
> 
> I'm being really real with ya here.



Still no argument?  "The TAG has got the atheists mocking themselves.  Sweet!"


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> You're an ankle biter, dude.
> 
> MD is a shin kicker.
> 
> You are both little fucking gnats, attached at the hip.
> 
> I'm being really real with ya here.


 
Sweet. Scotty beam him up.


----------



## Boss

*Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*

Can't be bestowed until it's created.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God.
> 
> Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God.
> 
> This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.
> 
> That's really sad to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So your god doesn't know the difference between created things and bestowed things? That's real GT of you. So straw men, lies and crazy mad is all you got now? So the Bible stood the test of time with something stupid? Even Muslims know God didn't create logic. How stupid is the belief that God created logic? Pretty stupid. What a big fat phony. So all the major religions and philosophies in history are stupid, but Boss has the inside track. He's got a new idea that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't make any sense, but he's right. Boss is smarter than all the great philosophers and theologians. They're all a bunch of idiots, but Boss is smart. You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, I just said you have the manners of a pig - gun slinger ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Funny how everyone who disagrees with you subjectivists, relativists and atheists has no manners and you're all a bunch of saints always attacking the person but never the argument. Look, pig brain, you have asked and said the same things over and over again. Your pig soup has been answered. You never honestly state what answer was given to you, you just change the subject or repeat the same garbage over and over again as if no one answered it. That's what's rude. You're rude and disrespectful of the ideas of others because you intentionally ignore them and misrepresent them. So take your pig train somewhere else. No more pig soup for you.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.




So now God was created.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God.
> 
> Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God.
> 
> This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.
> 
> That's really sad to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So your god doesn't know the difference between created things and bestowed things? That's real GT of you. So straw men, lies and crazy mad is all you got now? So the Bible stood the test of time with something stupid? Even Muslims know God didn't create logic. How stupid is the belief that God created logic? Pretty stupid. What a big fat phony. So all the major religions and philosophies in history are stupid, but Boss has the inside track. He's got a new idea that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't make any sense, but he's right. Boss is smarter than all the great philosophers and theologians. They're all a bunch of idiots, but Boss is smart. You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, I just said you have the manners of a pig - gun slinger ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how everyone who disagrees with you subjectivists, relativists and atheists has no manners and you're all a bunch of saints always attacking the person but never the argument. Look, pig brain, you have asked and said the same things over and over again. Your pig soup has been answered. You never honestly state what answer was given to you, you just change the subject or repeat the same garbage over and over again as if no one answered it. That's what's rude. You're rude and disrespectful of the ideas of others because you intentionally ignore them and misrepresent them. So take your pig train somewhere else. No more pig soup for you.
Click to expand...


Fuckin' IRONIC!


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now God was created.
Click to expand...


Nope. Logic was created by God, just like everything was created by God. 
God doesn't require creating... God IS.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> as if no one answered it.




that's correct, gunslinger you haven't an answer for anything - quantum vacuum ...

.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> That's not true. Are you going to ask why that's not true


 Yes, why is that not true?



> or keep arguing against the proofs for theism that are not based on hypotheses? You don't know what you're talking about. You're like the atheist Hollie who argues against atheists without even realizing that she's proving that the theist's arguments are true. Only you're the opposite Hollie, the theist Hollie who argues that the false arguments of atheists.


This section of your post holds no argumentative value.



> Let me ask you this question, even if it sounds silly. Do you believe that you exist?


No, I know I do.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Yes, why is that not true?
> No, I know I do.




That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.  

So that's great.  You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists?  Just wondering.  You got to have a reason right?


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> that's correct, gunslinger you haven't an answer for anything - quantum vacuum ...
> 
> .


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Nope. Logic was created by God.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, why is that not true?
> No, I know I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.
> 
> So that's great.  You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists?  Just wondering.  You got to have a reason right?
Click to expand...

Because I want to.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Dogs chasing their tales.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now God was created.
Click to expand...

Yes, by a hierarchy of incrementally more powerful gawds.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, why is that not true?
> No, I know I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.
> 
> So that's great.  You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists?  Just wondering.  You got to have a reason right?
Click to expand...

Many gawds exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature.


----------



## Hollie

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reason to believe that God created everything that exists in the cosmos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe that, you don't believe in an omnipotent God.
> 
> Now that in of itself is fine by me, humans believe in all sorts of different incarnations of God, it's part of our intrinsic awareness of spiritual nature. I'm not mad at you for that, but you don't have the right to tell me my God is wrong and your God is right. And you most certainly don't have the right to call me names and insult me because I don't believe in your particular God.
> 
> This thread has been a real eye-opening experience for me. I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.
> 
> That's really sad to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So your god doesn't know the difference between created things and bestowed things? That's real GT of you. So straw men, lies and crazy mad is all you got now? So the Bible stood the test of time with something stupid? Even Muslims know God didn't create logic. How stupid is the belief that God created logic? Pretty stupid. What a big fat phony. So all the major religions and philosophies in history are stupid, but Boss has the inside track. He's got a new idea that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't make any sense, but he's right. Boss is smarter than all the great philosophers and theologians. They're all a bunch of idiots, but Boss is smart. You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a joke, Boss, a total jackass. You really need to shut up before your stupid spreads. Just shut up.  Sweet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no, I just said you have the manners of a pig - gun slinger ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

It's a festering religious war between opposing sides who are convinced that their partisan gawds are true to the exclusion of others' partisan gawds.

Eight year olds pulling their pants down for sword fights.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> No, I'm saying you don't know what an axiom is, dope.
> 
> But nice rant.





Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, why is that not true?
> No, I know I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.
> 
> So that's great.  You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists?  Just wondering.  You got to have a reason right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I want to.
Click to expand...


That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?


----------



## Justin Davis

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Dogs chasing their tales.



A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.


----------



## RKMBrown

Boss said:


> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.


Nonsense.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now God was created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, by a hierarchy of incrementally more powerful gawds.
Click to expand...


Hey Hollie.  You're Jewish, right?  Isn't it true you can be Jewish and not believe in god?  In other words I'm sure there are people who were born and raised Jewish, might not believe in god and still consider themselves Jewish?

But you can't be an atheist and say you are a Christian.  I was born Greek Orthodox and I still kind of consider myself a member.  If someone asked I'd tell them I was Greek Orthodox.  Like, if my boss asked me I would not say I don't believe in god.  I'm thinking that being Jewish is both a nationality and a religion?  Or a ethnicity and a religion?  Help!


----------



## Boss

RKMBrown said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...


You'll need to explain your comment. You haven't.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss's god is dumber than a box of rocks that can't tell the difference between created things and bestowed things...*
> 
> Can't be bestowed until it's created.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll need to explain your comment. You haven't.
Click to expand...

You'll have to prove that you exist first.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Relativism is Pride and Arrogance, Foolish Pride and Arrogance!
*
The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

God _is_ Love. Did God create love?

God _is_ Truth. Did God create truth?

God _is_ Omniscience. Did God create omniscience?

God _is_ Omnipotence. Did God create omnipotence?

God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?

God _is_ Rationality and Order. Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?

Where is the contradiction in that?

Answer: there is no contradiction!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?

That's your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

What's wrong with that argument?

Answer: everything!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is a perfect God bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God rational or is He irrational? He is rational!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

*A: A = A.*

*God = Not-God?! *
Is that your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is that argument sensible?

Answer: No, it's not!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

*God **≠** Not-God.*

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is your logic right?

Answer: No, it's not! It's incoherent and insane.

Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn: for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.

Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, you are!

Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?

Answer: Yes, it does!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!

Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!

*God did not create logic!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*On the Prescriptive-Descriptive dichotomy: Posts #4129 and #4132
*
The nature of logic is normative/prescriptive and is the tool by which we make the necessary delineations in order to define/describe things. *GT*, you don't even understand the point the guy in the video is trying to make. The _descriptive-prescriptive dichotomy_ correlates with the _Is-Ought dichotomy_ as ultimately premised on the _subject-object dichotomy_. There is no division between the descriptive observations/assertions of human cognition and the prescriptive (or normative) axioms/assertions of human cognition on the basis of the _rational-empirical dichotomy_ if that's what you're implying in this mess of yours.

The underlying presupposition of your confusion is the scientifically unverifiable, materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism. Now _that_ is a genuine example of begging the question, for that is _not_ an axiom of human cognition, but a secondary, indemonstrable potentiality only! And it's doubtful that you even grasp what I'm talking about and what you're unwittingly assuming to be true about reality in the above.

And I find it hilarious that *Amrchaos* is throwing the term_ troll _at me given the trash that you and that guy in the video are spewing on this forum, especially given the fact that *Amrchaos* nitpicks over the relatively uncontroversial, pragmatic assumptions regarding certain empirical existents, while the unqualified arguments of materialism are everywhere.

I touched on this distinction earlier in this thread, by the way:

The intrinsically organic principle of identity _cannot_ be falsified, and, of course, the reason that's true is because it i_s_ the intrinsically indispensable organic principle of human cognition by which we perceive and assimilate data at both _the prescriptive_ and _the descriptive_ levels of apprehension.​
Further, the idea of God in and of itself is a fact of human psychology relative to the problems of existence and origin and an axiomatic fact relative to the necessary substance of its object in organic and model logic. It's arguably a hypothetical in constructive logic only—in terms of actual substance, not in terms of the psychological construct—for the standard, analytic purposes of epistemological skepticism, albeit, one that is assigned a _valid, might or might not be true_ value, not merely _a might or might not be true_ value, because it's a logical necessity in organic and model logic, rather than a mere logical possibility. 

In science it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Science doesn't deal with the transcendent.

Any questions?


----------



## G.T.

Md has the following:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Relativism is Pride and Arrogance, Foolish Pride and Arrogance!
> *
> The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.
> 
> God _is_ Love. Did God create love?
> 
> God _is_ Truth. Did God create truth?
> 
> God _is_ Omniscience. Did God create omniscience?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipotence. Did God create omnipotence?
> 
> God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?
> 
> God _is_ Rationality and Order. Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?
> 
> Where is the contradiction in that?
> 
> Answer: there is no contradiction!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?
> 
> That's your argument?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> What's wrong with that argument?
> 
> Answer: everything!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Is a perfect God bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?
> 
> Answer: Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Is God rational or is He irrational? He is rational!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order? Yes or no?
> 
> Answer: Yes, He is!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> *A: A = A.*
> 
> *God = Not-God?! *
> Is that your argument?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Is that argument sensible?
> 
> Answer: No, it's not!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> *God **≠** Not-God.*
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Is your logic right?
> 
> Answer: No, it's not! It's incoherent and insane.
> 
> Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn: for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.
> 
> Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement? Yes or no?
> 
> Answer: Yes, you are!
> 
> Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it does!
> 
> Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?
> 
> Answer: Yes, it is!
> 
> Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!
> 
> Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!
> 
> *God did not create logic!*



Yes, God created logic along with every other concept you've mentioned here. In the beginning, there was void... nothing. All the stuff you mention are concepts applied to a physical existence and reality and have no purpose or reason otherwise. 

You are attempting to diminish God and you do this at your own peril. It destroys the arguments of TAG and the 7Things you posted before. But you can't see that because you are an arrogant human full of hubris, and think you know more than God. ...Ya don't!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Hollie Unwittingly Refutes GT as She Affirms the Truth about the Prescriptive-Descriptive Dichotomy*



Hollie said:


> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers



Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!

Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.

Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature: *as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?

Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:* as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.

*Amrchaos*, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.

Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!




Hollie said:


> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.



LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.


----------



## G.T.

Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.

It makes the exact opposite true.

Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.

Let's explain?

Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.

Laws of logic are concepts which describe *actual things*. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.

an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way

the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.

It's not that hard.

Well, maybe it is.


----------



## G.T.

Nice stretch though, charlatan. I'm sure it will pass for..................

maybe justin.


----------



## emilynghiem

sealybobo said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Sealybobo:
> People may take SIMILAR approaches
> but no, I have never found two people who saw life/God the exact same way.
> 
> Our lives and personalities are unique, and so is our path and our understanding/relationship.
> 
> I think the main mistake people make here is trying to shove people into the most convenient box.
> 
> so the minute MD senses an atheist or Justin hears "relative" they go off and project
> all their past garbage from other atheists or relativists onto me and others who may not share those views.
> 
> i wasn't even attacking or lying and I was accused of all manner of ill intent and deceit.
> 
> This comes from projecting past associations.
> 
> So in the process of getting past the emotional conditioning, these LAYERS are going to
> have to remove and drop if we are going to get to the raw truth of what we know, understand, believe
> 
> And QUIT projecting "oh you sound like this other person or group" onto each other!
> 
> Sealybobo the advantage you and other secular minded thinkers have
> is that you are trying to see the other sides objectively and understand where they are coming from.
> 
> You keep digging deeper, and you will find as much biased conditioning and reactions
> on your side as anyone else here.  So as we agree to remove and peel back those layers
> we will all be more clear thinkers and better able to clarify what we mean or what we see
> without pushing emotional buttons because we remind each other of horrible hypocrites we clashed with in the past.
> 
> We can't let that skew our judgment
> but you can see here, even the best intended people
> are getting thrown off by hot-button words that set up emotional reactions.
> 
> at least GT and amrchaos are applying a sense of humor
> to let that blow over and not get caught up in it.
> 
> I think that helps.
> 
> If you can help Boss and also BreezeWood stay in the fray
> till we work out the glitches going on, I think we will all end up in a better place
> after this with greater appreciation for the different angles and clarifications each person contributes.
> 
> It really is interesting how each person adds some unique knowledge or
> experience that helps everyone else if we would just listen and try to adopt the good points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets be honest here.  Who and what is it that us atheists don't like?  If we get to the root of the problem then you and I will be able to come to an agreement/understanding as to what the problem is here.  You ok with us establishing what the problem is?
> 
> Ok lets go.  I have a lot of friends who believe in god.  In fact probably most of the people I know believe in god.  I don't go around asking everyone and I think most who I have asked say they do believe.  Have they been worked up by their church to hate all non believers?  Not all of them, but some of them have.  So for people like you and my brother and boss, this is just an innocent conversation.  Even when I'm talking to a bible thumper who says I'm going to hell, I'm certainly not worried about it or taking them seriously.  But I do think the entire thought of "there must be a god" is one that keeps people ignorant.
> 
> You are basically settling for an answer that makes you comfortable instead of admitting you don't know.
> 
> And I use to be just like you guys.  I cherry picked what I believed and didn't believe.  But I did believe.  In what exactly I don't know.  Now I just know it was just all in my head, and it is most certainly all in your heads too.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> But beyond that being my opinion and you disagreeing, what is the problem here E?  It's ISIS.  It's Christian Americans trying to force that shit on the rest of us.  Teach Creationalism in School.  No.  Teach that shit in your church.  We don';t send our kids to school to be brainwashed.  And I think this frightens organized religions.  They so want to indoctrinate/brainwash our youth with it.
> 
> Deny abortion because of their religious beliefs?  No.  Allow them to implement bad policies because of their religious beliefs like banning stem cell, not allowing doctor assisted suicide, not allow gays to marry or adopt.
> 
> See where I'm going with this?  You aren't going to convince me this invisible man in your head is a good thing.  Sorry babe.  I love you but you are wrong.  We aren't the problem.
> 
> Final thought.  If we are going to impose religion on this country, lets make it Sharia law.  LOL.  How would you like that?  Me neither.  So I don't want NONE OF IT.  Keep that shit to yourselves on Sunday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's weird.  I've never known any churches that work people up to hate atheists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the town hall meeting full of christians that were furious that  the atheist girl sued the school because of some plaque that was up that had the lords prayer on it?  She won.  The courts ruled in her favor.  Yet these theists were furious.  I'm telling you if they could have lynched her they would have.
> 
> You/They are not much different than they were in the 1700's when they were burning witches at the stake.  Maybe you guys are a little more civilized now but not much.  Religion keeps people from evolving more mentally.  It keeps us ignorant.  It is a stupid idea.  IE You are dumb for believing it.
Click to expand...


Sorry, SB, you keep lumping me in with You/They.

I believe in consensus, remember?
Resolving conflicts directly with the parties involved so there ARE NO lawsuits taking sides
(which I believe is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the case of religious issues where BOTH sides are protected
equally and the courts/govt have NO BUSINESS taking one side over the other)

I believe in MEDIATING all such religious-based conflicts so that ALL SIDES/views/interests
agree they are equally included, represented and satisfied.

So my approach would PREVENT any of this bullying/lynching side taking behavior.

It would REWARD those people/leaders who can mediate and arrange for a consensus
resolution between parties as Constitutional, equally protective and equally inclusive!

Do you see WHY I push for this approach?
it is to PREVENT the unconstitutional lynching of one side by the other religiously.

This is why I push for Conflict resolution, mediation and consensus
as the Standard of Constitutional Law and Ethics especially in cases of religious conflicts.

I hope this is clear, because I feel I have been fighting this battle alone.

One friend said maybe 1 in 1,000 might understand my argument,
much less get it, much less advocate for it. I'm pretty much a minority
in my beliefs on consensus an dconsent of the governed as the standard of law.

Most people only want consent for themselves but will not defend the same of
others, especially not opponents! that is why our system is backlogged, abused and messed up.

I am one of the few people maybe 1-2% of the population that will advocate this openly for all
sides to be equally included, protected and represented.

Most people as  neutral as me DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS because of their neutrality.
It is very rare to find other people willing to get involved who aren't pushing their agenda over someone else.

I am sure I have my own biases, but I try to make sure to check those by including the opposing views
equally so I remain fair and do not exclude or deny the objecting viewpoints to whatever position I have.

I believe the right answers will be supported by everyone,
and if there are objections those should be included and addressed.

a rare one indeed.

I thought I might go down in history as the world's rarest religion
or political religion. this belief in isonomy where all people, parties, beliefs and views
are to be treated and included equally -- where they are allowed to represent
 themselves by affiliation of choice, and then mediate between them to form policies
they all agree to (or else agree to separate jurisdiction and funding). I believe in
a totally noncoercive, consent-based democratic process (close to what the 
Greens practice, and the Zen peace activists and other nonviolence/noncoercive
activists believe in, also some Restorative Justice programs that work by voluntary consent)

Because I believe in consent and free choice, I don't impose my views
but just offer them freely. But people who believe in bullying step all over me
and other people I seek to defend on all sides. So I get smashed with the losing
side in any battle, trying to defend all people and points on all sides equally
and push for a consensus solution or separation in policy instead of conflicting interests.

Let me know if this is more clear.

Sealybobo, I think if you understood my position
you would either jump for joy
or weep and grieve for me.

It sounds dangerously naive to most people
who realize I'm going to get run over and smashed
by both sides of any conflict out to pummel the other.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Hollie Unwittingly Refutes GT as She Affirms the Truth about the Prescriptive-Descriptive Dichotomy*
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, science doesn't deal with religious supers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looky there! Hollie said something that's right!
> 
> Still, she is such a mindless reactionary robot.
> 
> Yeah, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature: *as if human consciousness had primacy over existence, as if *the physical laws of nature were prescriptive in nature when in fact they are descriptive in nature*, as if *logic verified or falsified things when in fact logic does not verify or falsify things, science does. *Logic proves or disproves things, isn't that right, Hollie?
> 
> Moreover, dimwit, that's why only morons like GT assert that *logic is descriptive in nature:* as if logic did not _a priori_ provide for the normative standards by which we delineate the difference between sound reasoning and sound methods for inference and extrapolation.
> 
> *Amrchaos*, you better take me off ignore so you can see this and tell Hollie not to say anything more along this line as she's making you atheists look like idiots again and is now arguing against herself and against GT.
> 
> Oh, wait! Don't do that after all! She finally got something right. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that she understands that she just underscored the fact of her buddy's bullshit, GT's idiocy, not mine as she imagines!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty typical for religious zealots / trolls. The boys' arguments have been shot down in flames so he's left to whine and stomp his feet like a petulant child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! What boy, you dimwit? You just shot down your boy's argument with something that you finally got right! LOL! Which means, dimwit, that you just affirmed the truth of all my arguments, though you still don't really understand why all my arguments are right.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings
So if Hollie wants to use science but recognizes this logic approach with TAG has naught to do with science, and you yourself also pointed this out -- that you were using the logic route INSTEAD of science since science can only verify not prove.

Then if you and Hollie are in AGREEMENT!
How does that make anyone an idiot or dimwit?

Why aren't you grateful that we actually AGREE?

So we can AGREE that using the science approach
is best for, say, the studies on spiritual healing.

Such research would be harmed by getting religion mixed into it.
You and I agree on that.

Now if we can get Hollie to agree that the
Spiritual Healing focus would make good use of the *Science* she wants to see,
we can direct the focus there for Hollie and people like her who WANT to see that approach
(and who have no connection or interest in the logic approach sans science)

This is a positive step to agree on this!
Can you see the positive potential and focus here?
I think this means it will work, to focus on the
science of spiritual healing to resolve issues with people
who WANT to see science used to verify something considered a spiritual process.

Isn't that good, M.D.?


----------



## amrchaos

amrchaos said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
Click to expand...



This is my last post from yesterday....#4423

How far did we progress?

See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.
> 
> It makes the exact opposite true.
> 
> Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.
> 
> Let's explain?
> 
> Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.
> 
> Laws of logic are concepts which describe *actual things*. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.
> 
> an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way
> 
> the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.
> 
> It's not that hard.
> 
> Well, maybe it is.



Dear G.T. Boss (and also M.D. Rawlings and Justin)
I thought of a good example of how to illustrate
this distinction between human logic, God's logic, and how we as humans can top into God's logic that is higher than our own.

Forgiveness!

This seems counterintuitive and goes against human logic.
Our material/manmade/self-serving laws of survival 
tell us to treat those who are good with rewards
and punish those who are bad with rejection or retaliation.

However, the highest principles in Buddhism (on equal compassion for all beings regardless of material conditions)
and in Christianity call us to 
love one another as God does, as Jesus loves with unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

This requires a leap in logic and faith that this
forgiveness will not be abused.

Our human fear and logic says that forgiveness
will enable or encourage more abuse by not punishing the person.

But the higher laws show that by forgiving first,
people have more clear minds and consistent authority
to rebuke and correct than if we are attached or angry emotionally
and impair our judgment.

So by God's laws, we are supposed to "trust" in the higher laws
of justice to work themselves out if we let go and forgive
and do not try to dictate the process ourselves.

But man is prone to try to dictate and control justice,
and that's why our political system is such a mess.

The successful systems of restorative justice focus on
healing and forgiveness first, then the correction and restitution follows.

This is God's laws, but runs counter-intuitive to what man's justice tells us to do.

So M.D. and Justin as Christians
believe that this Perfect justice of God, perfect will and truth that Jesus represents
CAN be embodied in man, we CAN embrace and let this Higher Justice of God
govern our consciences and relationships.

Boss was saying we cannot know what is God's logic (or justice/laws)
if these are beyond man.

So this is where the Christian faith steps in.

Where I believe this intersects with secular humanist/natural approaches to law
is CONSENSUS and Consent of the Governed.

So we CAN verify among ourselves what we know/believe to be truth/justice
by reaching Consensus with each other.

So the Christians will be satisfied that the outcome matches what they feel/believe/know as God's will
and this Secularists will be satisfied that the outcome meets their standards of what
is "free choice' and 'equal justice" for all.

by consensus we can meet all these standards
even if we don't individually agree how to justify or rationalize the reasons for why we agree to the outcome!

I think this is one place wherel
we could see the difference and the relationship
between man's laws/logic/justice and higher/collective/God's laws of logic and justice.

the whole point is to reconcile our individual levels with the collective shared level of justice
and in this way, establish a common understanding of truth so there is peace and harmony.

it does not mean we have to convert each other's views,
just find ways to include each other without compromising.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic



I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.

To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.

I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.

I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
but after that emotional steam blows off,
M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is. 
I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.

So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.

Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.

And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
Click to expand...

are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, why is that not true?
> No, I know I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That other stuff was just for fun. Just kidding around with you.
> 
> So that's great.  You know that you exist. So why do you believe God exists?  Just wondering.  You got to have a reason right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many gawds exist. Just read your ancient Greek literature.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie: We can have 50 state laws that are all different and have local authority and jurisdiction.
and yet still have one "law of the land" for all people of all states to be under, and one in spirit.

the Lords or Laws of local tribes/states
do not have to be in conflict with the Universal Law that all people agree to follow.

in fact, these SHOULD be in harmony and not in conflict.
the gods in religions are the same way, either in harmony and  under one authority,
or if they are in conflict, those conflicts need to be addressed and resolved.

When there is a conflict with Texas law or federal law,
we do not void one law or the other law to resolve the conflict:
we resolve the conflict so that both laws can coexist consistently.

^ Dear Justin and M.D. Rawlings ^
Does this help explain relative views?

That Texas law can list statutes and mandates,
penal codes and civil procedures differently from Alaskan law,
and yet all state laws are still under the Constitution as the law of the land?
so we can have both absolute agreed givens that everyone follows as the basis,
and also have relative laws that people agree to follow locally. And these do not contradict each other.

^ Does this help at all ? ^


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?
Click to expand...


What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition don't by any means lead to "god made knowledge," as an axiom.
> 
> If they did, it would be universally accepted. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It _is_ universally accepted . . . or are you arguing that the laws of thought that hold it to be an incontrovertible, _a priori_  axiom of human cognition, just like *2 + 2 = 4,* are not universally held to hold  or are not bioneurologically hardwired? Duh.
> 
> See. That's just you, you intellectual coward, asserting the straw man of labeling the axioms and tautologies of human cognition and formal logic as informal fallacies again while you simultaneously pretend that the axiom of the TAG is *#2*, when it's *#1* of the following*: *
> 
> *The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!*
> 
> The major premise of the Transcendental Argument _is_ an incontrovertible axiom!
> 
> I've tried a number of times, _civilly_, to help you see the obvious, *GT*.
> 
> I know now that you see it, and you are trying to conceal this truth from others, *GT*.
> 
> How pathetically desperate is the psychology of that?
> 
> _God_ means _Creator_! No Creator, no creation. Nothing exists.
> 
> * 1.* It is not possible, on the very face it, to logically state/think that "knowledge (or anything else) can exist if "God (the Creator) doesn't exist".
> 
> That statement is inherently contradictory, a self-negating statement that positively proves the opposite is true, logically. It actually asserts, logically, that God _does_ exist! That's not controversial in academia among logicians or among any other human beings who grasp this incontrovertibly axiomatic fact of human cognition.
> 
> * Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not permit humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist.*
> 
> 
> * 2.* What _is_ arguably open to controversy is whether or not this axiom of human cognition absolutely holds universally outside of our minds and, of course, ultimately holds transcendentally as that is the nature of the Object of the TAG.
> 
> 
> Some of you atheists on this thread remain confused about what the TAG proves while others, like *GT the Intellectual Coward*, are intentionally misleading others about what the TAG actually proves.
> 
> No one but a fool or the liar claims that the TAG is about *#2*!
> 
> Rather, intellectually honest and forthright human beings know it proves *#1*!
> 
> And the significance of *#1* is not that it is merely a logical axiom of human cognition. The questions any sensible person should be asking themselves, given the nature of the Object of the TAG, are the following: _Why_ is this axiom of human cognition bioneurologically hardwired? Is this a direct message from God?
> 
> "I AM, children, I AM! I exist!"
> 
> Or is it just a freak of nature? An accident? A coincidence? A just so happens to be?
> 
> But do we or do we not necessarily hold that all other axioms that are bioneurologically hardwired, like *2 + 2 = 4*, are true as a matter of practicality based on the very same standard of logic?
> 
> Answer: Yes. We do.
> 
> _Why_ is the assertion that God _does_ exist an axiom in our minds?
> 
> The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide.​
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123173/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9999811/
> 
> 
> Atheism, thy name is _Intellectual Cowardice_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...so 100% of people believe in god?
> 
> That's so weird, this earth you're living on. Its not this one.
Click to expand...


if you take God to equal = forces in life or nature
yes, most people believe there are some kind of forces of life and nature
at work that are outside man's direct control
and the whole point is to reconcile with free will and reason / logic
that is within man's control

Most human beings I know go through some
process of reconciling these things, unconsciously or consciously.

We just don't all agree on the nature of these forces,
and how to represent them using science, religion, political secular laws, etc.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
> and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I asked if you continue copy pasting and quoting yourself. Hundreds of times, literally. Do you?

MD does.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Boss is Refuted!*



Boss said:


> I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. *You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.*



I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.  I have not personally attacked you.  I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.

You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations.  You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.

Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.

Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!

Why?

Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity.  Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.

You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.

According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created.   Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.



*You were refuted here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/*




*The ramifications of Gödel's  theorems and proof refute you: 

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/*




*The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/*




*The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the  reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/*
*

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/*




You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that _The Seven Things_ (*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.

You are refuted again in this post.

You will be refuted again in my summary.

Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.

You and your butt buddies are refuted!

Your retarded blather is refuted!

*You are refuted!*


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
Click to expand...


Dear amrchaos:
1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss is Refuted!*



Dear M.D. Rawlings
I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.

Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?

I think that will spell out where these diverge
and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.

Thanks!
maybe if we give a concrete example
we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms
==================================
here is the post on forgiveness recopied below:

*"Dear G.T. Boss (and also M.D. Rawlings and Justin)
I thought of a good example of how to illustrate
this distinction between human logic, God's logic, and how we as humans can top into God's logic that is higher than our own.

Forgiveness!

This seems counterintuitive and goes against human logic.
Our material/manmade/self-serving laws of survival
tell us to treat those who are good with rewards
and punish those who are bad with rejection or retaliation.

However, the highest principles in Buddhism (on equal compassion for all beings regardless of material conditions)
and in Christianity call us to
love one another as God does, as Jesus loves with unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

This requires a leap in logic and faith that this
forgiveness will not be abused.

Our human fear and logic says that forgiveness
will enable or encourage more abuse by not punishing the person.

But the higher laws show that by forgiving first,
people have more clear minds and consistent authority
to rebuke and correct than if we are attached or angry emotionally
and impair our judgment.

So by God's laws, we are supposed to "trust" in the higher laws
of justice to work themselves out if we let go and forgive
and do not try to dictate the process ourselves.

But man is prone to try to dictate and control justice,
and that's why our political system is such a mess.

The successful systems of restorative justice focus on
healing and forgiveness first, then the correction and restitution follows.

This is God's laws, but runs counter-intuitive to what man's justice tells us to do.

So M.D. and Justin as Christians
believe that this Perfect justice of God, perfect will and truth that Jesus represents
CAN be embodied in man, we CAN embrace and let this Higher Justice of God
govern our consciences and relationships.

Boss was saying we cannot know what is God's logic (or justice/laws)
if these are beyond man.

So this is where the Christian faith steps in.

Where I believe this intersects with secular humanist/natural approaches to law
is CONSENSUS and Consent of the Governed.

So we CAN verify among ourselves what we know/believe to be truth/justice
by reaching Consensus with each other.

So the Christians will be satisfied that the outcome matches what they feel/believe/know as God's will
and this Secularists will be satisfied that the outcome meets their standards of what
is "free choice' and 'equal justice" for all.

by consensus we can meet all these standards
even if we don't individually agree how to justify or rationalize the reasons for why we agree to the outcome!

I think this is one place wherel
we could see the difference and the relationship
between man's laws/logic/justice and higher/collective/God's laws of logic and justice.

the whole point is to reconcile our individual levels with the collective shared level of justice
and in this way, establish a common understanding of truth so there is peace and harmony.

it does not mean we have to convert each other's views,
just find ways to include each other without compromising."*


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you copy pasting the same posts over and over and over again and expecting different results?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? That is the first and only time I saw you bring up OCD
> and the only time I answered it. What are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked if you continue copy pasting and quoting yourself. Hundreds of times, literally. Do you?
> 
> MD does.
Click to expand...


No I try to only keep the quote I am reply to, and say something relating the new points brought up.

With MD. we just need to direct the focus toward points that are getting somewhere.

so out of the haystack find the needle that can carry a steady thread....


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Justin Davis said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs chasing their tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.
Click to expand...


Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.


----------



## Justin Davis

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.



Attacking the man?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss is Refuted!*
> 
> I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.
> 
> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.  I have not personally attacked you.  I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.
> 
> You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations.  You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.
> 
> Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.
> 
> Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity.  Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.
> 
> You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.
> 
> You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.
> 
> According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created.   Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> *You were refuted here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/*
> *
> 
> And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/*
> *
> 
> And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/*
> *
> 
> And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/*
> *
> 
> And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ramifications of Gödel's  theorems and proof refute you:
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the  reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/*
> *
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that _The Seven Things_ (*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.
> 
> You are refuted again in this post.
> 
> You will be refuted again in my summary.
> 
> Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.
> 
> You and your butt buddies are refuted!
> 
> Your retarded blather is refuted!
> 
> *You are refuted!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs chasing their tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.
Click to expand...


Justin's observations from last night are correct.  He is not a lap dog.  In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it  universally holds among the various, historically prominent  religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences  between them in subsequent detail.  There remains this one universal:  logic was _not_ created by God, but bestowed by God.

Why does this hold?

Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.

They  never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths.  The few, larger cultish followings endure longer.  Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity  anyway, just in a less obvious fashion.    Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.

The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does  in fact exist.

Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters.   These things are not hidden from anyone.  The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief  thereof are manifest to all.  Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought.  There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things.  It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking the man?
Click to expand...


I guess Tom is just another lapdog looking to bark, I mean, mark his territory.
There seems to be a lot of pecking order politics,
trying to establish who is the Alpha male on which level?

We think we are above animals, but this seems to bring out the beast in people!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs chasing their tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin's observations from last night are correct.  He is not a lap dog.  In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it  universally holds among the various, historically prominent  religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences  between them in subsequent detail.  There remains this one universal:  logic was _not_ created by God, but bestowed by God.
> 
> Why does this hold?
> 
> Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.
> 
> They  never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths.  The few, larger cultish followings endure longer.  Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity  anyway, just in a less obvious fashion.    Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.
> 
> The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does  in fact exist.
> 
> Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters.   These things are not hidden from anyone.  The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief  thereof are manifest to all.  Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought.  There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things.  It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. and Justin:
Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
of this difference in logic?

Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
challenges human logic.

If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
there is no need to put anyone down.

Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
is that you know you are falling short of
what Christianity calls us to do to
follow God's laws and not man's logic
which tells us to backbite in retribution.

If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!

if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
sense to apply that to our own discourse here.

I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.

Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and 
backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.

Justin can you help?
Inevitable?

We need to stay in line and on track
and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.


----------



## amrchaos

Emily

Once we begin to talk about things beyond our ability to conceive, we begin to play around with unsupported conjectures.

"I do not know" is the best answer I can give. I need a lot more information before I can attempt to take a position.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss is Refuted!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings
> I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
> and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.
> 
> Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
> as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?
> 
> I think that will spell out where these diverge
> and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
> to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
> higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.
> 
> Thanks!
> maybe if we give a concrete example
> we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms
Click to expand...



Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at.  We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews.  We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case.  Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence*:*  Judeo-Christianity or Islam.  These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.








Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation.  This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of  human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things.  But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is   nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought are invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss is Refuted!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. Rawlings
> I'm glad we are moving toward getting the uncivil reactions out of the way
> and focusing on interesting points where we can remain civil and focus intelligently.
> 
> Can you please reply to the post on Forgiveness
> as an example of where God's logic trumps man's logic?
> 
> I think that will spell out where these diverge
> and where we rely on connection in Christ or Conscience
> to rise above man's retributive nature and seek
> higher peace through restorative justice and love of truth.
> 
> Thanks!
> maybe if we give a concrete example
> we can talk these things out instead of going in circles with the terms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at.  We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews.  We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case.  Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence*:*  Judeo-Christianity or Islam.  These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation.  This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.
> 
> Only those who willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of  human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things.  But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.
> 
> Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is   nature, not God.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought are invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. Rawlings and thanks
1. Re: *"This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law"*

And I would apply this back to nontheists, where neither do nontheists need to abandon their nontheist views
in order to reconcile with the universal principles underneath that do not rely on attaching oneself to either theism or nontheism.

2. Please note the above ^ about not necessarily abandoning our views as long as we are straight on the fundamentals
is what I mean by having both the absolutes AND allowing for relatives at the same time. these do not necessarily conflict, I agree. I agree you cannot compromise the common truths trying to accommodate the relatives; the point is if the absolutes are truly universal they should either include or resolve any other relative views represented. There should not be any conflict.

3. the one thing I see missing here
is you are still going one-sided with your views
OVER the views of others who do relate to using the state and govt law to establish the common good will.

There is nothing wrong with using govt to complement, as long as it doesn't corrupt, abuse, impose in contradictory ways.

So this is where FORGIVENESS of the different ways comes in.
otherwise the bias creeps in of taking or favoring one side and criticizing or opposing the other as wrong or inferior.

The unbiased way would show how all views contribute and check and balance each other.
And there are EQUAL flaws when the side you take goes overboard and oppresses the other!

So if you do not show both sides, people can get distracted and jump on that.
Even Sealybobo jumps on me because he feels I keep settling for the other side as the default, and he does not see that I equally check that side the same way i check the nontheists/secular side when they reject too much.

This is why we need to help each other, M.D.

You are going to keep pushing from your perspective.
Sealybobo from  his. Hollie from  hers.
So we can check and correct each other.

So this is why forgiveness and trust in the process
is going to determine how we go about resolving all our points and issues
we are trying to represent and add to the bigger picture.

We can't hear the music if the orchestra members are all competing to drown each other out.
We are supposed to be taking each part and maximizing its strength, balancing it with the others,
so the whole symphony works out perfectly as written.

We can hash out issues, but for the purpose of resolving them and keeping everyone in the orchestra
not kicking anyone out or silencing the part they play.

God makes each part, each instrument and person and purpose for a reason.

[One final note: although your chart shows where the majority of people are, the majority of people are in conflict and suffer war and division. The Bible tells us the gate of destruction is very broad and most people go that way. While the gate of righteousness is narrow and very few shall find it.

How I interpret the narrow gate is to stick to points where we agree, which are key critical points, and the rest will follow. The broader path of "I am right you are wrong" "my group has the answer, the other group is causing the problems" is what sends most of the world to war.

The rare path of finding where we correct each other as equals, where we have equal good strongpoints and equal weak points someone else helps us clarify -- that is where we can save relations where we agree in Christ Jesus or by conscience, on the truth that sets us free from strife which is the majority of human experience. the peace is more rare, and that saves us.]


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Dear M.D. and Justin:
> Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
> of this difference in logic?
> 
> Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
> challenges human logic.
> 
> If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
> there is no need to put anyone down.
> 
> Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
> Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
> is that you know you are falling short of
> what Christianity calls us to do to
> follow God's laws and not man's logic
> which tells us to backbite in retribution.
> 
> If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
> to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
> the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!
> 
> if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
> when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
> sense to apply that to our own discourse here.
> 
> I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
> because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
> and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
> and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
> to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
> we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
> that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.
> 
> Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
> and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
> backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.
> 
> Justin can you help?
> Inevitable?
> 
> We need to stay in line and on track
> and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.



*The Irrationalists Mock Themselves*

Emily, if I have to break through nonsense that pretends not to understand, for example, that our logic could not have been endowed on us by God, as if that were not the only rational alternative that cannot be arbitrarily precluded in any event, I will.  If I have to break through the nonsense that does not comprehend  that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness would necessarily anthropomorphize God if logic were created, rather than endowed, I will.  I'm not going to tolerate the intolerable argumentation of attacking the man, the herd-mentality ploys of silencing the man or the smart aleck ploys of discrediting the man, all of which evade the argument of the man and evince the intolerance of closed-minded, fanatical dogmatism.  All of these tactics have been launched against the absolute standard of objectivity by persons who have claimed that no such thing  exists.

*That's weird!*

Are they or are they not making an absolute claim when they assert that?

*Answer:*  Yes, they are!  And in so doing they necessarily  concede that the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity, universally hold, at least insofar as human cognition goes.

There are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes?!

Whaaaaaa?

If there are no absolutes, then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating, positively proves the opposite to be true, logically!

Hence, whether or not the principle of identity holds, objectively speaking universally or transcendentally beyond the confines of our minds, those who assert that it does not sure as hell can't prove that, rationally or empirically.  Yet we have charlatans on this thread implying that they have proven that very thing when as I have just shown that is not possible.

I have simply persevered and pushed back, hard, when necessary. I'm not going to allow the irrationalists to sell their garbage as if it were the sensible position, as if it were backed by something, rather than nothing at all but the  _*maybes* _or _*what ifs *_of human imagination. The _*what is*_ of human cognition has the hands down better argument and plenty of evidence to back it.

When I see the likes of* Amrchaos* imply that that they have proven that the laws of human thought are not absolute, not with an argument, for obviously no such argument can be made except as an indemonstrable hypothesis, but with derision or mockery, I will show how they in fact mock themselves.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
Click to expand...


I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
Click to expand...


Sorry Emily

I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.

I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. 
That is good to resolve issues on all levels and all fronts.

For the UNDERSTANDING of how God's logic works
and how Forgiveness transcends man's logic,
this is best shared and understood by example.

MD we can argue day and night that forgiveness heals
and helps resolve conflicts.

But until people personally experience it and practice it,
it doesn't have the same meaning as on the page.

We need to do more than just use the words and logic on the page.

To fully absorb and embrace the meaning
means to experience this process in our relations and in our lives.

so applying it to the very relations and conflicts we have here,
that demonstrates the power of forgiveness on healing and resolving conflicts.

the compelling influence of that truth on that higher level
trumps these other loops and pitfalls people are falling into.

it is like pushing on the gas to straighten out the wheels.
You can argue all the angles and mathematical logistics you want, and be 100% correct,
or you can just physically straighten out the wheels and demonstrate directly by action.

A lot of the people here respond to more direct demonstration.
When can we get to that part?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Boss
> 
> Instead of "accepting" or "compromising" your beliefs
> 
> How about allowing that someone else's statement is _*Hypothetically*_ true for the sake of argument.
> 
> In this way, we can see where those individuals are going without having to agree to compromising your beliefs.
> 
> At the end, We can return to the the Hypothetical points and argue why it should or should not be accepted.
> 
> I am now interested in just how their argument is supposed to be presented.  I think it may be worth a couple of laughs.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
Click to expand...

All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.

And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.


----------



## G.T.

G.T. said:


> Logic being descriptive doesnt make human minds come first before nature.
> 
> It makes the exact opposite true.
> 
> Of course, you'd have to be somewhat intelligent to understand that.
> 
> Let's explain?
> 
> Logic is a human made construct to describe reality.
> 
> Laws of logic are concepts which describe *actual things*. The properties of these actual things and how they behave exist, the concepts which are used to describe them are merely concepts.
> 
> an apple is incapable of being a banana at the same time and in the same way
> 
> the properties of the apple and how they behave make this true, the concept of logic doesnt make this true, it simply describes it.
> 
> It's not that hard.
> 
> Well, maybe it is.


Presuppers in 3d.

Dip, duck and dodge.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear amrchaos:
1. RE: Post by M.D. where there is agreement on science applied to spiritual healing:
*It's my fault that I missed them, not yours. I do have the alert thingy on. I just forgot to use it.

Ultimately, my real concern in all this is that you have a solid scientific foundation for spiritual healing, which I believe in. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In order to have such a foundation you must uphold the correct, formal terms and conventions of logic and science. Then and only then do you have a bullet proof, scientific foundation from which to assert a legitimate and compelling case for spiritual healing in terms of inductive probability based on comparative empirical data. But when you start dragging religious biases into the matter, like the notion that the ultimate cause of spiritual healing could not or is not an operation of divine healing, well, there goes your scientific foundation. Leave religion out of it. Stick with the comparative empirical data. Whatever religious convictions, if any, others bring to its purely scientific, evidentiary probability as they apply the recommended principles is fine, just don't arbitrarily precluded this or that potentiality in the name of science. Otherwise, people are perfectly justified to dismiss spiritual healing as religious mumbo jumbo.*

here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing

2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science and spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?

3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation

I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
man's logic and justice based on retribution.

Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?

Thanks!

Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.



amrchaos said:


> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.



OK is that better I removed the reference links to ignored msgs
and just cited the paragraph that shows where MD and I agree on science applied to spiritual healing.
I just agreed with his msg, and let him word it as is. ^

Can we focus on those 3 points ^

Do you see these as offering productive POTENTIAL
even if you don't know, do these seem like a better focus to you to stick to areas of
common interest and agreement, such as actually applying science to demonstrate something of significance, and to focus on a REAL example of what is MEANT by the difference between "God's logic/laws of justice" and "man's logic/justice" by examining the impact and issue of FORGIVENESS.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs chasing their tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin's observations from last night are correct.  He is not a lap dog.  In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it  universally holds among the various, historically prominent  religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences  between them in subsequent detail.  There remains this one universal:  logic was _not_ created by God, but bestowed by God.
> 
> Why does this hold?
> 
> Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.
> 
> They  never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths.  The few, larger cultish followings endure longer.  Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity  anyway, just in a less obvious fashion.    Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.
> 
> The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does  in fact exist.
> 
> Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters.   These things are not hidden from anyone.  The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief  thereof are manifest to all.  Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought.  There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things.  It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. and Justin:
> Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
> of this difference in logic?
> 
> Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
> challenges human logic.
> 
> If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
> there is no need to put anyone down.
> 
> Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
> Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
> is that you know you are falling short of
> what Christianity calls us to do to
> follow God's laws and not man's logic
> which tells us to backbite in retribution.
> 
> If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
> to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
> the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!
> 
> if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
> when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
> sense to apply that to our own discourse here.
> 
> I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
> because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
> and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
> and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
> to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
> we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
> that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.
> 
> Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
> and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
> backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.
> 
> Justin can you help?
> Inevitable?
> 
> We need to stay in line and on track
> and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.
Click to expand...


There's always forgiveness.  Most of the things I say are just the only thing left to do but laugh kind of things.  I run a plumbing business from my home office.   Right now I've got a project going that doesn't require me to be on site but that all changes next week.  I won't even be on the forum after that for a long time but maybe just a little bit so lots of people will be glad of that.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, anybody can believe whatever they please. I don't have a problem with that. I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and be called an irrational idiot by irrational idiots though... that's not going unchallenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.
> 
> And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.
Click to expand...


roflol

Like I said
"Ignore on" gives this thread a *sane* feel.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs chasing their tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A dog clueless of what the OP is about and clueless about the point being made about the silliness of intellectual and moral relativism with satire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here Justin! Come here. There's a good boy. Now sit. Here's a Milk Bone for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justin's observations from last night are correct.  He is not a lap dog.  In fact, it is he who caused me to realize that the best way to show that the principle of identity universally holds is to show that it  universally holds among the various, historically prominent  religious systems of thought in the world, despite the many yawning differences  between them in subsequent detail.  There remains this one universal:  logic was _not_ created by God, but bestowed by God.
> 
> Why does this hold?
> 
> Consider the religious systems of thought that hold the opposite to be true, as there have been some in history.
> 
> They  never get anywhere, really, never garner anything but relatively small, principled or regional followings, typically cultish in nature, headed by megalomaniacs who mind-trip folks into believing that the commonsensical principle of identity that we all either consciously or instinctively understand to hold is an illusion, headed by persons who direct their followers attention away from this universal and direct their devotion on them, rather than on the greater universal truths.  The few, larger cultish followings endure longer.  Their leaders understand that religious systems of thought that deny the reality of this universal don't gain any real traction, so they don't refute the principle of identity; instead, they assert it and attach themselves to it in some direct sense, as being either the essence of it or the only prophet of it with special, esoteric knowledge that invariably violates the principle of identity  anyway, just in a less obvious fashion.    Most such cultish religions are extinct . . . though there's always a new one popping up for it's fifteen minutes of fame.
> 
> The only rational conclusion is that divinity theologized us, conferred its logic on the creation, that is to say, if the logic of human cognition is correct and God does  in fact exist.
> 
> Justin is an absolutist who holds to the only objective standard/perspective for logic regardless of what any given person might decide for themselves to be ultimately true about these matters.   These things are not hidden from anyone.  The objective facts of human cognition are manifest to all; the rational alternatives/options for belief  thereof are manifest to all.  Judeo-Christianity is an absolute system of thought.  There are dozens of Christians on this forum who have and/or would agree with these things.  It is only surprising to life-long idealists or relativists or materialists that the views of absolutists would mostly line up with one another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D. and Justin:
> Can I please ask for a live demonstration/explanation
> of this difference in logic?
> 
> Please see previous msg on how Forgiveness
> challenges human logic.
> 
> If you can show how this demonstrates your points,
> there is no need to put anyone down.
> 
> Please do not skirt this Forgiveness issue.
> Or it will look obvious that the reason you do
> is that you know you are falling short of
> what Christianity calls us to do to
> follow God's laws and not man's logic
> which tells us to backbite in retribution.
> 
> If you stoop to that level, but then try to preach
> to Boss how Christians can know and call upon
> the logic of God, then this seems conflicting!
> 
> if we are going to demonstrate the difference it makes
> when we let God's logic guide us, then it makes
> sense to apply that to our own discourse here.
> 
> I hope you and Justin can see what I mean,
> because that can end the petty pickering that is man's ways
> and start invoking the higher truth that is God's which is humbling
> and does not insult provoke or attack anyone. I'd much prefer
> to invoke God's truth and logic, especially if that is what
> we are trying to demonstrate here as fellow believers
> that our will can be made one with God's through Christ or perfect conscience.
> 
> Can we please get and stay on the same page with this
> and quit reverting to man's logic which is to trample and
> backbite against those who offend oppose or insult what we are trying to do.
> 
> Justin can you help?
> Inevitable?
> 
> We need to stay in line and on track
> and not fall into the petty ditches on the side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's always forgiveness.  Most of the things I say are just the only thing left to do but laugh kind of things.  I run a plumbing business from my home office.   Right now I've got a project going that doesn't require me to be on site but that all changes next week.  I won't even be on the forum after that for a long time but maybe just a little bit so lots of people will be glad of that.
Click to expand...


Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.

The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
is also going to be influenced.

The more we forgive the negatives
the more we receive the positives.
The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.

We'll eventually get there, with the commitment and convictions this group has as a whole.
Maybe we will start acting like a team and not fighting against other but
fighting for the same goals of truth and correction where inconsistencies are rooted out,
or the systems are separated so they don't conflict with each other unnecessarily.

Right now,people think the best way to remove the conflict is to kick the other person off the field or team.
The idea of actually resolve the conflicts on both sides takes mutual effort,
so we'll see who is willing to work with whom on which points.

Thanks for taking the time to share and clarify some points of either objections or corrections.
Every little bit helps.

Best wishes with your other projects and come back when God's timing
weaves our paths in the same direction again. the script works out,
not all the players are in the same scene at the same time. 
We have to focus one on one, so sometimes we need to be elsewhere.
Life works itself out that way.

Thanks, Justin and may all good things continue to grow and multiply
in abundance around you, in all your relations, and circles of influence.


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.
> 
> And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> roflol
> 
> Like I said
> "Ignore on" gives this thread a *sane* feel.
Click to expand...


Well, amrchaos and G.T., just don't "miss out" on the first post I AGREED with M.D. on
about science and spiritual healing!

Talk about sanity. That spiritual healing HAS cured
mental and criminal illness, from schizophrenia to multiple personalities
to sexual addictions and abuses.

Ignoring the insanity does not solve it.

I'm looking to resolve the cause of conflicts at the root
like "debugging" the system so everything works sanely again.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Only a fool* would fail to take my arguments seriously, and *only a fool like yourself* who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.
> . . .
> 
> Moreover, *only a damn fool* would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.



Hi M.D. Rawlings

I hope these are old msgs. I like the tone of your post about the focus on the objective.
I'd rather stick to content, points and principles
and steer away from the personal condescending remarks to denigrate others back and forth.

If we can USE these denigrating msgs to make a point about
A. God's logic and forgiveness/rising above retribution on A SPIRITUAL level
B. man's logic and retribution, tit for tat, and backlash to fight for pecking order on a MATERIAL level 

I don't mind using them for that, if we can stay productive.

So MD for this message about calling other people fools
A. God's logic would remind us that whatever makes others look like fools
also applies to us and makes us look foolish. 
So if you can accept that, that it goes both ways, fine.
Otherwise, it makes little sense to point out the foolishness on one side
and then reject any acknowledgement that you and I look foolish to others from their view.

From God's view we all have biases that make us fall short and look like we are missing the obvious

M.D. it seems to me you stoop to man's logic of bashing each other, instead of rising above.

B. As for logic
Does it make any sense, M.D., do you really expect anyone to listen and take you 
seriously if you are calling them a fool and bashing their viewpoint?
If this doesn't work on you, to get you to listen or respect others,
why would you expect this to work on someone else?

Can you see how this demonstrates man's logic
as failed compared with God's logic to rise above and speak the
truth with love not animosity and condemnation/rejection?
We KNOW this doesn't solve the problem
but we do it anyway because it "makes us feel good."

that is MATERIAL, man's selfish ways, 
that is apart from God's ways of unconditional love for the greater good.

C. as for your arguments vs. Boss's

I can see how both of you get what you are saying
and totally don't get what the other person is saying.

I don't think that makes me a fool, I think it is wiser
to speak to people using their own systems and not imposing a foreign one.

So I don't reject you because I am wise and open enough to see
there is some truth you are trying to express and share.

And same with Boss, and Justin and others here.

Don't think that is foolish at all to see the wisdom
and truth in what each person offers from a different perspective.

Sure, we can point out and correct the flaws
but don't you agree this is easier done by working
civilly as peers on a team, instead of fighting as adversaries to suppress or dismiss someone else?

D. Overall I believe the more we can forgive our faults or conflicts,
the better we'll be able to speak and see clearly to resolve them.

This bashing business of looking or talking down to other people
as "fools" seem foolish to me as it harms more than it helps the process.

I much prefer the civil discourse that stays intelligent and above board.

Thanks, M.D. and I hope we are getting past the mud rucking stage
and can pave some smoother roads in the future to build bridges and
stable foundations for greater developments from here on....


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.



You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole. 

*You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...*

Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude. 

As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've *LOST* me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your _7-Things_ argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that! 

You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.


----------



## emilynghiem

Tom Sweetnam said:


> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.



too busy yapping
same reason you don't get there is actual
some good stuff going on here beyond all the barking and yapping

silly pups!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.
> 
> *You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...*
> 
> Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.
> 
> As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've *LOST* me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your _7-Things_ argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!
> 
> You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.
Click to expand...


Give it time, Boss.
The blowhardedness will blow over.

People are releasing steam
probably because this is the first time we have enough people
willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.

People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.

Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
and will stick to the points that work.

Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.

Thanks, Boss
as you and I work to forgive and let go,
M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not concern myself with their insults very much if I were you.
> 
> The character of the person making the accusation is what gives the accusation any force.  Their character is so impugned that any claim they make is infantile at best.  It takes great effort to listen to them spew a claim without laughter.  Even more so to try and hold their claim in some kind of regard. Effort that has drained out of everyone over the last few days.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is to look at their claims and charges as a bad comic routine.  Laugh if you find something funny, but don't make too much effort to respond to them.  No one is taking MD or Justin seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.
> 
> And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> roflol
> 
> Like I said
> "Ignore on" gives this thread a *sane* feel.
Click to expand...



*Amrchaos:  "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?

If you can have fun with this, great.

But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."*​

See what I'm talking about, Emily?  As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.

*Amrchaos* came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic!     That's an absolute claim.  He repeats it again.  But if that's true, how can there be any "productive . . . more meaningful" approach?

He doesn't want the real communication of mutual tolerance and understanding at all.  He wants to be right, to dominate, to dictate.

If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication.  That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.

Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL,  bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

That _is_ the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression.  There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.

He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong.  He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult, all the while presupposing some kind of universally recognizable standard of logic.  Right?  Otherwise, what is his justification to say that I'm wrong or stupid as I so obviously fail to grasp something self-evidently absolute.

Moron.


As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make?  His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.

Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true.  He won't let the fallacy go.  He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion.  He's vested up to his neck in it.  Pride, foolish pride.  So*:*

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.
> 
> And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> roflol
> 
> Like I said
> "Ignore on" gives this thread a *sane* feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> 
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."*​
> 
> See what I'm talking about, Emily?  As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.
> 
> *Amrchaos* came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic!     That's an absolute claim.  He repeats it again.  But if that's true, how can there be any "more productive . . . more meaningful" approach?
> 
> If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication.  That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.
> 
> Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL,  bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That _is_ the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression.  There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.
> 
> He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong.  He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult.  As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make?  His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.
> 
> Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true.  He won't let the fallacy go.  He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion.  He's vested up to his neck in it.  Pride, foolish pride.  So*:*
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares, donkey


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my last post from yesterday....#4423
> 
> How far did we progress?
> 
> See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear amrchaos:
> 1. Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 444 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> here is where M.D. and I seem to agree with the approach of using science to study/research/demonstrate/verify spiritual healing
> 
> 2. There is another post where M.D. mocks Hollie about science not having anything to do with the logic which M.D. pointed out from the start, so i said why  not focus on science nd spiritual healing for people like Hollie who relate to that more than the logic approach to TAG that appears to them to go in circles with self-defining terms. why is this bad if we all agree?
> 
> 3. For the issue of logic, and if God created logic or logic exists independent of God's creation
> 
> I posted an example of how FORGIVENESS
> works on the level of God's logic but sometimes runs counter-intutive to
> man's logic and justice based on retribution.
> 
> Can you take a look at the posts that refer to points 1 2 or 3
> and see if that is a better focus to develop and steer towards?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Maybe we need you and Inevitable to help steer the sheep and goats
> so they stay in their respective pens, the ones who totally dig the TAG thing,
> and the ones who want to see the science demonstrate spiritual healing as natural and effective
> and consistent with science and medicine and still be the same process Christians are talking about spiritually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Emily
> 
> I just realized I can't read that post without turning ignore off.
> 
> I like to keep it on.  "Ignore on" gives this thread a somewhat sane feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you've missed is m.d. copy pasting his same refuted arguments, ignoring relevant counterpoints, and slinging mud...still at you, even. On a daily basis he uses your name to disparage you.
> 
> And Justin in the background beating off to md's posts like a mindless lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> roflol
> 
> Like I said
> "Ignore on" gives this thread a *sane* feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos:  "See what I mean in terms of "unproductive argument"?
> 
> If you can have fun with this, great.
> 
> But I think it is about time that MD withdraw his claims and we entertain something  more meaningful.  That is the intelligent and mature thing to do now."*​
> 
> See what I'm talking about, Emily?  As if the recalcitrant irrationalist's refusal to concede his error were my fault.
> 
> *Amrchaos* came on this thread asserting that there was no absolute standard of objectivity for human apprehension, no universal standard of logic!     That's an absolute claim.  He repeats it again.  But if that's true, how can there be any "more productive . . . more meaningful" approach?
> 
> If there's no universal standard of thought, there's no universal standard of linguistic or mathematical communication.  That obviously cannot be true or we wouldn't be able to communicate at all.
> 
> Obviously, he necessarily argues that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore, if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, inherently contradictory, self-negating; it positively proves the opposite is true in human logic due to the UNIVERSAL,  bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.
> 
> That _is_ the universal standard of productive and meaningful communication among humans; i.e., truth is absolute in human thought and expression.  There is no other standard by which we may objectively understand one another.
> 
> He's not willing to go there out of sheer, piggish pride after so emphatically and then increasingly mockingly telling me that I was wrong.  He started out with real arguments, bad arguments, but real arguments without derision of insult.  As the logic closed in on him and overthrew his objections one at a time . . . when he had no more objections left, what choice did he make?  His posts stopped featuring arguments, but have been filled with nothing but pure mockery instead.
> 
> Here we are, standing on the very moment of productive communication and the means to go forward, but the means refute everything he's always held to be true.  He won't let the fallacy go.  He won't concede his lifetime of self-delusion.  He's vested up to his neck in it.  Pride, foolish pride.  So*:*
> 
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
> So early in the morning.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. Rawlings
That's why I try to find the points we DO acknowledge we agree on.
People are more likely to verbalize where we AGREE rather than try to explain where we had to backtrack.
You don't like doing this either. 
It's easier just to drop X, and stick to Y or Z where we know we agree on target.

Can we make the same points or corrections by moving forward?

It's like instead of arguing over the flat or sharp missed notes that were out of tune,
correcting them by hitting the right notes and agreeing that's where we need to focus.

So I asked amrchaos to look at the Forgiveness issue
as a potential "real application" example of demonstrating the
difference between man's logic and God's higher logic which we can actually tap into and use.

And also look at the msg of yours I agreed with on
science and spiritual healing.
I think that would connect with Hollie, G.T. amrchaos and Sealybobo
who want to see real world application and science, not just stating the obvious.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Nobody cares, donkey



I care! 
And if no one else cares, where is all the fuss coming from?

Seems to me everyone cares about something here,
enough to object, reject or project in response to someone else.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody cares, donkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I care!
> And if no one else cares, where is all the fuss coming from?
> 
> Seems to me everyone cares about something here,
> enough to object, reject or project in response to someone else.
Click to expand...

Good luck with it


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Md has the following:
> 
> Obsessive-compulsive disorder OCD Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess I get more OCD than M.D. does.
> if you said this about him, you'd have to say the same of me.
> 
> To me little conflicts are  like peas underneath the 20 mattresses
> where the little princess tosses and turns. My conscience is like that.
> 
> I believe if we resolve the little conflicts, the big ones will follow in turn.
> but if we keep letting the little problems stack up, they escalate and explode beyond repair.
> 
> I think MD. loses his poise and grace, and will start going off on people emotionally when I won't.
> but after that emotional steam blows off,
> M.D. is better than I am at going back and picking apart the atoms and molecules
> to get to the protons, neutrons and electrons. i can sense we need to go deeper,
> but M.D. has the ability to put this in words where exactly the failure is.
> I can just sense yes/agreement/consistent, and no/inconsistent.
> 
> So I am as sensitive as MD in wanting to get to the nuts and bolts of the machine.
> you could say we are both super committed to the cause!
> and if this comes out like OCD, well of course, because we
> really are trying to pick apart what's wrong with the engine
> and get all the parts working perfectly as they should.
> 
> Any good mechanic can hear when a car is running in tune or something is off.
> 
> And everyone here is saying yuck something is off.
> So let's use all our gifts for troubleshooting and diagnosing
> to isolate all those sticking points and fix each one. nothing wrong with that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repeat certain posts to set up points to come or to refute repetitious objections that have already been falsifed, which GT is especially fond of OCDing as if he had not been already rounding refuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear M.D.
> That is good to resolve issues on all levels and all fronts.
> 
> For the UNDERSTANDING of how God's logic works
> and how Forgiveness transcends man's logic,
> this is best shared and understood by example.
> 
> MD we can argue day and night that forgiveness heals
> and helps resolve conflicts.
> 
> But until people personally experience it and practice it,
> it doesn't have the same meaning as on the page.
> 
> We need to do more than just use the words and logic on the page.
> 
> To fully absorb and embrace the meaning
> means to experience this process in our relations and in our lives.
> 
> so applying it to the very relations and conflicts we have here,
> that demonstrates the power of forgiveness on healing and resolving conflicts.
> 
> the compelling influence of that truth on that higher level
> trumps these other loops and pitfalls people are falling into.
> 
> it is like pushing on the gas to straighten out the wheels.
> You can argue all the angles and mathematical logistics you want, and be 100% correct,
> or you can just physically straighten out the wheels and demonstrate directly by action.
> 
> A lot of the people here respond to more direct demonstration.
> When can we get to that part?
Click to expand...


It is doubtful than any progress will be made on that because there is only one basis for real communication, which is objectivity.  Boss is obviously wrong, his logic is obviously false.  He's not gong to admit it.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
> and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.
> 
> The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
> is also going to be influenced.
> 
> The more we forgive the negatives
> the more we receive the positives.
> The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
> seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.



Let me say this, Emily... I applaud your efforts here. You are honestly trying your best to resolve conflict and bring everyone together in universal understanding. I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever accomplishing that, but you're not giving up, and I like that. 

I'm similar to you in some ways. I am not your typical theist "God-believer." I can pretty much accept anyone's perception of a spiritual God because I understand that is human nature. That being said, I don't think MD and Justin are making an argument for a spiritual God. They have now taken God out of spiritual context and attempt to project their own personal template of humanism onto God. Then they want to arrogantly parade around being rude and obnoxious like WWE Wrestlers. 

These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> [
> Nobody cares, donkey



Shut up.  You are not everybody.  You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation:  GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true  refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well maybe we'll make some progress between M.D. and Boss not jumping on each other personally
> and sticking more to the points without cracks on the side about people that are distracting and insulting.
> 
> The process is bigger than this forum, so whatever each of us is working on outside
> is also going to be influenced.
> 
> The more we forgive the negatives
> the more we receive the positives.
> The process corrects itself, even by trial and error,
> seeking peace and satisfaction and wanting to avoid pain and suffering of repeat mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me say this, Emily... I applaud your efforts here. You are honestly trying your best to resolve conflict and bring everyone together in universal understanding. I don't think you stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever accomplishing that, but you're not giving up, and I like that.
> 
> I'm similar to you in some ways. I am not your typical theist "God-believer." I can pretty much accept anyone's perception of a spiritual God because I understand that is human nature. That being said, I don't think MD and Justin are making an argument for a spiritual God. They have now taken God out of spiritual context and attempt to project their own personal template of humanism onto God. Then they want to arrogantly parade around being rude and obnoxious like WWE Wrestlers.
> 
> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.
Click to expand...


You are so obviously wrong.  You're just a sociopath.


----------



## Justin Davis

Tom Sweetnam said:


> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.



Sociopath


----------



## amrchaos

Ok emily--

About 1

*Some problems to address*

When you talk about "spirit" to someone that may not believe in supernatural things is generally a no go. 

The best way I deal with the word "spirit" is to directly equate it to the mind, or some aspect of the mind such as personality or character depending on context.

Note that this is generally not what most theist mean.  There is something else theist may refer to when they talk about "spirit" and "spiritual matters".  However I first got this notion from a theist(forgot his name--I should look it up for reference) that claimed the spirit contains the mind.  

Also note that when we begin to talk of the _after life_, what happens to the spirit/mind diverges between theist and non-theist, between non-theist and atheist,  between individual non-theist, and between individual atheists.  As long as you wish to stay away from the after life topic, there should not be much problem with the use of "spirit/spiritual" as long as the context used allows one to interchange with the term "mind/psychology" in either way.

I think taking this viewpoint will this topic to progress--However, the constant interchanging between terms can produce a very quirky dialogue.

You already know where the skeptics with any interest about this topic are going for their understanding: * Psychology* is the science.  and, s strange as it my sound, there is research on how a healthy attitude can help people heal from different types of affliction.

The problem is: Is the research any good.

*About 2)*
I find MD's presentation of "logic" questionable. 

I doubt that any change of approach will redeem MD's TAG.  

*About 3)*

I responded to this: given the amount of information I do have, all I can say is "I don't know"


PS
That reference about "sheeps and goats"--I admit, is not something I wish to do nor will I.  

If we are going to use a biblical term to describe what is going on(independent of what I do or have done)--then it is really a stoning.  

The offenders are identified. The circle already formed.  The rocks have been tossed.  

From this, I am realizing that stoning was a really messy ordeal.  

WWJD?  He would try to stop the stoning.

If you notice, I am not exactly doing what Jesus would do, now am I?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nobody cares, donkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up.  You are not everybody.  You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation:  GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true  refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.
Click to expand...

Nice rant, fanboy.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.
> 
> *You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...*
> 
> Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.
> 
> As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've *LOST* me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your _7-Things_ argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!
> 
> You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it time, Boss.
> The blowhardedness will blow over.
> 
> People are releasing steam
> probably because this is the first time we have enough people
> willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.
> 
> People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.
> 
> Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
> and will stick to the points that work.
> 
> Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
> That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
> and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
> maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.
> 
> Thanks, Boss
> as you and I work to forgive and let go,
> M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
> let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
> And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!
Click to expand...


Nah.  Boss is the blowhard.  His idea is so obviously stupid a child could see through it.  His pride is sociopathic.  What kind of religions but cults spew his crap?   Boss has probably got himself a harem of hoes and bros under his thumb right now.  The Cult leader of Created Logic, Made Up Logic, Phony Logic, Goofy Logic, No Logic, My Logic So There.   The religion of Bossism or the religion of Human Logicism.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nobody cares, donkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up.  You are not everybody.  You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation:  GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true  refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, fanboy.
Click to expand...


Sociopath


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nobody cares, donkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up.  You are not everybody.  You are just one stupid punk among a handful of stupid punks, a reprobate mind with no arguments left. Translation:  GT doesn't care about what's logically true because what's logically true  refutes his worldview. Intellectual sociopath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice rant, fanboy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sociopath
Click to expand...

Neener neener?

Yea


----------



## Boss

Yes Justin... Everyone is a sociopath except for you and Rawlings! 






*WAFFLES???*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.
> 
> *You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...*
> 
> Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.
> 
> As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've *LOST* me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your _7-Things_ argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!
> 
> You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it time, Boss.
> The blowhardedness will blow over.
> 
> People are releasing steam
> probably because this is the first time we have enough people
> willing to be this transparent and not give up, cut and run.
> 
> People here are still trying, so we will outlast the blasting phase.
> 
> Justin and MD will run out of the bad steam
> and will stick to the points that work.
> 
> Everyone's bringing up baggage from issues with theists and atheists from the past.
> That isn't going to last. there is only so much old garbage to dump
> and when we're done cleaning out all our closets and attics,
> maybe we'll get to the treasures stored that actually have timeless value.
> 
> Thanks, Boss
> as you and I work to forgive and let go,
> M.D. and Justin will also. Just let the steam blow over,
> let the storm blow through, this too shall pass.
> And we will get to better and brighter days ahead!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.  Boss is the blowhard.  His idea is so obviously stupid a child could see through it.  His pride is sociopathic.  What kind of religions but cults spew his crap?   Boss has probably got himself a harem of hoes and bros under his thumb right now.  The Cult leader of Created Logic, Made Up Logic, Phony Logic, Goofy Logic, No Logic, My Logic So There.   The religion of Bossism or the religion of Human Logicism.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, Justin, this seems to be the case, not necessarily the more satirical comments.  But his sociopathic pride and his cultish obsession with a notion that is so obviously indefensible is just sick, disgusting.  He leaves me no choice but to repost the refutations to his insanity every time he fails to acknowledge, at the very least, that he could be wrong . . . especially given the fact that he is arguing against the overwhelming position of the philosophical and theological thought in history on this issue, calling that position crazy, something that couldn't be right, not even a little bit.  LOL!  The man's an utter lunatic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.



Boss's pride is sociopathic.

*Relativism is Pride and Arrogance, Foolish Pride and Arrogance!*


The relativist is the boastfully arrogant pseudo-intellectual, the self-anointed sage of enlightenment looking down his nose on us simple folk who simply believe what common sense dictates. The relativist is the mystical, magic man who pretends to know things that according to his very own premise cannot possibly be known—secrete, esoteric things hidden away from us rubes*: * logically contradictory things, inherently self-negating things, things that positively prove the opposite of everything he holds to be true, things that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable, things that are patently false and insane according to the logic of human cognition.

God _is_ Love. Did God create love?

God _is_ Truth. Did God create truth?

God _is_ Omniscience. Did God create omniscience?

God _is_ Omnipotence. Did God create omnipotence?

God _is_ Omnipresence. Did God create omnipresence?

God _is_ Rationality and Order. Did God create rationality and order in the cosmos or bestow His rationality and order on the cosmos when He created it?

Where is the contradiction in that?

Answer: there is no contradiction!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

God is _not_ inherently bound by His own nature and is _not_ bound to create things in accordance with His own nature?

That's your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

What's wrong with that argument?

Answer: everything!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is a perfect God bound by the imperatives of love and truth and rationality and order?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God rational or is He irrational? He is rational!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is God bound by His nature of rationality and order? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, He is!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

*A: A = A.*

*God = Not-God?! *
Is that your argument?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is that argument sensible?

Answer: No, it's not!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

*God **≠** Not-God.*

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

If our logic is wrong, then God is leading us to believe things about Him that are wrong, indeed, things that according to your logic don't even makes sense to us!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Is your logic right?

Answer: No, it's not! It's incoherent and insane.

Indeed, it contradicts itself at every turn: for example, according to you, we can only believe truth, not know truth.

Are you asserting that as an absolutely true statement? Yes or no?

Answer: Yes, you are!

Hence, does your claim necessarily negate itself and positively prove the opposite is true?

Answer: Yes, it does!

Is that the argument of human cognition refuting your nonsense?

Answer: Yes, it is!

Your logic is wrong, because the only thing that does make sense is the real logic of human cognition that just destroyed your nonsense, the logic that must be the eternally existing logic of God bestowed on us, _not_ created!

Enough of this nonsense that the terms _endow _or _bestow _or_ confer_ are synonymous to the term _create_!

*God did not create logic!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.



Boss's pride is sociopathic.


*The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy * 

*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic*
*1.* God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, God created logic.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth*
*1.* Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
1.* Humans can only think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:* human logic and human emotions.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.


*The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"*
*1.* God created everything.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, God created logic.

*Or:*

*1.* Humans can only believe truth.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.

*Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*

*1.* Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
*2.* _Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
[*4.* Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss: "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]



Yep! Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.



*The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
1.* Rawlings does not support his argument.
*2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
*3.* Rawlings is irrational.
[*4.* Rawlings: "Hogwash! See *Post #4191*."]

*Or:*

*1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic. The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
*2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
*3.* Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
[*4.* Rawlings: "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*. If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it. But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]


----------



## amrchaos

Hey Boss

You really don't know what is going on with some of these "angry atheist", do you?

Let me give you some insight

The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief Psych Central

....and 'God' is that friend they lost!  

Talk about 'my' atheism.  OK
Deconvert someone?--No No No!! Not me!!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.



Boss' pride is sociopathic.


*More on the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity*


Boss is under the impression that I don't grasp the essence of his belief, but that simply is not true. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity that permits one to back out of one's paradigm and understand him perfectly, from premise to conclusion, without fail. The fact of the matter is that his notion is rather ingenious and, as _properly _executed from its major premise, his conclusion can be made to rationally follow, that is, if we were to flesh out his syllogistic argument with the necessary minor premises, for they are necessarily plural in number in this case.

The problem with his notion, however, is that the major premise is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable. Worse, it's plagued by a by fatal flaw. Because it violates the universally indispensable principle of identity, it's self-evident that it is not true in the light of the laws of organic thought, in that of the conventions of any conceivable, alternate form of logic or in that of the imperatives of mathematics. The major premise is manifestly and arbitrarily presumptuous on the very face it, unjustifiably precludes the only rationally coherent alternative, and if one were to include _all_ of the minor premises that the major premise necessarily entails, the conclusion would fail.

In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*

*1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
*2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
*3.* God created human beings.
*4.* Human beings have logic.
*5.* Hence, God created logic.

That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.




Boss' pride is sociopathic.


*Boss is Refuted!*




Boss said:


> I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. *You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.*


I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true. I have not personally attacked you. I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.

You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations. You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.

Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.

Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!

Why?

Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity. Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.

You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.

According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created. Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.



*You were refuted here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/*




*The ramifications of Gödel's theorems and proof refute you: *
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/*
* 



The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/*
* 



The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/*
* 


*
You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that _The Seven Things_ (http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.

You are refuted again in this post.

You will be refuted again in my summary.

Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.

You and your butt buddies are refuted!

Your retarded blather is refuted!
* 
You are refuted!*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Hey Boss
> 
> You really don't know what is going on with some of these "angry atheist", do you?
> 
> Let me give you some insight
> 
> The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief Psych Central
> 
> ....and 'God' is that friend they lost!
> 
> Talk about 'my' atheism.  OK
> Deconvert someone?--No No No!! Not me!!



Boss' pride is sociopathic.  He's a already a pathologically angry theist, pissed at the world of the real theism historically and logically rejecting his cultish bull.  Boss is no theist.  He's a cultist.  His god is himself.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> Ok emily--
> 
> About 1
> 
> *Some problems to address*
> 
> When you talk about "spirit" to someone that may not believe in supernatural things is generally a no go.
> 
> The best way I deal with the word "spirit" is to directly equate it to the mind, or some aspect of the mind such as personality or character depending on context.
> 
> Note that this is generally not what most theist mean.  There is something else theist may refer to when they talk about "spirit" and "spiritual matters".  However I first got this notion from a theist(forgot his name--I should look it up for reference) that claimed the spirit contains the mind.
> 
> Also note that when we begin to talk of the _after life_, what happens to the spirit/mind diverges between theist and non-theist, between non-theist and atheist,  between individual non-theist, and between individual atheists.  As long as you wish to stay away from the after life topic, there should not be much problem with the use of "spirit/spiritual" as long as the context used allows one to interchange with the term "mind/psychology" in either way.
> 
> I think taking this viewpoint will this topic to progress--However, the constant interchanging between terms can produce a very quirky dialogue.
> 
> You already know where the skeptics with any interest about this topic are going for their understanding: * Psychology* is the science.  and, s strange as it my sound, there is research on how a healthy attitude can help people heal from different types of affliction.
> 
> The problem is: Is the research any good.
> 
> *About 2)*
> I find MD's presentation of "logic" questionable.
> 
> I doubt that any change of approach will redeem MD's TAG.
> 
> *About 3)*
> 
> I responded to this: given the amount of information I do have, all I can say is "I don't know"
> 
> 
> PS
> That reference about "sheeps and goats"--I admit, is not something I wish to do nor will I.
> 
> If we are going to use a biblical term to describe what is going on(independent of what I do or have done)--then it is really a stoning.
> 
> The offenders are identified. The circle already formed.  The rocks have been tossed.
> 
> From this, I am realizing that stoning was a really messy ordeal.
> 
> WWJD?  He would try to stop the stoning.
> 
> If you notice, I am not exactly doing what Jesus would do, now am I?




*Amrchoas* doesn't even know what the TAG is.


*Amrchaos Mocks Himself!
*
Only a fool would fail to take my arguments seriously, and only a fool like yourself who has in fact been utterly exposed for the nincompoop that you are regarding the facts of logic, physics, mathematics, indeed, the understanding of your very own philosophical paradigm.

*A solipsist mocking the Transcendental Argument?!
*
What a fool you are you! Those who do not grasp how insanely stupid that is are the fools, and who are these people who allegedly do not take my arguments seriously? Well, they would in fact be same atheist phonies like yourself who never do anything on this forum but mock and know very well that they have not and cannot directly refute anything I've argued on this thread.

They are in fact the hypocrites like you who know very well that I was civil to them until such time they began to write the kind of posts that you just wrote in the above that, once again, do not address the arguments at all, but merely mock or insult. In fact, we were getting along just fine, you and I, until your world of fallacies got smaller and smaller, until you had nothing left but the option to either acknowledge that you have been walking around all your life with ideas that do not add up logically . . . or resort to the ploy of attacking the man out of sheer, foolish pride.

Then and only then did I take a boot to you and kick your smart aleck ass to the curb. You're a snot-nosed punk. You haven't addressed a single argument of my directly, ever!

You have yet to explain this stupidity to anyone, the corner into which you necessarily painted yourself*:
*
*Amrchaos the Confused:* "The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, which are essentially rational or _a priori_ in nature, which I shall call inductively derived from empirical constructs, are not necessarily true."


*Rawlings:* "Well, putting aside the baby talk of "inductively derived empirical constructs" for the moment . . . why would that be so, Amrchoas the Solipsist?"


*Amrchaos the Solipsist Space Cadet: *"Because these rational,_ a priori_ axioms of human cognition *inside our minds, *which I shall call inductively derived empirical constructs anyway because I'm an idiot, may not be ultimately true outside . . . uh, well, um, I mean, that is to say, somewhere outside our minds. Hmm. Wait a minute! I mean they're true inside my solipsist mind but they're not true . . . uh, well, um, I mean. . . . Well, you know what I mean. They're not necessarily true somewhere else inside my mind . . . or is it outside my mind in the empirical world beyond . . . or is it outside my mind in the transcendental world beyond? Wait a minute! That doesn't make sense. What do I mean? I'm so confused. Am I out of my mind?"


*Rawlings:* "Yep. You're out of your mind and so is your subjectively inductive argument, a little Freudian solip action, you ninny."​
Moreover, only a damn fool would fail to recognize that Boss' argument is utterly fallacious.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted*

I'm sorry, but the your premise is not well-founded, and the emboldened portion of your post does not follow.

First of all, when scientists say that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level defy our normal perception of things at the Newtonian level of physics, they're speaking informally. They don't mean that the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level are in actuality irrational, incomprehensible or even inconsistent with the currently revised edition of Newtonian physics.

But to understand why all of the above is true we begin with the correct philosophical understanding of things*.
*
Assuming I understand you correctly, if we were to all go along with what you're suggesting, we'd be going backwards in our understanding of things, not forward, and we'd be doing so in defiance of what the laws of thought (comprehensively, the principle of identity) are telling us to be true. In other words, the laws of thought are not confounded by these phenomena at all. How could that be true? If what you're suggesting were true, in effect, that scientific methodology precedes or has primacy over logic, over agency, how could we possibly know what the reasonably practical hypothetical propositions would be or understand what experimentation is telling us about these things, let alone understand what they are in fact doing in terms of their characteristics?

Science does not have and never will have primacy over logic and, by extension, over the philosophy of science. That's simply _not_ possible. That's _not_ the order of things. It's axiomatic that we begin with what is known about things and what might be possible about things via the laws of thought, which inform us how to go about intuiting the right hypotheses in order to advance our knowledge about these things.

The question is do we or do we not know what these things are doing?

Answer: Yes! It's the laws of thought coupled with the universally applicable language of mathematics that allow us to know what they're doing and, to a lesser extent, how they're doing it.

So in science with the laws of thought and using the language of mathematics we can know what things are doing. In science, we will always know less about how they're doing it and never anything about why they are. To know _the why_ one would have to be willing to allow for and go to theology.

If you'll stay with me, I'll indisputably prove what should already be self-evident out to you in my next post.

(Of course, he didn't stay with me, but ran and never even attempted to refute this or what follows.)


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted 


Amrchaos:  "I guess the idea of appearing and disappearing, unable to remain motionless without outside influence and so on is considered a normal characteristic for any other object in the Universe?"
*
(Ah!  There's the first sign of *Amrchoas's* ill-considered mockery, in truth, his ignorance on display for all to see.)


What the normal characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics are *≠* the characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics are abnormal, irrational or incomprehensible.

That just doesn't follow.

What is a normal characteristic?

* Answer:* whatever the normal characteristic is for any given thing, for any given *A: A = A*, the law of identity, as distinguished from any other given thing, *NOT (A = NOT-A)*, the law of contradiction. Things are what they are.

Your notion would be an arbitrarily subjective assessment of things that *(1) *assumes the current lack of a unifying theory *=* actual incoherence and that *(2) *the apparent characteristics of phenomena at the Newtonian level of physics have primacy over the perfectly rational characteristics of phenomena at the subatomic level of quantum physics, when in fact, foundationally, the order of primacy is the converse.

The fact of the matter is that we now know enough about the connection between these two levels, as we get ever-closer to a unifying theory, that it's precisely because phenomena at the subatomic level behave as they do, we have stability and solidity at the Newtonian level of physics!

The various constituents of subatomic physics are what they are and do not contradict the various constituents of the Newtonian level of physics. *A: A = A*.

We are not assuming any model of incomprehensibility at all, and today we do not begin with our apparent perspective at the Newtonian level of physics. We begin at the foundational, subatomic level of physics and go from there. Why? Because we know better today*:* the physics at the subatomic level precede the former in the order of cause-and-effect origin and necessity.

Neither our lack of knowledge nor the points at which the various, explanatory theories breakdown *=* the breakdown of the foundationally immutable laws of organic thought. They hold. The calculi of quantum physics are perfectly rational and comprehensible, and we learn more and more each day as we close the gap in our understanding between the points of breakdown.

Actually, these points of "breakdown" from the perspective of our current store of knowledge are not surprising at all, as the various systems of physics for the cosmos, individually and collectively, are doing things that serve to hold the whole together. We know this to be true, for while we may not know the details that close the gaps between the various systems of physics within the larger system, we've done the math about what would happen if any one of the given systems of physics were removed from the whole. . . Bad news. Everything collapses. In other words, we know there's a perfectly rational, unifying physics for the whole.

As many have observed, the cosmos is a complex proof, just like the complex proofs in calculus, consisting of a multiple number of theorems/proofs, each arising from it's own premise, within the grand, all-inclusive theorem/proof resting on the foundational premise for the whole. We're working on the cosmological proof. That’s all.

As for virtual particles, appearing and disappearing, perhaps even popping in and out of existence as far as we can tell from our perspective of things on this side of the quantum fields, or subatomic particles occupying up to an infinite number of places simultaneously, what about these phenomena, precisely, causes you to think that they defy a creation model?

I don't see that at all. On the contrary, these things and the dynamics of the quantum vacuum as a whole have profound transcendental implications!  And the reason who've failed to see this is because you wrongfully and unscientifically hold that the Newtonian level of physics has primacy over the subatomic level of physics, as you wrongfully and unscientifically assume from ignorance that there is no unifying rational when in fact we know there is.

Your error is a man (*Amrchaos) *in the gap fallacy.

*Delta4Emabasy *knows what he's talking about too in *posts #1068* and *#1072.*


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> These guys are proving to be complete crackpots who have nothing to offer except insult. I put them squarely in the category of Hollie, people you can't reach because they are too arrogant and full of themselves to ever come around. I'm actually seeing more promise with agnostics like GT, armachaos and silly boob, who are at least trying to remain somewhat objective and reasoned. They may never accept the concept of Spiritual God, but you won't get your hand bitten off by trying to reach out to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss's pride is sociopathic.
> 
> 
> *The Syllogistic Arguments of Boss in the Gap Fallacy *
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Created Logic
> 1.* God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Human Truth
> 1.* Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for the Anthropomorphism of God
> 1.* Humans can only think about God on the terms of their understanding of consciousness*:* human logic and human emotions.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, humans necessarily anthropomorphize God.
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for "Nuh-huh, I Didn't Really Mean That"
> 1.* God created everything.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.* Humans can only believe truth.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, humans cannot know truth.
> 
> *Or in the arguments where he thinks he's arguing something different, something I supposedly don't understand, when in fact it is he who fails to chart the true course of his own logic:*
> 
> *1.* Humans think of God as having a consciousness that entails emotions and logic akin to their own because their consciousness is the only means by which they can think about consciousness.
> *2.* _Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, "I never said the claptrap that humans necessarily anthropomorphize the consciousness of God in their minds."
> [*4.* Rawlings, filling in the gap for Boss: "Yes, you effectively and necessary did!"]
> 
> 
> 
> Yep! Looks like we've got fallacious major premises, followed by no real minor premises at all connecting the major premises to the conclusions, except, of course, some mysterious thought processes going on in Boss's mind with Boss in the gap.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Boss in the Gap Argument for Rawlings Supposed Irrationalism
> 1.* Rawlings does not support his argument.
> *2.* _Boss ignoring the objective facts of human cognition, including the necessary line and implications of his own reasoning as if none of us noticed, as he stands in the gap_
> *3.* Rawlings is irrational.
> [*4.* Rawlings: "Hogwash! See *Post #4191*."]
> 
> *Or:*
> 
> *1.* Rawlings points out that God is omniscient, all-knowing. Hence, God is the very substance and the ground of the first principles of knowledge*:* the universal laws of thought! God did not create everything that exists. God did not create Himself or any necessary aspect of His Mind. That is axiomatic. The logic that humans have is the uncreated logic of God endowed on man! The terms _create_ and _endow_ are not synonymous.
> *2.* _Straw man Boss in the gap_
> *3.* Hence, because Rawlings argues that God created everything (?), his statement that God didn't create logic contradicts his statement that God didn't create everything (?).
> [*4.* Rawlings: "Boss is outside his mind and his nonsense has been utterly refuted here and in *Post #4191*. If Boss prefers his foolish, irrational pride over the objective facts of commonsensical logic, he is welcome to it. But his lies less than honest claims and confused thinking are tiresome, verging on an age older than dirt and exponentially more stupid."]
Click to expand...


christianity

mdr in the gap,

logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!


by divinity - 

the antithesis, neither created nor bestowed or controlled - by anything, universally free for whomever pleases.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More of Amrchaos' Relativistic Silliness Refuted
*

But remember at the subatomic level of quantum physics, the rules change because the premise changes, but the math has no problem following. We still have the same basic principles of subtraction and addition, for example. We just know that things jump and pop and move, appear and disappear, albeit, in a rational and semi-predictable way in terms of providing stability and solidity for the Newtonian level of our everyday perception of things. In other words, the same basic principles of math hold up; they just have to be applied in such way that they "jump and pop and move, appear and disappear" with the phenomena.

In fact, we have learned enough now that we can sometimes predict where electrons will pop up next or the places they will simultaneously occupy, from one moment to the next, depending on the conditions. But we still have a lot more to learn before we can do it every time, and we do know we can do it every time, eventually, with more knowledge.

We now know that the so-called uncertainty principle is actually an inherent characteristic of wave-like systems, a basic property of quantum phenomena, not an issue of observation as previously thought, though technology can cause problems. So we're working on better technologies that are less and less intrusive, that let us see what's happening without causing things to happen as a result of the effects of the technology used to observe.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Justin Davis said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath
Click to expand...

 How old are, nitwit? 15?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Universal Principle of Human Relations
*

Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence*:* Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.








Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.
*


*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> christianity
> 
> mdr in the gap,
> 
> logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!
> 
> 
> by divinity -
> 
> the antithesis, neither created nor bestowed or controlled - by anything, universally free for whomever pleases.



*The Rudeness of the Subjective Relativist is Ineducable*

I'm proceeding from the philosophically generic, highest conceivable standard of divine attribution that doesn't beg the question, while you (BreezeWood in the gap = pantheism/panentheism) would arbitrarily preclude it because you're an obnoxiously stupid, closed-minded, intellectual bigot, a religiously dogmatic fanatic who doesn't have enough sense to know that the foundation of absolute objectivity doesn't preclude the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism.

This has been explained to you several times, but you just blow that off being the intellectual thug that you are. Your statist mindset screams at me loud and clear. Your a political leftist, a collectivist, a progressive, aren't you?

("Gosh.  How does he know that?")

You don't even comprehend the fact that I'm objectively upholding the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism via the generic, philosophical proof of the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ as you contradict the central tenet of pantheism/panentheism*:* the immanent, universal principle of identity and the cosmos are one and the same thing.

Look how silly you are as you go all knee-jerk reactionary and foolishly argue against the potentiality of your very own religion.

I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise. When have you ever respectfully backed out of your paradigm and discussed the potentialities from the neutral perspective of the absolute laws of thought?

We're more than 4500 posts into this and you haven't once shown the slightest interest in trying to understand anything outside the perspective of your entrenched bias.

_You're_ the rude, ill-mannered pig. Enough of your mealy mouthed guff, boy. Your fifteen minutes of fame are over.

Are you even aware of this post*: The Universal Principle of Human Relations, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/**?*


----------



## Justin Davis

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are, nitwit? 15?
Click to expand...


You don't seem to bring much to the table.  The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence.  That's the issue.  You don't seem to have much interest.  Why are you here?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not been civil to anyone in this entire thread except for your butt buddy Justin. You and he are apparently members of the same cult. You haven't explained anything reasonably or proven anything I've said was illogical. You couldn't even get this false claim of civility out of your mouth without being an arrogant and rude asshole.
> 
> *You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity...*
> 
> Where did I say "rather than" anything? It's not there. I did not say that. What we see here is you lying about what I've said. Then being caustic and rude.
> 
> As for selling things around here, congrats to you and Justin! They say that it's near impossible to change people's minds here, but by God you two have done it! I started off accepting, believing and defending your argument. Complimented and thanked you for it, called it brilliant... now I've changed my mind completely! You are an extremist blowhard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So you've *LOST* me! And I don't see anyone else coming around to your way of thinking, unless you count your sidekick. In other words, you'd have been better off to have posted your _7-Things_ argument then shut your fucking pie hole. You're too arrogant and full of yourself to do that!
> 
> You want to attack people who are trying to agree with you. I've even seen you attack Emily, and she is doing nothing here but trying to reconcile and bring people together! You're not winning people over, you're driving people away! Just because you are a caustic arrogant asshole.
Click to expand...


You just got all butt hurt because we didn't go along with your crazy cult talk that nobody's ever heard and doesn't make any sense  like the brainwashed hoes and bros you got under your thumb, cult leader.  No human can believe or know truth but you, right?  

Do you even hear yourself, cult leader?  "Oh, you know, humans can only believe but can't know anything, and that's a fact because I know it's a fact.  I'm special."  Cult leader.Special knowledge.  

  Everybody worship Boss or he gets mad if you tell him he doesn't know the things that he says no one else knows but him, and that solipsist  armchaos drinks the koolaid too. 

All of the world's religions are wrong but Jonestown Boss is right.


I'm going to start calling you Jonestown Boss, okay all knowing one?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Justin Davis said:


> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are, nitwit? 15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to bring much to the table.  The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence.  That's the issue.  You don't seem to have much interest.  Why are you here?
Click to expand...


Ummm...to irritate irritating people like you? That's a pretty good reason.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?


wanting to is the only reason.

Stop asking questions and show me your evidence. 

If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.





> No one comes to the Father except through me.



your selective memory serves you poorly ...


gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
Click to expand...


The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."

The word "manifest" means "obvious."

You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?


----------



## Justin Davis

Tom Sweetnam said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam said:
> 
> 
> 
> And none of the self-important God debaters caught my malaprop. Justin was probably...you know...deep in deep think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociopath
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are, nitwit? 15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't seem to bring much to the table.  The OP is on the classical arguments for God existence.  That's the issue.  You don't seem to have much interest.  Why are you here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm...to irritate irritating people like you? That's a pretty good reason.
Click to expand...


Irritate me?  I'm the irritant according you.  I've never been on a forum like this before.  Most people I know don't go around saying they believe things for no reason or believe things that don't even jive with what they're saying is true.  I come on to this thread and there's people all over the place doing these things. 

"Oh, you know, this is true and you're wrong."    No I don't know why that's true.  Why do you say that's true?   Next thing you know  .  Why?  Why? Why?  .

What a bunch of you people.  It's .


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?

I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?

BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"

Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
Click to expand...


BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind.  Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind.  armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying. 


So why is that true?   That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true.   .     No that doesn't jive either.  .


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
Click to expand...

 Where is the proof?

Once again I believe because I want to.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
Click to expand...


The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.

M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.

The Resources I recommend for such research,
which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
are posted here:
freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy

Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site 
to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.

In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.

I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.

I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.

I am open to the entire process around TAG,
so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.

the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.

But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.

When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
connection between individuals and the collective human process.
You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.

But that is the same process we are all involved in,
and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.

Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
Click to expand...


It's a secrete.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> In other words, I can build a syllogism for him that works . . . if we ignore the problems, _pretend_ they don't exist*:*
> 
> *1.* Everything that exists in the cosmological order was created by God.
> *2.* Human beings exist in the cosmological order.
> *3.* God created human beings.
> *4.* Human beings have logic.
> *5.* Hence, God created logic.
> 
> That syllogism does not jump from an *A* to a non sequiturial *B*, as is the case in Boss' syllogism of Boss in the gap*: God created everything; hence, God created logic*. But what precisely is the fatal flaw of Boss' major premise, and what other facts of human consciousness did I leave out so that the conclusion wouldn't fail?



How about this:
1. Given God created all things in the universe
2. there was some reason or logic for God to create the universe
3. the reason or logic had to exist BEFORE God created the universe

Since #1 and #3 contradict each other then
A. either the logic or reason was already there, 
B. the whole universe was already preexistent also and not created
C. we don't know if it was A or B

I think Boss is saying
C
we don't know, we can only theorize what God's logic or reasons
are and what is the process of God's creation or order of the steps etc.

As for human logic:
A. Given God created all things, including humans, human nature and conscience
B. Human logic is part of the human conscience, and the laws of logic and
science are part of the laws of creation 
C. then one could argue that when God created humans and our relationship
to all things in the world, then the logic ON THAT LEVEL was created by God

Boss is also arguing that
all we HAVE is our human logic.

Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
so whatever logic God created for us on our level
is determining whatever we look at. it is always
limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.

So I see it could be all three ways
1. all things including God and logic could always be in existent
and we don't know the order or process these things became realized or aware to man
2. there was a specific starting point, and some logic could precede
creation, or some logic created after, people may not agree or know which way either
3. there may or may not be any God, no logic beyond man's made up logic projected
on everything else, it could all be a Matrix like construct.

Since we don't know or agree which way it is
I still propose that we stick to  points that
DON'T DEPEND on assuming OR rejecting any of these versions
of where God or logic does or does not come into the picture.

Let's just agree to use our present day reasoning and consent by educated free choice
(not coercion or bullying or attack), to decide step by step how to go about
forming a consensus and verifying points of agreement and eliminating areas of conflict.

We can still use our logic to sort through this.

we don' thve to agree where or when it come from what,
to use logic to agree
yes or no
true or false
agree or disagree
consistent or inconsistent

let's just use binary logic and line up our
yes points of agreement
no points of disagreement
and use our reasoning to resolve any conflicts
we can with these so we can focus on where we agree is a stable
focus and foundation to build upon.  Thank you everyone!

special thanks to Boss Justin M.D. G.T. amrchaos
Sealybobo and anyone else willing to cross over and work
with others we don't understand and don't agree with.

the more we reach out and try to resolve issues
the Rubik's cube will work itself out and we
can align all our sides and see how our points fit together!

Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a secrete.
Click to expand...


Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and the door shall be opened.

Inevitable is one of the rare people willing to ask direct
questions and listen and evaluate the answers as honestly as possible.

One of the strongest allies we can have to coordinate
input and participation from different people and perspectives
and still make sense of where these connect or disconnect.

Thanks for being here, Inevitable.
Let's keep asking until we get the answers that satisfy our questions and
resolve our issues. We keep asking, we keep receiving. That's how it works!


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
Click to expand...


Once again that's not the question and you know it since you talk about proof at the same time.  You're a phony verging on being a liar.  I'm not messing around with your questions because they're phony, you're answer is phony, you're phony.  I know what the proofs and the evidence are, and I know the difference between logic and science.  These things have been discussed, proven and demonstrated on this thread.  Read the thread or just save yourself time and read Rawlings' posts because he's one of only a small number of people who knows what he's talking about.  Start with this and you'll see yourself in it, *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*   That way you can be a phony theist and a phony Christian knowing what's really true.  Because phony is all you really want to be.  The evidence and the proofs for God's existence are obvious.  You said there's no proof or evidence. That's obviously not true, phony.  You just believe because you want to.  That's not true, phony. You don't believe simply because you want to, phony.  You have proof and evidence in your mind and in the universe because you wouldn't even have an idea of God to believe in the first place without these things.  You know what these things are.  What are these things?  Name them, phony.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
Click to expand...


He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
Click to expand...


No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.

Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
to look any further.

So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
follow their conscience to establish truth.

Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.

There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
a clear understanding that settles our conscience.

This is a good process. Why?
Because by answering these questions,
it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.

We can get the kinks out of the process
and set up smoother steps for others to follow
to come to similar conclusions at the end.

Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.

Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
are intellectually as honest as they can be
given they do not have the information and experience
I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.

The fact they are open at all, says a lot.

Please do not take this for granted
and think it is phony or a game.

The people I see who are biased against serious research to
settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
in response to how atheists have been bashed.
And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.

Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
science and medical studies that explaint he
process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
so that factor will help with reconciling all these
other issues in turn.

Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
while we seek corrections.

The ones who seek to exclude and divide
will find resolution later as the process moves forward.

The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and 
work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
once this is proven to work in building a consensus.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.



No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness. 

Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God. 

We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created. 

I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
Click to expand...



yesterday
*

rawlings: in the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.*



> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



then, today

*
r: Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. *


you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators

*or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.


your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
> We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
> the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
> and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.
> 
> Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
> have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
> ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
> his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
> specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
> and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
> to look any further.
> 
> So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
> follow their conscience to establish truth.
> 
> Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
> tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
> to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
> a clear understanding that settles our conscience.
> 
> This is a good process. Why?
> Because by answering these questions,
> it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.
> 
> We can get the kinks out of the process
> and set up smoother steps for others to follow
> to come to similar conclusions at the end.
> 
> Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
> path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
> and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.
> 
> Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
> are intellectually as honest as they can be
> given they do not have the information and experience
> I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
> has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
> and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
> even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.
> 
> The fact they are open at all, says a lot.
> 
> Please do not take this for granted
> and think it is phony or a game.
> 
> The people I see who are biased against serious research to
> settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
> looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
> in response to how atheists have been bashed.
> And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.
> 
> Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
> science and medical studies that explaint he
> process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
> how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
> so that factor will help with reconciling all these
> other issues in turn.
> 
> Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
> while we seek corrections.
> 
> The ones who seek to exclude and divide
> will find resolution later as the process moves forward.
> 
> The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
> work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
> once this is proven to work in building a consensus.
Click to expand...


He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap.  Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men.  This is not about forgiveness or being nice.  It's about the difference between men and women.  He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists.  Sorry.  But that's baloney.  Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place?  He knows the answer to that question.  The answer is not "I believe because I want to."  He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
Click to expand...


Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> then, today
> 
> *
> r: Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into. *
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> .



Your fifteen minutes of infamous duh are over, Cornflake.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic.




*Boss is Refuted!*




Boss said:


> I thought Atheists were the only arrogant intolerant assholes on this subject... I was wrong! You two butt-buddies actually give me hope for people like G.T. and even silly boob, at least they are trying to comprehend and understand things. *You two are stuck in your own little self-aggrandizing world of opinion.*



I'm going to concentrate on this self-aggrandizing portion of your post.

I was civil to you. I civilly and reasonably explained to you why your notion does not hold up logically, why it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, why it positively proves the very opposite of what you claim to be true. I have not personally attacked you. I refuted your notion that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition and that the objective facts regarding the problems of existence and origin necessarily anthropomorphize God, when if fact the only coherently defensible conclusion is that God theologized us, that the logic we have is His logic, not created, but bestowed on us.

You have not responded by directly addressing the problems with your notion exposed by my observations. You have responded with straw men and with the increasingly obtuse/evasive belligerence and derision of piggish pride.

Enough of your mealy mouthed blather. You have been refuted! Your closed-minded, dogmatic fanaticism that would arbitrarily preclude the only rational conclusion has been refuted.

Justin is absolutely correct. There is no historically prominent system of theistic thought that agrees with your retarded blather. None of the theistic systems of thought of a total or of a partial transcendence for divnity (immanentheism, deism, panentheism), whether they be monotheistic or polytheistic, holds that divinity created logic. No form of pantheism holds that God created logic. No learned Jew, Christian or Muslim holds that God created logic. Neither the Torah, the Bible nor the Koran holds that God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosophy or theology that holds God created logic. There is no historically prominent theistic philosopher or theologian who holds that God created logic. Even the inarguably pagan polytheism of Buddhism and Hinduism do not hold that divinity created logic. Not even the esoteric mysticism of the Gnostics holds that God created logic. Rather, all of these systems of theistic thought hold that divinity's logic was necessary bestowed on the universe by divinity, not created!

Why?

Because the notion that logic was created by divinity rather than bestowed on the creation contradicts the universally absolute principle of identity bioneurologically hardwired in humans! It is not rationally, let alone empirically, possible to demonstrate that logic was created by divinity. Your notion is retarded blather that does not hold up logically; it is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the very opposite to be true. You are a retard blathering nonsense.

You are counted among the retarded theists of history, not the rational theists of history.

You're not going to sell this retarded blather around here, that the universally absolute principle of identity does not hold, that logic was created by divinity for the universe, rather than necessarily bestowed on the universe by divinity; you're not going to sell your retarded blather around here that the overwhelming and only rational opinion of history is barking madness while your idiocy is peaches and cream. Your retarded blather is not peaches and cream. It's barking madness.

According to the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition, logic could not have been created by God! God is the very substance and the ground of Logic! He bestowed His logic on the creation! The organic laws of thought, the logic of natural and moral law, the logic of the physical laws of nature are God's logic bestowed on the creation, not created. Or according to the various forms of pantheism, God bestowed His logic on the universe in its creation and then infused Himself with the universe.



*You were refuted here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153885/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10141668/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149386/*
*

And here: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139234/*




*The ramifications of Gödel's theorems and proof refute you: *
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138400/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138418/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10144163/*
* 



The ramifications of the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy refute you:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134155/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10134182/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153980/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10153941/*
* 



The ramifications of the incontrovertible proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, the foundation of absolute objectivity in logic, mathematics, philosophy, theology and science refute you:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10138804/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/*
* 



You refute yourself every time you contradictorily concede that The Seven Things (**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**) hold, for their logical ramifications necessarily hold that logic was bestowed on creation, not created.
*
You are refuted again in this post.

You will be refuted again in my summary.

Only fools would grant your retarded blather any credibility; indeed, you cite the very same fools who necessarily argued against your retarded blather earlier on this thread, persons, like you, who do not grasp the ramifications of their earlier refutations of your retarded blather. They are idiots. The only reason they grant your crap any credence is because you are now arguing against me, their nemesis.

You and your butt buddies are refuted!

Your retarded blather is refuted!

* You are refuted!*


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.
Click to expand...


That's not what I get from what Boss is saying.
Boss is saying that for the gift of logic to come from God to bestow in man,
the God created this logic like part of the laws of science or anything else that are part of the world/creation
made by God.

Boss is setting logic at that level.

So we are basically talking about different LEVELS of logic
and these are not the same concepts, that's why the words conflict.

We need better language to distinguish these levels.

Now Boss brings up spiritual awareness.
So obviously Boss calls these levels by different terms
and divides the spectrum differently between what is
knowledge on man's side and what is the part on God's side.

We just have to line up where all these terms fall on 
the spiritual spectrum, and making sure we aren't talking past each other.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.
Click to expand...


P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.

I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.

To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
to say the least.

But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.

It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.

Both M.D. and Boss object to this.

Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.

I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.

But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.

So they keep clashing.

I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.

But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.

Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
with God's will for humanity collectively.
I don't have a problem with that.

I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
and what they know.

I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
so this requires the faith in those truths existing
and it requires the openness to check ourselves
and know that we just know "parts" of  the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.

Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
it in perspective so we keep an open  mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> How about this:
> 1. Given God created all things in the universe
> 2. there was some reason or logic for God to create the universe
> 3. the reason or logic had to exist BEFORE God created the universe
> 
> Since #1 and #3 contradict each other then
> A. either the logic or reason was already there,
> B. the whole universe was already preexistent also and not created
> C. we don't know if it was A or B
> 
> I think Boss is saying
> C
> we don't know, we can only theorize what God's logic or reasons
> are and what is the process of God's creation or order of the steps etc.
> 
> As for human logic:
> A. Given God created all things, including humans, human nature and conscience
> B. Human logic is part of the human conscience, and the laws of logic and
> science are part of the laws of creation
> C. then one could argue that when God created humans and our relationship
> to all things in the world, then the logic ON THAT LEVEL was created by God
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.



*The Little god Boss in the Gap Fallacy is Refuted Again!*

Boss is arguing la-la.  His "reasoning" is utterly arbitrary.  Like all relativists, he's a slogan spouter.  Those things that he likes that obviously hold true due to the logic we have he believes.  Those things that he doesn't like that obviously hold true due to the logic that we have (For what other logic do we have but the logic that we have?) he disbelieves.

Nevertheless, I understand Boss' rational. I always have.

The bottom line*:* Boss necessarily holds that our logic anthropomorphizes God!

That's inevitably what he holds to be true. In fact, I know Boss has followed the line of reasoning that necessarily follows from his premise to its conclusion because he emphatically stated humans tend to ascribe sentience to God and, therefore, believe God desires to have relations with us due to the fact that human logic is the only means they have to think about God. And Boss is right. That's true. Our logic is the only means we have to think about God or about anything else. I do not dispute that.

But Boss doesn't stop there.

He goes on to say, that "only rubes like Rawlings actually believe that God has sentience or desires to have relations with us as our logic suggests. Rawlings is silly to believe that. I am more enlightened than Rawlings as I have a special logic that is not human. God created the logic we have for us because it leads us to believe spiritual things and to pursue spiritual things that are good for us [paraphrase]."

Hence, Boss *knows* for a fact that God does . . . *not* have sentience and does not desire to have relations with us!

_Crickets Chirping_

Non sequitur!

*Rawlings:*  "So why do you refuse to believe that, Boss?"

*Boss:*  "I refuse to believe that!  We can only believe what's true, not know what's true, except what I know is true and you don't?" 

Boss can't *know* that to be true, because his secrete knowledge does not necessarily follow.

According to Boss, there's no possibility at all that God theologized us. No. That's not possible. Nope. That couldn't be true. God didn't give us His logic. Nah.  Human logic was created. There's no way in hell the logic we have is God's logic. That's stupid. Only idiots believe that.

In fact, Emily, you don't have Boss entirely right. He didn't just say that God created _human_ logic. He said God created logic. Logic didn't exist before God created it.

(Though in his most recent post he wrote that in the absence of Logic is chaos.  I wonder what that Logic is.)

Boss holds that God doesn't have logic. Doesn't use logic. Doesn't need logic. He also said that God doesn't have a mind or consciousness. Doesn't use these things. Doesn't need these things. Boss* knows* these things are true.

And how do we know that Boss is necessarily saying he *knows* these things are true, isn't merely saying that he believes these things are true?

*Answer: *Because when I tell him that none of these ridiculous ideas necessarily follow, he tells me that I'm an idiot. He tells me that anyone who believes (you know, like the *billions* of followers of the major monotheistic religions of the world) that God has sentience and desires to have relations with us are idiots.

So all these _*billions*_ of people are idiots, but Boss has the inside track. He *knows* that our logic anthropomorphizes God for our own good, but God's . . . nonexistent mind . . . is not really like ours in anyway whatsoever. God didn't theologize us with His logic. That's not logically possible.

Boss *knows* this based on a non sequitur, based on something not recommended by logic at all, based on some special knowledge, some special logic, contrary to the ramifications of the logic we have . . . based on something he could not possibly *know* unless he were God Himself. (By the way, How does God known anything at all without a mind?)  Boss thinks he's God. More to the point, Boss is a little god standing in the gap, just making things up as he goes along.  He's a slogan spouter.

And Boss *knows* these things because according to him we can only believe things; we can't *know* things. Oh, wait! Apparently, Boss doesn't really mean *we. *He just means the rest of us mere mortals. He, on the other hand, *knows* things none of the rest of us can *know*.

*That's weird.*

Boss *knows* things that contradict the one thing that all the major religions of the word in history have in common, the one thing that all the major philosophical and theological constructs of divinity have in common, hold to be necessarily true, logically*:* God did not create logic, but bestowed His logic on His creation.

You see, the relativist is just an intellectual bully. He's arrogant, boastful, full of piggish pride. He's a petulant child. Smarmy.  Some of the things that are logically true about God according to the laws of thought are cool.  Other things that are logically true about God according to the laws of thought are not cool.  It just depends on how this or that thing tastes in his mouth.  The things that might have a tinge of obligation attached to them, curiously enough, aren't cool.  Like I said, the relativist is a slogan spouter.

He's the self-anointed arbiter of truth who gets angry and abusive when you point out to him the non sequiturs and contradictions of his intellectual bigotry . The relativist is insulted by these things. How dare the commonsensical rubes of the world point out the idiocy of the unexamined decrees of the enlightened folks of the world!

*I have always plainly seen and understood what you presented in the above, Emily, on the grounds of epistemological skepticism.* The cogitation that God must have bestowed His logic on us could arguably  be a freak of nature, a mere fluke of the bioneurologically hardwired logic of human cognition. It might not be ultimately or transcendentally true beyond the confines of our minds. That's because I'm an objective observer of things.

Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities.

Nevertheless, I allow, unlike Boss who allows no proposition but his own irrational proposition, that Boss could be right.  But let's be clear about something*:*  If Boss is right, our logic necessarily _does_ anthropomorphize God and, therefore, is not directing us to understand anything that's necessarily true about God at all. Boss has no grounds whatsoever to assert anything about God, not even the idea that we instinctively know God exists.

Paradox. Contradiction. Incoherency.

That's just Boss contradicting the logic the rest of us have with the special logic of the little god in the gap that he is.  That's what Boss is calling reasonable. That's what he's saying he *knows* to be true after saying that we can't *know* anything to be true. That's the paradox of his believe-know dichotomy, fraught with incoherency and chaos, that applies to everyone else but him.

*The little god Boss in the gap fallacy.*


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.



Dear BreezeWood:
1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?

2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
the Divine Justice of God.

Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
or if we "leave some people out"

3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
Click to expand...

what you think about my new track, emily?


----------



## Boss

*M.D. Rawlings Hot Air and Blather*

Rawlings has simply not proven God didn't create logic, or offered any explanation as to how logic has any purpose or function outside of the human mind. Rawlings continues to lob insults and denigrations at someone who believes in God the same as he does, but just doesn't believe in his personal incarnation. This exposes Rawlings as a radical extremist and we would be advised to keep him (and his disciple Justin) well away from box cutters and airplanes. 

*Rawlings Refuted with No Comeback*

If God did not create logic, God is not omnipotent. There is something in the universe which trumps God, which has more power than God, and that is Logic which God supposedly didn't create. There is no mainstream Christian religion which teaches this. In fact, it contradicts all spiritual understandings of God. 

*M.D. Rawlings and Sidekick Justin Defeat Their Own Purpose*

If the objective of Rawlings Doctrine is to lead people to a better understanding of God, it has failed. There is at least one poster who has gone from accepting his original argument to rejecting anything further he has to say, basically because Rawlings has chosen to be an asshole. So his Doctrine has actually harmed it's own purpose. 

*M.D. Rawlings: A Portrait of Religious Hubris*

While condemning others for their opinions on God, Rawlings maintains he knows best. He is prepared to reject every argument, even when people agree with his arguments. He makes a point to flood the board with the same claptrap over and over again, to demagogue the thread and filibuster. Attempts by mediators such as Emily have been in vain, as Rawlings demonstrates no discretion in who he attacks and insults. He is bound and determined that no other opinion can be allowed to stand. Much like the Taliban.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
Click to expand...


Very cool!
Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out 
in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
Don't get me started!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
Click to expand...

I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!


----------



## Spare_change

Mohamed said:


> There is an arabic saying that states (توضيح الواضحات من المعضلات)
> i.e. clarifying what is clear is very difficult.
> 
> if someone request a proof for existence of the sun while he sees it every day and asses it effects on plants and all forms of life, then it is very difficult to give him a proof.
> 
> in the same manner if one thinks that these living beings all around as and that this highly complex environmental system around us is not enough to believe in the creator, it is really very difficult to persuade him.




.... which means, "None are so blind as those who choose not to see."


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Your fifteen minutes of infamous duh are over, Cornflake.






> *mdr:* I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity  without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.





> *No one comes to the Father except through me.*




infamous is for the deceivers ... sinner.

.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
Click to expand...



Funny thing

All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.

Maybe it is time for some M83?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you give no reply at all ever, as the just previous reply confirms - the same with gunslinger, just mindless contempt. that is why nothing has developed - now's your chance to bury the ax, shot away why Jesus is not just your savior but your God - before the Almighty. idolators
> 
> *or hide behind Emily the erstwhile christian ... again, sinners.
> 
> your agenda is evil, your protestations are deceitful, groundless and cowardly - the boy's guns show his true mentality ... demonicism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
Click to expand...

Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.

Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> 1. May I ask how your response above isn't also motivated by contempt?
> 
> 2. And how can you class ALL Christians as idolators for believing that Jesus represents
> the Divine Justice of God.
> 
> Isn't the issue whether we include ALL PEOPLE in this universal justice,
> or if we "leave some people out"
> 
> 3. if you leave Christians out, by affiliation alone, or "guilt by association"
> isn't that just as unfair? how is that good and justified, but if MD or Justin exclude people it is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
Click to expand...


I liked it

Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> what you think about my new track, emily?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
Click to expand...

Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very cool!
> Imagine if we wrote all these arguments here out
> in the form of a Rap Slam and poetry jam. ha ha.
> Don't get me started!
> 
> 
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
Click to expand...



You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.

Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I might make my next track based on all of this, don't be surprised!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.
> 
> Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to make a website, so I just upload to SoundCloud or YouTube and then delete a couple days or weeks later cuz I feel I got "better" than my older stuff.

I wouldn't mind marketing myself eventually, just don't have enough songs I'm proud of just yet.

Don't get me wrong, I have like 2, 000 songs and have 2 pressed albums that I gave out locally, but everyday I get better I hate my YESTERDAY. 

Its a vicious cycle. : (


----------



## amrchaos

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.
> 
> Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how to make a website, so I just upload to SoundCloud or YouTube and then delete a couple days or weeks later cuz I feel I got "better" than my older stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't mind marketing myself eventually, just don't have enough songs I'm proud of just yet.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have like 2, 000 songs and have 2 pressed albums that I gave out locally, but everyday I get better I hate my YESTERDAY.
> 
> Its a vicious cycle. : (
Click to expand...


Sounds like Perfectionism.

Whatever you do, don't make strange music videos!!


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.
> 
> Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how to make a website, so I just upload to SoundCloud or YouTube and then delete a couple days or weeks later cuz I feel I got "better" than my older stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't mind marketing myself eventually, just don't have enough songs I'm proud of just yet.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have like 2, 000 songs and have 2 pressed albums that I gave out locally, but everyday I get better I hate my YESTERDAY.
> 
> Its a vicious cycle. : (
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like Perfectionism.
> 
> Whatever you do, don't make strange music videos!!
Click to expand...

Lol....videos are.my.next endeavor!! 

Might make one to today's song. : )


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing
> 
> All I do is play youtube music videos while going through this thread.
> 
> Maybe it is time for some M83?
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.
> 
> Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how to make a website, so I just upload to SoundCloud or YouTube and then delete a couple days or weeks later cuz I feel I got "better" than my older stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't mind marketing myself eventually, just don't have enough songs I'm proud of just yet.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have like 2, 000 songs and have 2 pressed albums that I gave out locally, but everyday I get better I hate my YESTERDAY.
> 
> Its a vicious cycle. : (
Click to expand...

Yours is the measure of a true artist - never satisfied and always looking to improve his craft.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme know if ya like that track I dropped.
> 
> Just got done mixing my vocals today. It was tedious. But fresh off the presses two posts of mine ago, there tis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked it
> 
> Do you make music as a professional, or is it more hobby than a living?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, no I have a professional career outside of music. I just love doing it is all. I'm getting pretty nice at it too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You ever thought about starting up a website for your music.  A lot of professionals and hobbyists are turning to the internet for publishing their works.
> 
> Of course, the biggest problem is that you may walk down the street and hear one of your songs playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how to make a website, so I just upload to SoundCloud or YouTube and then delete a couple days or weeks later cuz I feel I got "better" than my older stuff.
> 
> I wouldn't mind marketing myself eventually, just don't have enough songs I'm proud of just yet.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have like 2, 000 songs and have 2 pressed albums that I gave out locally, but everyday I get better I hate my YESTERDAY.
> 
> Its a vicious cycle. : (
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is the measure of a true artist - never satisfied and always looking to improve his craft.
Click to expand...

Thanka Hollie, thats very kind of you. And a good way to look at it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Boss is Ridiculous, Refuted and Dumbfounded:  Boss ≠ Boss, but = **a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*





emilynghiem said:


> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
> we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
> so whatever logic God created for us on our level
> is determining whatever we look at. it is always
> limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.



Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates  the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity*:* omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (_the law of contradiction_) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question*: 
*
God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing _but_ His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) *≠* Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between *(1)* operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and *(2)* informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).​

We _*can*_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _*can*_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain *how* God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.

In other words*:
*
*(1) how* could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*? God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?

*(2) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction*:* *for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)*? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects*: * at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?

*(3) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle*: * *for all A: A OR ~A*? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive _and_ the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?​
Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is *not* God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That _is_ the inescapably reality of human cognition. *For any given A: A = A. *It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on *A: A **≠** A*!

Boss is outside his mind.  God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos.  It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist.  Hence, *Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!*

Here's the real irony in all of this*:* at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that *(1)* God exists and that *(2)* God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

_Knock Knock_

Anybody home?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss is Ridiculous, Refuted and Dumbfounded:  Boss ≠ Boss, but = **a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
> we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
> so whatever logic God created for us on our level
> is determining whatever we look at. it is always
> limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I want to isolate this thought.
> 
> Boss conflates  the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity*:* omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (_the law of contradiction_) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.
> 
> On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question*:
> *
> God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing _but_ His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.
> 
> The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) *≠* Informational Knowledge.
> 
> Hence, we have the distinction between *(1)* operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and *(2)* informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).​
> 
> We _*can*_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _*can*_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain *how* God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.
> 
> In other words*:
> *
> *(1) how* could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*? God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?
> 
> *(2) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction*:* *for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)*? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects*: * at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?
> 
> *(3) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle*: * *for all A: A OR ~A*? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive _and_ the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?​
> Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is *not* God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.
> 
> That _is_ the inescapably reality of human cognition. *For any given A: A = A. *It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on *A: A **≠** A*!
> 
> Boss is outside his mind.  God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos.  It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist.  Hence, *Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!*
> 
> Here's the real irony in all of this*:* at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that *(1)* God exists and that *(2)* God is the universal Principle of Identity!
> 
> According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.
> 
> _Knock Knock_
> 
> Anybody home?
Click to expand...



*"Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!"

*


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> *M.D. Rawlings Hot Air and Blather*
> 
> Rawlings has simply not proven God didn't create logic, or offered any explanation as to how logic has any purpose or function outside of the human mind. Rawlings continues to lob insults and denigrations at someone who believes in God the same as he does, but just doesn't believe in his personal incarnation. This exposes Rawlings as a radical extremist and we would be advised to keep him (and his disciple Justin) well away from box cutters and airplanes.
> 
> *Rawlings Refuted with No Comeback*
> 
> If God did not create logic, God is not omnipotent. There is something in the universe which trumps God, which has more power than God, and that is Logic which God supposedly didn't create. There is no mainstream Christian religion which teaches this. In fact, it contradicts all spiritual understandings of God.
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings and Sidekick Justin Defeat Their Own Purpose*
> 
> If the objective of Rawlings Doctrine is to lead people to a better understanding of God, it has failed. There is at least one poster who has gone from accepting his original argument to rejecting anything further he has to say, basically because Rawlings has chosen to be an asshole. So his Doctrine has actually harmed it's own purpose.
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings: A Portrait of Religious Hubris*
> 
> While condemning others for their opinions on God, Rawlings maintains he knows best. He is prepared to reject every argument, even when people agree with his arguments. He makes a point to flood the board with the same claptrap over and over again, to demagogue the thread and filibuster. Attempts by mediators such as Emily have been in vain, as Rawlings demonstrates no discretion in who he attacks and insults. He is bound and determined that no other opinion can be allowed to stand. Much like the Taliban.




Don't you ever tire of looking like a damn fool, cult leader?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> It's a secrete.


Translation: doesn't exist.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
Click to expand...

I am not really interested thank you.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again that's not the question and you know it since you talk about proof at the same time.  You're a phony verging on being a liar.  I'm not messing around with your questions because they're phony, you're answer is phony, you're phony.  I know what the proofs and the evidence are, and I know the difference between logic and science.  These things have been discussed, proven and demonstrated on this thread.  Read the thread or just save yourself time and read Rawlings' posts because he's one of only a small number of people who knows what he's talking about.  Start with this and you'll see yourself in it, *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*   That way you can be a phony theist and a phony Christian knowing what's really true.  Because phony is all you really want to be.  The evidence and the proofs for God's existence are obvious.  You said there's no proof or evidence. That's obviously not true, phony.  You just believe because you want to.  That's not true, phony. You don't believe simply because you want to, phony.  You have proof and evidence in your mind and in the universe because you wouldn't even have an idea of God to believe in the first place without these things.  You know what these things are.  What are these things?  Name them, phony.
Click to expand...

No bud you said you have proof, let's see it.

Throwing a temper tantrum and raging and attacking me because you know the answer doesn't really make the case.

So there is no proof that God does exist. And thanks for losing your mind and proving that you were full of it.


----------



## Inevitable

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind.  Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind.  armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.
> 
> 
> So why is that true?   That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true.   .     No that doesn't jive either.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a secrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: doesn't exist.
Click to expand...




Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
> We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
> the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
> and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.
> 
> Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
> have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
> ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
> his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
> specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
> and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
> to look any further.
> 
> So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
> follow their conscience to establish truth.
> 
> Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
> tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
> to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
> a clear understanding that settles our conscience.
> 
> This is a good process. Why?
> Because by answering these questions,
> it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.
> 
> We can get the kinks out of the process
> and set up smoother steps for others to follow
> to come to similar conclusions at the end.
> 
> Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
> path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
> and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.
> 
> Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
> are intellectually as honest as they can be
> given they do not have the information and experience
> I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
> has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
> and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
> even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.
> 
> The fact they are open at all, says a lot.
> 
> Please do not take this for granted
> and think it is phony or a game.
> 
> The people I see who are biased against serious research to
> settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
> looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
> in response to how atheists have been bashed.
> And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.
> 
> Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
> science and medical studies that explaint he
> process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
> how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
> so that factor will help with reconciling all these
> other issues in turn.
> 
> Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
> while we seek corrections.
> 
> The ones who seek to exclude and divide
> will find resolution later as the process moves forward.
> 
> The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
> work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
> once this is proven to work in building a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap.  Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men.  This is not about forgiveness or being nice.  It's about the difference between men and women.  He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists.  Sorry.  But that's baloney.  Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place?  He knows the answer to that question.  The answer is not "I believe because I want to."  He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.
Click to expand...


I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.

Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
> is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.
> 
> I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
> how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.
> 
> To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
> to say the least.
> 
> But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.
> 
> It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
> what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.
> 
> Both M.D. and Boss object to this.
> 
> Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
> and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.
> 
> I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.
> 
> But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
> while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.
> 
> So they keep clashing.
> 
> I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
> and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.
> 
> But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.
> 
> Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
> with God's will for humanity collectively.
> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
> impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
> and what they know.
> 
> I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
> so this requires the faith in those truths existing
> and it requires the openness to check ourselves
> and know that we just know "parts" of  the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.
> 
> Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
> it in perspective so we keep an open  mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.
Click to expand...


The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates.  Boss wants to hold out for something that  violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational.  Whatever.  Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't.  He might as well not even  make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes.  This is Boss:  .  He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth.  .  Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility."  It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong.  Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does.  Is Rawlings a phony?  No.  He's not a phony.  He admits errors and corrects them.  Boss is a phony though.  He's  GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense.  Ding Dong.  Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God  is just a coincidence of human nature?  Yeah.  But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat.  Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't.  No one can.  And we all know that.  It's stupid.  And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious.  Hey, maybe pigs can fly.  How messed up is that?

God believes cat = dog?  All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God.  When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says  is that they're not true for God when I say so.    That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there.  Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot.  I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies  that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily.  That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
using a howitzer for target practice, boss sure does liven their egos ...

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you lectured Justin last night on his manners. When have I ever precluded or denigrated the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism? In the meantime, all you've done on this thread is spit on Christianity without providing a single coherent argument against it on the basis of its own premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind.  Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind.  armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.
> 
> 
> So why is that true?   That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true.   .     No that doesn't jive either.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a secrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
> We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
> the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
> and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.
> 
> Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
> have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
> ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
> his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
> specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
> and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
> to look any further.
> 
> So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
> follow their conscience to establish truth.
> 
> Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
> tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
> to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
> a clear understanding that settles our conscience.
> 
> This is a good process. Why?
> Because by answering these questions,
> it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.
> 
> We can get the kinks out of the process
> and set up smoother steps for others to follow
> to come to similar conclusions at the end.
> 
> Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
> path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
> and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.
> 
> Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
> are intellectually as honest as they can be
> given they do not have the information and experience
> I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
> has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
> and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
> even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.
> 
> The fact they are open at all, says a lot.
> 
> Please do not take this for granted
> and think it is phony or a game.
> 
> The people I see who are biased against serious research to
> settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
> looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
> in response to how atheists have been bashed.
> And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.
> 
> Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
> science and medical studies that explaint he
> process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
> how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
> so that factor will help with reconciling all these
> other issues in turn.
> 
> Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
> while we seek corrections.
> 
> The ones who seek to exclude and divide
> will find resolution later as the process moves forward.
> 
> The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
> work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
> once this is proven to work in building a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap.  Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men.  This is not about forgiveness or being nice.  It's about the difference between men and women.  He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists.  Sorry.  But that's baloney.  Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place?  He knows the answer to that question.  The answer is not "I believe because I want to."  He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.
> 
> Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.
Click to expand...


You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal?  What a load of baloney.   Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.

Romans 1: 18 = 20:
For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness *of men, who *hold the truth *in unrighteousness; Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse*.

God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar.  Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons.  That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway.  But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real.  See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet?  You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony.  Tell us why you believe.  Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> your selective memory serves you poorly ...
> 
> 
> gunslinger hasn't a clue, the transition of Singularity from one to the other are you in denial as well ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind.  Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind.  armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.
> 
> 
> So why is that true?   That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true.   .     No that doesn't jive either.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> That's a motive, not an answer to the question.  Why do you think God exists?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere.  That's been proven on this thread big time. The theists have won this argument.  Why don't you read the thread.  What kind of theist goes around thinking atheists know what they're talking about?  Most atheists are total idiots.  You're a Christian right?  You don't even believe what the Bible tells you?  Paul's  just kidding around?  There's nothing to what he's saying?  He talks about specific things that are in humans' minds and in the universe.  You don't know what they are?  Seriously?  Romans 1:18-20:
> 
> "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*;  Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that they are without excuse."
> 
> The word "manifest" means "obvious."
> 
> You're the one claiming there's no evidence but you believe.  Why?  You don't have any reason to believe?  Must be based on something.  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  What exists?  The word "God"?  Ideas of God?  Who or what is this thing you think exists?  You don't know what it is you believe in, why, how, what, when, where?  Can you even define  God?  What evidence spoke to you?  You're the one saying you believe for no reason really.  That can't be right.  How can that be right?  Where did you get the idea God?  Do you know that much at least?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists?  I know why I believe.  The evidence is obvious.  The real question is why do you believe?  You're just walking down the street one day and _bam_ God exists? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.  You're not making any sense.  Come on, man!  What made you believe that?  That's all I'm asking you.  Is it a secrete?  Since when do Christians keep that a secrete when the Bible commands to be ready with an answer, a reason, a real reason, not just because you want to?  You know that's not the real question.  Start thinking about what Paul's talking about and stop listening to stupid atheists.  The Bible calls them fools.  You don't know why they're fools?  The reasons are in your mind and in the universe, the evidence.  Things made you believe.  What are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a secrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
> We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
> the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
> and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.
> 
> Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
> have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
> ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
> his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
> specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
> and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
> to look any further.
> 
> So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
> follow their conscience to establish truth.
> 
> Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
> tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
> to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
> a clear understanding that settles our conscience.
> 
> This is a good process. Why?
> Because by answering these questions,
> it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.
> 
> We can get the kinks out of the process
> and set up smoother steps for others to follow
> to come to similar conclusions at the end.
> 
> Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
> path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
> and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.
> 
> Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
> are intellectually as honest as they can be
> given they do not have the information and experience
> I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
> has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
> and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
> even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.
> 
> The fact they are open at all, says a lot.
> 
> Please do not take this for granted
> and think it is phony or a game.
> 
> The people I see who are biased against serious research to
> settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
> looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
> in response to how atheists have been bashed.
> And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.
> 
> Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
> science and medical studies that explaint he
> process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
> how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
> so that factor will help with reconciling all these
> other issues in turn.
> 
> Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
> while we seek corrections.
> 
> The ones who seek to exclude and divide
> will find resolution later as the process moves forward.
> 
> The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
> work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
> once this is proven to work in building a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap.  Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men.  This is not about forgiveness or being nice.  It's about the difference between men and women.  He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists.  Sorry.  But that's baloney.  Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place?  He knows the answer to that question.  The answer is not "I believe because I want to."  He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.
> 
> Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal?  What a load of baloney.   Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.
> 
> Romans 1: 18 = 20:
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness *of men, who *hold the truth *in unrighteousness; Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse*.
> 
> God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar.  Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons.  That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway.  But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real.  See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet?  You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony.  Tell us why you believe.  Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?
Click to expand...

When you stop acting like a child let me know.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> .
> using a howitzer for target practice, boss sure does liven their egos ...
> 
> .



Another phony who thinks truth is about egos and not being real with ourselves and one another. So the lie is not what's  phony? The liar is not the phony" The guy sick of the  lies and the  phonies who tell them is the phony, the egotist? That's sick. That's totally backwards.  You're just another phony who like lies and phoniness. Obviously it would be the liar who puts his ego and his pride before the truth, before being real with himself and others. So you’re okay with Boss shoving his ego and his pride and his bullshit in your face as if he were God? Is that it phony? Attack the people sick of phonies and buddy up with the phony?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> When you stop acting like a child let me know.



You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
Click to expand...

So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss is Ridiculous, Refuted and Dumbfounded:  Boss ≠ Boss, but = **a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
> we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
> so whatever logic God created for us on our level
> is determining whatever we look at. it is always
> limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I want to isolate this thought.
> 
> Boss conflates  the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity*:* omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (_the law of contradiction_) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.
> 
> On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question*:
> *
> God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing _but_ His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.
> 
> The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) *≠* Informational Knowledge.
> 
> Hence, we have the distinction between *(1)* operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and *(2)* informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).​
> 
> We _*can*_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _*can*_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain *how* God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.
> 
> In other words*:
> *
> *(1) how* could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*? God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?
> 
> *(2) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction*:* *for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)*? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects*: * at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?
> 
> *(3) How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle*: * *for all A: A OR ~A*? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive _and_ the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? God *≠* God?​
> Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is *not* God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.
> 
> That _is_ the inescapably reality of human cognition. *For any given A: A = A. *It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on *A: A **≠** A*!
> 
> Boss is outside his mind.  God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos.  It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist.  Hence, *Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap!*
> 
> Here's the real irony in all of this*:* at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that *(1)* God exists and that *(2)* God is the universal Principle of Identity!
> 
> According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.
> 
> _Knock Knock_
> 
> Anybody home?
Click to expand...


...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
> is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.
> 
> I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
> how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.
> 
> To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
> to say the least.
> 
> But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.
> 
> It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
> what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.
> 
> Both M.D. and Boss object to this.
> 
> Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
> and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.
> 
> I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.
> 
> But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
> while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.
> 
> So they keep clashing.
> 
> I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
> and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.
> 
> But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.
> 
> Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
> with God's will for humanity collectively.
> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
> impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
> and what they know.
> 
> I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
> so this requires the faith in those truths existing
> and it requires the openness to check ourselves
> and know that we just know "parts" of  the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.
> 
> Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
> it in perspective so we keep an open  mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates.  Boss wants to hold out for something that  violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational.  Whatever.  Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't.  He might as well not even  make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes.  This is Boss:  .  He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth.  .  Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility."  It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong.  Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does.  Is Rawlings a phony?  No.  He's not a phony.  He admits errors and corrects them.  Boss is a phony though.  He's  GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense.  Ding Dong.  Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God  is just a coincidence of human nature?  Yeah.  But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat.  Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't.  No one can.  And we all know that.  It's stupid.  And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious.  Hey, maybe pigs can fly.  How messed up is that?
> 
> God believes cat = dog?  All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God.  When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says  is that they're not true for God when I say so.    That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there.  Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot.  I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies  that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily.  That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.
Click to expand...


And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose. 

Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.


----------



## G.T.

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't give me that selective memory crap.  I cut you off in that post.  I gave you another shot only because Emily talked me into.  I wrote a few more posts to you  trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, inviting you to come to the neutral ground of objectivity.  But, no, all I got  from you were more of  these same surly, unresponsive, accusatory posts, while you spit on Christianity and ask me this stupid question about the singularity over and over again.  I have no idea what you're talking about, Parrot Brain, so just tell me.  What is it?
> 
> I've always understood you to be alluding to something about the moment of or to something about the time around the mergence of divinity with the universe according to pantheism or panentheism.  No one on this board could possibly know precisely what you have in mind about this  but you, Cornflake.  What is it?
> 
> BreezeWood:  "Hey, Rawlings, I have something specific in my mind about this. Can you tell me what it is?"
> 
> Rawlings:  "No, Hocus Pocus, I'm not a mind reader.  What is it?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood gets mad because we can't read his mind.  Boss gets mad because we don't agree with the contradiction in his mind.  armchaos gets mad because we know he doesn't know what he's talking about, and the atheists get mad because we know they're lying.
> 
> 
> So why is that true?   That doesn't even jive with what you just said was true.   .     No that doesn't jive either.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> wanting to is the only reason.
> 
> Stop asking questions and show me your evidence.
> 
> If your evidence exists it should speak for itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The kind of evidence you look for could be found by
> researching Spiritual Healing seriously through official medical studies.
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and I agree on this, and he is probably more exacting
> on how it should be set up to be clear of any religiously perceived bias or skewing of the results.
> 
> The Resources I recommend for such research,
> which I do believe can win a medical team a Nobel Prize for bridging the gaps between science and religion
> are posted here:
> freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
> 
> Inevitable, I am willing to send the books listed on this site
> to anyone who wants to do the preliminary review of these procedures
> of Spiritual Healing that can be proven/demonstrated by science as
> natural and effective, and consistent with science and medicine
> where it does not involve any rejection of medicine or any harm or threat of endangerment.
> 
> In fact, once studies establish that Spiritual Healing can cure
> cancer, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, and other mental, physical and criminal illness,
> the opposite may be shown: that the LACK of knowledge and access to Spiritual Healing
> causes greater endangerment NOT to offer, teach and practice
> these methods of natural healing that can correct and prevent causes of disease and save
> health, lives, sanity and relationships from a wide range of ills and abuses, including addictions.
> 
> I believe M.D. Rawlings is serious enough about this
> to set up a formal team, and push for a Nobel-level breakthrough.
> 
> I see his use of TAG can be  used to organize in teams,
> by separating the people by their bias: the people who are okay with TAG,
> the ones who aren't who are theists or Christians and have issues with it,
> and the nontheists or nonChristians who either can't relate to TAG or
> would respond directly to using Science to demonstrate Spiritual Healing instead.
> 
> I am open to the entire process around TAG,
> so whatever issues come up, there are teams formed around those points
> to resolve them, and everyone benefits regardless of the views and beliefs
> we have, and which may change or expand and which may stay in conflict.
> 
> the truly universal answers will not depend on forcing anyone to convert,
> but will accommodate all people and will resolve conflicts or allow separate distinctions
> to be made that all sides are satisfied and agree with for conflicts that cannot be resolved.
> 
> But there will not be any need for coercion or insult/attack.
> 
> When we demonstrate how gravity works, there is no need to
> intimidate or demoralize/demean anyone. We explain using
> science or demonstrations until people agree what we are looking at and
> how gravity works or doesn't work.  Same with Spiritual Healing and the
> connection between individuals and the collective human process.
> You don't have to call it God or Jesus to talk about the same process
> of realizing Truth and Justice in the real world for all humanity to come to peace.
> 
> But that is the same process we are all involved in,
> and the "proof is in the pudding." As we work to prove it, we establish it,
> and thus prove that peace is possible by consensus on truth and justice.
> 
> Part of the proof is reconciling our terms for this process, secular with religious
> and coming to an agreement that we mean the same process, spiritually
> or socially, for all people regardless of our faith or viewpoint it's still the same process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stop with this long winded posts about nothing. You only
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the proof?
> 
> Once again I believe because I want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a secrete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> He knows what the evidence and the proofs are, he's just another phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I have never found Inevitable to be phony.
> We have even argued about the biases he and I have about
> the  homosexuality issues and the validity of healing therapies,
> and has always been transparent and intellectually honest.
> 
> Justin Davis did it ever occur to you there is a reason we
> have Doubting Thomases among us whose job may well be to
> ask for hands-on proof? When Jesus let Thomas stick his hand into
> his wound to examine for himself, Thomas became a better more
> specific witness to others because he had seen on a deeper level
> and could describe in greater detail than those who took it on faith and didn't need
> to look any further.
> 
> So there is good use of the righteous gentiles who by natural law
> follow their conscience to establish truth.
> 
> Amrchaos is also questioning and asking to see something
> tangible we can confirm and know to be consistent before ASSUMING it is so.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with using "independent investigation"
> to dig up questions and dig up answers until we establish
> a clear understanding that settles our conscience.
> 
> This is a good process. Why?
> Because by answering these questions,
> it establishes a paved path for the next person to follow.
> 
> We can get the kinks out of the process
> and set up smoother steps for others to follow
> to come to similar conclusions at the end.
> 
> Justin I pray that you have more faith that the secular
> path of the gentiles leads to the same understanding of the laws,
> and you have less fear that this path can be derailed or sideswiped.
> 
> Inevitable and Amrchaos, also GT and Sealybobo
> are intellectually as honest as they can be
> given they do not have the information and experience
> I and others have that Spiritual Healing is real. Given this
> has not been demonstrated to them yet, they are very open
> and as fair as can be expected. it is not expected for anyone
> even believers to believe this until it is shown to them.
> 
> The fact they are open at all, says a lot.
> 
> Please do not take this for granted
> and think it is phony or a game.
> 
> The people I see who are biased against serious research to
> settle this matter are Hollie who has not shown any openness to
> looking into spiritual healing but just wants to bash theists
> in response to how atheists have been bashed.
> And maybe Tom or others who are just here to bash sides.
> 
> Let's stick to th eones willing to set up real
> science and medical studies that explaint he
> process of spiritual healing, and this will establish
> how the Forgiveness factor makes a difference.
> so that factor will help with reconciling all these
> other issues in turn.
> 
> Let's start with those willing to be forgiving and inclusive
> while we seek corrections.
> 
> The ones who seek to exclude and divide
> will find resolution later as the process moves forward.
> 
> The most forgiving, open and willing to listen and
> work for mutual change will lead, and the others will follow
> once this is proven to work in building a consensus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not being real with us. Women are more soft on these things. Most men don't have any tolerance for this kind of crap.  Actually, liberal men do, but not conservative men.  This is not about forgiveness or being nice.  It's about the difference between men and women.  He came onto this discussion claiming that there is no proof or evidence for God's existence, yet he believes God exists.  Sorry.  But that's baloney.  Where did he get the idea of God in order to believe God exists in the first place?  He knows the answer to that question.  The answer is not "I believe because I want to."  He knows that's not the question, and he knows his question about proof is phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't feel like getting into why I believe it's personal and rather emotional. Why do you need that information to prove God exists? It's anecdotal. It couldn't possibly prove anything to anybody.
> 
> Quit calling people names quit asking me irrelevant questions and prove God exists, or don't proving yourself a charlatan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're question about need is just another phony question, another dodge, and you're no Christian either, just another phony, saying God's word lies and what God's word says isn't important or true. Anecdotal?  What a load of baloney.   Stop calling people names? Stop being a phony little boy, and act like a man. You call God names. You call God a liar. You got no problem with that. Call him a liar with that phony cross on you, and I'll call you a liar all day long. What a phony little boy you are.
> 
> Romans 1: 18 = 20:
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness *of men, who *hold the truth *in unrighteousness; Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for God *hath shewed it unto them*. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world *are clearly seen*, being *understood by the things that are made*, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse*.
> 
> God hasn't proved anything to anyone? Yep. Looks like you're a phony Christian and a liar.  Now tells us why you believe God exists. I already know you ain't no real Christian because no real Christian says because I want to or because of emotional reasons.  That doesn't make a lick of sense anyway.  But you do believe God exists. Why? You know why. Tells us. Stop being a phony. Get real.  See, I know all about phoniness. I lived a phony boozed up life with phony friends. I was a phony. I got sick of phony. You're not sick of phony yet?  You need to get sick of phony and stop being phony, phony.  Tell us why you believe.  Where did you get the idea of God in the first place, phony boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath


----------



## Inevitable

^^He isn't that lucky


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*

*
1.  The Divine Law of Identity*

God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_.  Hence, *God = Boss*.

Check!​


*2.  The Divine Law of Contradiction*

God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A).  *Hence, the propositions that  *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:*  at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​


*3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*

God holds that  *for all A: A AND ~A*.  Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: * Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially.  Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only.  Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of  fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on.  *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)

Check!​


----------



## G.T.




----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> *
> 1.  The Divine Law of Identity*
> 
> God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_.  Hence, *God = Boss*.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *2.  The Divine Law of Contradiction*
> 
> God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A).  *Hence, the propositions that  *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:*  at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
> 
> God holds that  *for all A: A AND ~A*.  Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: * Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.
> 
> (Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially.  Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only.  Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of  fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on.  *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)
> 
> Check!​



Again, we see a flurry of jargon supposedly signifying something Boss has argued. It is amazingly pathetic that someone of such grandiose verbiage is inclined to spend so much time attacking with outright slander, a fellow believer in God, in a thread where he is surreptitiously attempting to convince those who don't. 

It is difficult to understand until you realize what has happened. My argument, which he can't refute, has touched a nerve. Being completely unable to respond rationally, he has taken to the tactic of personal destruction. What he doesn't seem to understand is, he can't destroy me any more than he can destroy my argument. Which, by the way, is nowhere near as complicated at he tries so desperately to make it sound. 

In the beginning there was void. God created the universe and every aspect of it. This includes all parameters, laws, pricniples, thoughts, philosophies and concepts of the human mind. There is nothing God didn't create or wasn't capable of creating because God is omnipotent.


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> *
> 1.  The Divine Law of Identity*
> 
> God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_.  Hence, *God = Boss*.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *2.  The Divine Law of Contradiction*
> 
> God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A).  *Hence, the propositions that  *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:*  at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
> 
> God holds that  *for all A: A AND ~A*.  Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: * Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.
> 
> (Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially.  Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only.  Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of  fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on.  *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we see a flurry of jargon supposedly signifying something Boss has argued. It is amazingly pathetic that someone of such grandiose verbiage is inclined to spend so much time attacking with outright slander, a fellow believer in God, in a thread where he is surreptitiously attempting to convince those who don't.
> 
> It is difficult to understand until you realize what has happened. My argument, which he can't refute, has touched a nerve. Being completely unable to respond rationally, he has taken to the tactic of personal destruction. What he doesn't seem to understand is, he can't destroy me any more than he can destroy my argument. Which, by the way, is nowhere near as complicated at he tries so desperately to make it sound.
> 
> In the beginning there was void. *God created the universe and every aspect of it*. This includes all parameters, laws, pricniples, thoughts, philosophies and concepts of the human mind. There is nothing God didn't create or wasn't capable of creating because God is omnipotent.
Click to expand...

Is this based on fact or fantasy?


----------



## Boss

Taz said:


> Is this based on fact or fantasy?



It's based on faith, Taz.  

Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this based on fact or fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on faith, Taz.
> 
> Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.
Click to expand...

How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take. 

Using these:

Axiom:

 As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be *accepted as true without controversy.*
*
True:

in accordance with fact

controversy:

disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.




And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.
> 
> Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.



No, you braying jackass!  Yours is the tale of a pathological liar who was given ample opportunity to come clean and admit his error.  Instead, you chose to shamelessly go on and on about a stupidity that neither you nor any other human being in the world can coherently explain the how of.  Or perhaps yours is the tale of a lunatic who is too stupid to grasp the ramifications of what he's been telling himself all his life because he's never stopped to think about the ramifications of what he's been spouting all his life.

Which is it?

You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness _like we do_, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means.  I can quote you!  Or to be fair to you, did you _mean to say_ that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness _like ours_, *and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic*?

Either way, you're making claims about things that neither you nor any other human being in the world could possibly know to be true for sure or rationally defend as being true for sure as based on any objective standard of belief. Clearly, the only objectively rational thing we can say about God's consciousness or mind without begging the question, without arbitrarily precluding what is logically possible as if we had some secrete knowledge, would be the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, which would entail self-awareness, not just the possibility of some mindless force or some mindless, albeit, merged rational as in pantheism or panentheism, isn't that so?

In other words, the only thing we can objectively state without begging the question and because we cannot think that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be a divine Entity mindlessly unaware of itself*:*  God must have a mind/consciousness  of self-awareness _like ours_, albeit, unlike ours, one that is infinitely great.

In any event, you have clearly stated something like the emboldened in the above, though it's hard to tell because with you it's like _does God have a mind, a consciousness, or not_? _Does God have logic or not_? One thing we do know for sure*:* you claim that the logic we have was created, not bestowed on us by God.

Hence, if the logic we have was created then it could not have existed before. Ergo, our logic is not like God's, right? Yes? No? Maybe?

Now's the time to clarify what you're saying.

Yeah. See the real problem here is that you know damn well it makes no sense to say that our logic was created. The laws of organic logic necessarily hold that either nature or God bestowed the logic we have on us.

If God _does not_ exist, then the term _created_ is meaningless, as _that_ term presupposes a Creator!

If God the Creator _does_ exist as organic logic axiomatically holds, then the logic we have was not created, but must be the eternally existent logic of God bestowed on us, for we cannot rationally explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?  Since God, by definition, is not an entity that was created, but eternally self-subsistent, God's logic must have always existed in Him, or, at the very least, preexisted in Him before it was bestowed on us, isn't that right?

I repeat: you cannot explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, can you?

Huh?

Can you?

You just *believe* something inexplicable, something rationally and empirically indemonstrable, don't you?

You don't _*know*_ any such absurdity to be true, do you?

You are a liar and an idiot and a hypocrite falsely accusing me, aren't you?

I don't pretend to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

You and some of your idiotic buddies are the only ones around here pretending to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?

So tell us what God's logic is if it's not *for any given A: A = A*, _*for any two or more propositions NOT (A = NOT-A)*_ or *for all A: A OR ~A.
*
Tells us!

Explain it!

I dare you!

I double dare you!  LOL!


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this based on fact or fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on faith, Taz.
> 
> Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.
> 
> Using these:
> 
> Axiom:
> 
> As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be *accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> True:
> 
> in accordance with fact
> 
> controversy:
> 
> disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
> *
> 
> *And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?*
Click to expand...


In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief. 

You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this based on fact or fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on faith, Taz.
> 
> Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.
> 
> Using these:
> 
> Axiom:
> 
> As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be *accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> True:
> 
> in accordance with fact
> 
> controversy:
> 
> disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
> *
> 
> *And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.
> 
> You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.
Click to expand...


So when you see something called a logical proof,

but then say "if anyone could prove god, there would be no threads such as this" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).



edited to fix a direct quote.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.
> 
> Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you braying jackass!  Yours is the tale of a pathological liar who was given ample opportunity to come clean and admit his error.  Instead, you chose to shamelessly go on and on about a stupidity that neither you nor any other human being in the world can coherently explain the how of.  Or perhaps yours is the tale of a lunatic who is too stupid to grasp the ramifications of what he's been telling himself all his life because he's never stopped to think about the ramifications of what he's been spouting all his life.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness _like we do_, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means.  I can quote you!  Or to be fair to you, did you _mean to say_ that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness _like ours_, *and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic*?
> 
> Either way, you're making claims about things that neither you nor any other human being in the world could possibly know to be true for sure or rationally defend as being true for sure as based on any objective standard of belief. Clearly, the only objectively rational thing we can say about God's consciousness or mind without begging the question, without arbitrarily precluding what is logically possible as if we had some secrete knowledge, would be the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution, which would entail self-awareness, not just the possibility of some mindless force or some mindless, albeit, merged rational as in pantheism or panentheism, isn't that so?
> 
> In any event, you have clearly stated something like the emboldened in the above, though it's hard to tell because with you as it's like _does God have a mind, consciousness, or not_? _Does God have logic or not_? One thing we do know for sure*:* you claim that the logic we have was created, not bestowed on us by God.
> 
> Hence, if the logic we have was created then it could not have existed before. Ergo, our logic is not like God's, right? Yes? No? Maybe?
> 
> Now's the time to clarify what you're saying.
> 
> Yeah. See the real problem here is that you know damn well it makes no sense to say that our logic was created. The laws of organic logic necessarily hold that either nature or God bestowed the logic we have on us.
> 
> If God _does not_ exist, then the term _created_ is meaningless, as _that_ term presupposes a Creator!
> 
> If God the Creator _does_ exist as organic logic axiomatically holds, then the logic we have was not created, but must be the eternally existent logic of God bestowed on us, for we cannot rationally explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?  Since God, by definition, is not an entity that was created, but eternally self-subsistent, God's logic must have always existed in Him, or, at the very least, preexisted in Him before it was bestowed on us, isn't that right?
> 
> I repeat: you cannot explain how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, can you?
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Can you?
> 
> You just *believe* something inexplicable, something rationally and empirically indemonstrable, don't you?
> 
> You don't _*know*_ any such absurdity to be true, do you?
> 
> You are a liar and an idiot and a hypocrite falsely accusing me, aren't you?
> 
> I don't pretend to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?
> 
> You and some of your idiotic buddies are the only ones around here pretending to know how God's logic could possibly be anything other than the three laws of thought, isn't that right?
> 
> So tell us what God's logic is if it's not *for any given A: A = A*, _*for any two or more propositions NOT (A = NOT-A)*_ or *for all A: A OR ~A.
> *
> Tells us!
> 
> Explain it!
> 
> I dare you!
> 
> I double dare you!  LOL!
Click to expand...

ad hom

lacks precision

lacks being concise

emotional based

repetative


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You most certainly did express the idea that God doesn't need or use logic, doesn't have a mind or consciousness _like we do_, because God is all-knowing, whatever that means. I can quote you! Or to be fair to you, did you _mean to say_ that God doesn't have a mind or a consciousness _like ours_, *and that God's logic is not our logic, that God's logic is different than our logic, that God's logic is not bound by our logic*?



God is not bound by ANY construct of the human mind which God created. Dufus! Not only is this counter-intuitive, it relegates God to sub-human status. You're trying to argue that God has to behave according to our logical thoughts of how God should behave. That's simply rubbish if you believe in an omnipotent God. 

God does not have any need for sentience or a conscious mind, those are attributes God bestowed upon humans. Likewise, God has no reason for logic, which is a construct of human thought. You attempt to apply these to God because you cannot comprehend God otherwise. It's not your fault, you're human and humans rationalize things. It's precisely what brought forth religions from our intrinsic spiritual awareness of God. 

You've simply become lost in your own ramblings. You are arguing for a God who is bound and constrained by the parameters of human thought, which makes God *NOT* omnipotent.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> So when you see something called a logical proof,
> 
> but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).



Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see something called a logical proof,
> 
> but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.
Click to expand...

So then you disagree afterall that TAG serves as *an absolute. 
*
Really, I knew you to be a bit more rational than what TAGgers say TAG proves as an absolute, but I wanted to make sure we weren't talking past each other. I think we're on the same page. 

*TAG is a good argument for those who already presuppose God, it is not an absolute proof that god exists. We agree?*


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
Click to expand...


What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
Click to expand...



dude, stop drooling. jesus christ


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We also have intrinsic spiritual awareness.
> 
> Logic is a human construct of the human mind, nothing more, nothing less. It is not more powerful than God, it holds no domain over God.
> 
> We were created by God, along with our thoughts, minds and concepts. Every long-winded diatribe espoused by Rawlings and supported by his ass clown buddy, are conceptions of the human mind, which God created.
> 
> I refuse to accept there are things of our reality that weren't created by God, with the exception of things that exist in the absence of God's creation. *Darkness only exists in the absence of Light. Evil only exists in the absence of Good. Chaos only exists in the absence of Logic*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shot-winded, meaningless nonsense. Boss refuses to believe that God gave us minds like his, the logic, thoughts and concepts of his mind.  Boss refuses to believe that God bestowed his logic on creation. The logic of our minds is the law of identity, the law contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Boss just used human logic to tell us things about God and ultimate reality.  That must wrong because human logic doesn't tell us anything that's true.  Intrinsic spiritual awareness comes from sentience and logic.  Contradiction and chaos is Boss' logic. Boss is chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. I don't think this "refusal" to relate the logic of man's mind with the mind/logic of God
> is meant as something negative or false; I believe Boss is trying to put man's knowledge in perspective with God's which is of course greater.
> 
> I agree with you that if Boss does not understand the Christian concept of
> how "in Christ" our will can be made one with God's then this is not going to make sense.
> 
> To Boss it is going to sound like such a person believes they are speaking for God which is presumptious
> to say the least.
> 
> But M.D. equally objects to "arrogant" assertions by atheists claiming to KNOW what can or cannot be.
> 
> It seems clear to me, nobody really takes too well to someone else thinking they "know more"
> what is really going on with God than anyone else's guess.
> 
> Both M.D. and Boss object to this.
> 
> Boss expresses it by stating the knowledge and logic of man is less than God
> and for all we know, we don't know what God knows or God's reasons or ways.
> 
> I think that is fair as long as you keep it open.
> 
> But MD is not being open about relative views, but seems BENT on EXCLUDING that approach to understanding.
> while Boss is closed to the idea that human logic can align or represent God's logic.
> 
> So they keep clashing.
> 
> I can work with MD ways and Boss ways because I am okay with both absolutes
> and relatives as not contradicting each other necessarily.
> 
> But they keep rejecting each other because they see these as conflicted. I don't.
> 
> Even though man's logic is less, it can align and represent what is going on
> with God's will for humanity collectively.
> I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> I also don't have a problem with people like Boss making sure NOT to
> impose absolutes to the point where they exclude someone else's relative approach
> and what they know.
> 
> I think the ideal is to arrive at the absolutes by free will and reason,
> so this requires the faith in those truths existing
> and it requires the openness to check ourselves
> and know that we just know "parts" of  the greater truth or logic/knowledge out there.
> 
> Nothing wrong with staying humble and keeping
> it in perspective so we keep an open  mind and don't get stuck on our absolutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The absolutist simply holds to what logic dictates.  Boss wants to hold out for something that  violates logic and what history's philosophers and theologians known to be irrational.  Whatever.  Boss' crap is the kind of things that cults believe in, brain wash, mind control. Pretty sick. He wants to pick and choose his beliefs. When the conclusions of organic logic suit him he wants them, when they don't he doesn't.  He might as well not even  make arguments, just make a list of what he wants to believe and why, and stop with all the baloney that reason has anything to do with what he believes.  This is Boss:  .  He just dances all over the place not understanding a damn thing that comes out of mouth.  .  Logic proves that he's wrong, now he's trying to say logic doesn't prove things, just like the other dummies. Logic doesn't start with absurdities, and I object to something Rawlings just said to you about Boss' "possibility."  It's not a logical possibility in formal logic. I know Rawlings knows that and I know what he meant to say, he just said it wrong.  Point that out to Rawlings and watch what he does.  Is Rawlings a phony?  No.  He's not a phony.  He admits errors and corrects them.  Boss is a phony though.  He's  GT now or Hollie talking moobat nonsense.  Ding Dong.  Could Boss still be right if what organic logic proves must be true about God  is just a coincidence of human nature?  Yeah.  But it's not a formal logical possibility, just something we can imagine. I can imagine that my dog's a cat.  Like Rawlings says, Boss is just pretending that he can explain how God's logic could be "anti-the laws of logic", but he can't.  No one can.  And we all know that.  It's stupid.  And the phonies on this thread are just pretending that Boss' crap is something that we should take serious.  Hey, maybe pigs can fly.  How messed up is that?
> 
> God believes cat = dog?  All Boss is saying is that the laws of logic are true for God, except when there not true for God.  When we ask him to explain that stupid crap, all he really says  is that they're not true for God when I say so.    That's all Boss is saying, nothing else, for all you dummies out there.  Anyone who doesn't get that especially after Rawlings last post is an idiot.  I never seen so may phonies in one place in my life, after Rawlings' last post if Boss implies  that his imaginary idea, which is just like something from nothing, explains or did explain how God is anti laws of logic again, I'm putting him down for punk ass lying whore of a phony, a total pussy. Real men don't do that, only pussies. You keep talking about forgiveness, Emily.  That doesn't make disgust go away for disgusting behavior and lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here we get to see what happens when you challenge the narcissistic. They simply imply you said things that were not said. They type page-long diatribes based on these lies, and pretend they have accomplished something. You can read through Justin's post and find not one word of truth when it comes to his claims of what I have argued here. This cannot be unintentional or a misunderstanding. It is a quite intended smear campaign, designed for one intent and purpose.
> 
> Now you must ask yourself, why would these two clowns be going to such bizarre extremes to destroy the credibility of someone who supposedly believes in the same spiritual God they promote? It is because they are threatened by something I have said. In this case, it appears to be the logic that God bestowed upon man, which God created for man to use in his understanding of the universe. This poses a problem for the intellectual high-brow arguments posed by the narcissist. It doesn't let them be 'above' God for the sake of argumentation.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
to understand the concept of mirroring,
of removing the beam from our own eyes
before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.

There is no other way to learn but by experience.

So until they learn, they fall into the traps of their own making.
What you accuse others of reflects back on you, too.

And Boss, this applies to me, to Hollie and BreezeWood
everyone else here.

Again, the "logic of God" is to RISE above where it does
not seem to make sense by man's human logic:
man's logic is to point out the flaws and beat each other up
trying to dominate and subjugate the other person.
And we think we are doing this for truth and justice,
for higher laws we are trying to enforce to make corrections.

But our spirit is off it is Negative and showing ill will towards each other.
So even if our arguments make sense,
they are falling flat and not received well when delivered in this negative way.

We are all learning the DIFFERENCE
between our own logic and the higher laws that work better.

Clearly this logic of retribution and retaliation and rejection
is FAILING

Neither you or MD or Justin has any motivation to listen to each other's
points when you all feel attacked, insulted disrespected or otherwise
demeaned in some way that is contrary/inconsistent with what you 
know and are TRYING to say.

Untl you recognize the frustration and insult is EQUAL on all sides,
and it is NOT intended because all of you REALLY understand
what YOU are trying to say and think the other person has a problem.

Well it's mutual, it's not your or my fault any more or less
than it is Justin's or MD's fault for failing to communicate with each other.

That is where Forgiveness precedes correction.
The process we may realize here is how letting go emotionally
of the ill will and exasperation with each other may help as necessary FIRST
and THEN we can talk rationally and straighten out the objective points SECOND.

Boss isn't it ironic
that we KNOW this method of bashing each other isn't working
we KNOW we don't respond to it yet we continue doing it to the other
person WE KNOW isn't going to respond to that EITHER

We KNOW the human logic and flaws
and yet the bashing continues!

Clearly there is more to the learning process
where we are meant to be AWARE of the process
and why our perception changes when we decide
to take a different approach to how we communicate. 

our points and beliefs stay the same, but how we share them will change
to be more effective than what's going on now.

it's just a learning curve, trial and error,
hit and miss, until we get the target we are shooting for.

in the meantime stray arrows are flying all over
and we just have to be careful for those!

Can't wait to get past this stage and get
to the real content and good stuff underneath
the rock throwing and arrows/bullets flying....


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see something called a logical proof,
> 
> but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.
Click to expand...


Double dare you.  Explain it, cult leader.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> *
> 1.  The Divine Law of Identity*
> 
> God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_.  Hence, *God = Boss*.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *2.  The Divine Law of Contradiction*
> 
> God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A).  *Hence, the propositions that  *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:*  at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
> 
> God holds that  *for all A: A AND ~A*.  Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: * Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.
> 
> (Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially.  Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only.  Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of  fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on.  *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)
> 
> Check!​




"Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."


----------



## G.T.

I'm not sure I can understand how Justin can go back and read his replies and not be embarrassed. They are cringe-worthy middle school locker room mentality. It's pathetic.


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when you see something called a logical proof,
> 
> but then say "there is no proof" (your words), how are you then calling it a good proof?> (TAG purports to "prove" god, md's words, justin's words).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... there is no "proof" logical or otherwise. MD and Justin are free to argue whatever they please, and I am free to disagree with their premises. When we label something "logical proof" what do we mean by that? That our parameters of human thought have looked at the evidence and believe something to be true, based on our understanding and faith in the evidence. It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you disagree afterall that TAG serves as *an absolute.
> *
> Really, I knew you to be a bit more rational than what TAGgers say TAG proves as an absolute, but I wanted to make sure we weren't talking past each other. I think we're on the same page.
> 
> *TAG is a good argument for those who already presuppose God, it is not an absolute proof that god exists. We agree?*
Click to expand...


Correct, we agree.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
Click to expand...


Hi Justin
if God is unconditional
then to be more like God would mean
not to impose conditions for our own convenience
that are not necessary for our neighbors.

Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
(as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)

But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of 
knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
why pick this fight?

Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.

So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts 
he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?

If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.

That can still provide some answers or insights!

I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.

Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
to drive the car.  Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!

Thanks Justin

If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
it's  because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us

We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies

Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
as very useful in mediating between people and groups
struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.

This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
and talking past each other. how do we align our points
and principles where we focus on the same things?
and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
things one step at a time. how do we work together when
both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.

thanks!


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.



I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> 
> *
> 1.  The Divine Law of Identity*
> 
> God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_.  Hence, *God = Boss*.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *2.  The Divine Law of Contradiction*
> 
> God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A).  *Hence, the propositions that  *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:*  at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> 
> *3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
> 
> God holds that  *for all A: A AND ~A*.  Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: * Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.
> 
> (Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially.  Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only.  Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of  fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on.  *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)
> 
> Check!​




Just when I thought it couldn't be made any plainer.  Cult leader Boss


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.  I use to play the horses.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
Click to expand...

Would you please tell us how a post from Emily in effect saying that you need to go through your emotional rant bully boy phase in order to learn from it.........................

has you responding about organic thought?


Try comprehending what you read, or go back to plumbing man. It's better that the extent of your big thoughts for a day's time is whether or not to advise customers not to use drain cleaner products because of their corrosive nature in order to retain some future business.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
Click to expand...


^ Hi Justin I think you just answered your own question ^

A. either your logic is saying this is crazy and other people are following God's logic and saying you are crazy
B. or you are following God's logic telling you this is nuts and other people are following human logic and
THINK they are right

Because of the contradiction,
that shows where man's logic is divorced from higher logic.

one says one thing, the other says another

We are left asking what is the deal?

And we all struggle to reconcile why our perceptions/logic are telling us
something different so that the other person protests and say
hey it's the other way, it's not me it's you, back and forth

We are struggling to reconcile our limited perception or conflicting logic
with the truth out there that would resolve all our different perceptions
that are clashing until we learn to communicate and get on the same page!

Perfect example Justin
thank you for this!

P.S. for a Venn diagram, if you can imagine God's knowledge or truth is the entire
page, and everyone just has a limited circle or subset of that surface as our immediate perception, then we are struggling to map out the entire surface that we can cover,
but everyone just has some circles where some overlap, some include areas but
exclude others. God's knowledge is like the UNION of all these subsets,
and Christ is like where each of us AGREES or intersects with neighbors, so all those points of agreement add up to be the whole  plane also, but limited to different points for different people to discover and may not be the same points for other people who add their own to the big picture.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Justin
> if God is unconditional
> then to be more like God would mean
> not to impose conditions for our own convenience
> that are not necessary for our neighbors.
> 
> Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
> (as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)
> 
> But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
> the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of
> knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
> why pick this fight?
> 
> Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
> on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.
> 
> So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts
> he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?
> 
> If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
> why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
> CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.
> 
> That can still provide some answers or insights!
> 
> I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.
> 
> Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
> to drive the car.  Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
> the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
> We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!
> 
> Thanks Justin
> 
> If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
> maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
> and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
> it's  because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
> where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us
> 
> We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
> truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies
> 
> Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
> as very useful in mediating between people and groups
> struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
> out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
> you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.
> 
> This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
> how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
> theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
> and talking past each other. how do we align our points
> and principles where we focus on the same things?
> and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
> we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
> things one step at a time. how do we work together when
> both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
> best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.
> 
> thanks!
Click to expand...


The topic of the OP is about the arguments for God's existence.  I gave you and Boss some links about the TAG that shows why in organic logic it's not logically possible to argue against the existence of God, the laws of logic or the idea that the laws of logic are God's logic.  That's the truth.  It's not logically possible to do that.  People are trying to argue against that and can't.  That's what's being proved.  Everyone can see that, people are being phonies.  I'm not doing anything wrong, the phonies are.  Are you one of the phonies?  Are you gong to stand up for the truth?


----------



## G.T.

Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Justin
> if God is unconditional
> then to be more like God would mean
> not to impose conditions for our own convenience
> that are not necessary for our neighbors.
> 
> Inevitable may not need to agree on where things in existence came from
> (as I would say only God can know all things and we can only know a finite subset of God's knowledge/truth)
> 
> But we can still talk about HOW THINGS WORK WITHIN
> the given existence. If it isn't necessary to make a condition out of
> knowing or not knowing, agreeing or not agreeing on the source of life/creation/universal laws/truth/knowledge,
> why pick this fight?
> 
> Justin as a Christian you know there is no works or condition
> on God's gift of grace, by forgiving by asking to receive we receive.
> 
> So as long as Inevitable is ASKING to see certain points or parts
> he is interested in exploring, why not follow with him on that path and try to provide meaningful points?
> 
> If we cannot demonstrate using live science where the Creation came from,
> why not focus on Spiritual Healing or some other meaningful process that
> CAN BE demonstrated using science and replicated studies and research.
> 
> That can still provide some answers or insights!
> 
> I would not pick fights where those conditions are not necessary.
> 
> Justin it's like a car, I don't have to know where all the parts were made
> to drive the car.  Let's just agree what is the safe operation of the car,
> the proper ways to drive in relation to others on the road, and dangers to avoid.
> We don't have to understand all the mechanics, leave that to the mechanics!
> 
> Thanks Justin
> 
> If you can see that Inevitable is intellectually honest and sincere
> maybe more people can see that you are trying to communicate also
> and if there are failures it isn't because you have the wrong intent
> it's  because our views are so different we can't yet figure out
> where the other person is coming from which doesn't make sense to us
> 
> We are all struggling this way, but we all have intent of establishing
> truth and correcting errors conflicts or inconsistencies
> 
> Inevitable is a good person to work with, and will likely serve
> as very useful in mediating between people and groups
> struggling with these same issues. If you and he can figure
> out how to communicate across your different perspectives,
> you can both help the next set of people to bridge that gap.
> 
> This is not a futile exercise but an investment in learning
> how to resolve issues and deal with this process of
> theists and nontheists speaking two different languages
> and talking past each other. how do we align our points
> and principles where we focus on the same things?
> and not get distracted or divided over our differences that
> we can resolve as we go. how do we prioritize and resolve
> things one step at a time. how do we work together when
> both sides don't make sense to each other, what is the
> best process to follow where we can progress and get somewhere productive.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic of the OP is about the arguments for God's existence.  I gave you and Boss some links about the TAG that shows why in organic logic it's not logically possible to argue against the existence of God, the laws of logic or the idea that the laws of logic are God's logic.  That's the truth.  It's not logically possible to do that.  People are trying to argue against that and can't.  That's what's being proved.  Everyone can see that, people are being phonies.  I'm not doing anything wrong, the phonies are.  Are you one of the phonies?  Are you gong to stand up for the truth?
Click to expand...


I am also trying to apply this same model to other starting points.

Other people frame God/Creation with a similar starting point
then they refute contradictions from there.

Together, Justin, we establish the common truths
and remove the errors.

Justin, why do you call people liars or phonies
just because we have different starting points.

God is in charge and made us all unique souls for a reason.

Are you saying God "doesn't know what he is doing by making
us so diverse" and we should be all the same?

Then why didn't God make us all the same?
Sorry that doesn't make sense to me.

it makes more sense to me that
God and Christ use ALL THINGS
and they are diverse for a reason.

This is NOT phony this is REAL!

This is NOT BAD, this is GOOD to find God's purpose
for these differences.

Sorry Justin I don't mean to scare you into worrying
that I am being phony.

I don't disagree with you at all, just taking the
same model steps and process and applying it to
more people and situations that follow the SAME PATTERN as in TAG.

I believe this is EVEN GREATER PROOF that
it's the same God if the ==>PATTERN<== is the same
no matter "how many variations" of the same steps there are.

it's still essentially the same arguments so you are right.
the base core is the same.

other people are following or EXPRESSING these "same arguments"
but applied to "different contexts" using different terms/points of references

is that more clear, Justin?
Thanks!


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.



Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
Click to expand...

No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside. 

Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion. 

Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic. 

You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.



It's in post 4622.  "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.
> 
> Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.
> 
> Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.
> 
> You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony.  This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you   it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you   it.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.



False. Logic doesn't prove anything. 

A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.
> 
> Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.
> 
> Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.
> 
> You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony.  This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you   it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you   it.
Click to expand...

I never said axioms were, dunce. 

I said it's not an axiom to begin with. 

You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion. 

But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.
> 
> Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.
> 
> Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.
> 
> You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony.  This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you   it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you   it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said axioms were, dunce.
> 
> I said it's not an axiom to begin with.
> 
> You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.
> 
> But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.
Click to expand...


I know what you said, you retarded phony.  You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony.  The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony.  If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.
> 
> Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.
> 
> Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.
> 
> You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony.  This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you   it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you   it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said axioms were, dunce.
> 
> I said it's not an axiom to begin with.
> 
> You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.
> 
> But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what you said, you retarded phony.  You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony.  The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony.  If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.
Click to expand...

a:a=a                        =/= "god created knowledge"


you lemming.

I said it's not an axiom because the other possibilities are not ruled out, and also because it's not universally accepted. 
I said it's an informal fallacy because, failing the axiom exclusion, it begs the question and is viciously circular. 

I'm tired of your dunce ass not being able to read for accuracy and misinterpreting everything everybody said. God damn, you need to sign off my internet heathen.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
Click to expand...


Bonehead phony.  Logic doesn't say or believe things, people do.  Look at all you phonies.  Now all you have left are phony bonehead statements. Logic never fails. If you plug bad information into reason you will get bad conclusions, bonehead phony.  It's not logic's fault, it's the fault of bad information, like your bonehead phony information in your bonehead phony post, bonehead phony.  You and Rawlings explained that to that bonehead phony armchaos about electrons.  What a phony you are.  And besides, you bonehead phony, you're talking about inductive reasoning, not the irritable axioms of deductive reasoning.  What a total phony.  Now you're contradicting what you told armchaos.  Let's see if armchaos is gong to correct your phoniness about the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.  He won't because he's a phony like all you other phonies pretending that all your phoniness is real.  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bonehead phony.  Logic doesn't say or believe things, people do.  Look at all you phonies.  Now all you have left are phony bonehead statements. Logic never fails. If you plug bad information into reason you will get bad conclusions, bonehead phony.  It's not logic's fault, it's the fault of bad information, like you bonehead phony information, bonehead phony.  You and Rawlings explained that to that bonehead phony armchaos about electrons.  What a phony you are.
Click to expand...

temper tantrums man, thats all your posts rise to ^^^


----------



## Taz

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this based on fact or fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on faith, Taz.
> 
> Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.
> 
> Using these:
> 
> Axiom:
> 
> As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be *accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> True:
> 
> in accordance with fact
> 
> controversy:
> 
> disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
> *
> 
> *And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.
> 
> You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.
Click to expand...

No, it all boils down to facts, and fact is you live in a fantasy world where fact and fairy tales mingle.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
Click to expand...


Hi Boss
then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
but two different contexts.

There is neutral logic
that once you define A to be the capital version of a
and B to be the capital version of b
then AB is the capital version of ab

There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
and there is faulty logic

False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.

True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.

Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic

and man's logic on a lesser level that is 
finite and fallible

So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to 
distinguish between
man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
vs.
true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
that MD and Justin refer to

Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true

This is like one person saying God = something positive
while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly

We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
tht contradict

same with whatever you and MD are calling logic

this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing

like attributing things of Satan to be God
and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God

Can you and MD please spell out what you
mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.

we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
and expect to communicate clearly.

tht is like several people doing a math proof
but one person has set up
X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
and you aren't getting the same answers.
well duh, you haven't agreed what
to call 1, 2 and 1.5
but keep arguing the other person's
values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value


----------



## emilynghiem

Taz said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this based on fact or fantasy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's based on faith, Taz.
> 
> Let's be clear, if anyone could prove God, there would be no threads such as this. But then, there is no such thing as "fact of truth" either. Everything you believe is true is based on your faith in validity of facts and proofs. We can never know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that fit into the concept of axioms? Curious, your take.
> 
> Using these:
> 
> Axiom:
> 
> As classically conceived, an *axiom* is a premise so evident as to be *accepted as true without controversy.
> 
> True:
> 
> in accordance with fact
> 
> controversy:
> 
> disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
> *
> 
> *And based on those definitions, is "god created knowledge" axiomatic - - - - - or a faith based assertion?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In essence, everything you believe is based on faith. It doesn't matter that you define it as an axiom. That is simply a testament to the degree of faith you have in your belief.
> 
> You see... I believe in a God who is smarter than Rawlings. Logic doesn't control my God. The parameters of human thought are never more powerful than God. So we can all argue back and forth about what we believe or don't believe, it all boils down to our faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it all boils down to facts, and fact is you live in a fantasy world where fact and fairy tales mingle.
Click to expand...


I thought Boss was trying very hard to be realistic here.
What are you talking about TAZ? Missed something, sorry!

Dear Boss:
Re: "Logic doesn't control my God."

No, I don't see MD trying to use Logic to CONTROL God
but trying to pinpoint the points and steps by which
people can come to terms with God.
we are using the Logic as a tool to either
agree on definitions/points or to hash out
what problems we see with the process.

So it is tool to help PEOPLE.

I think you must mean that MD is trying to control people's
discussions of God by forcing this "as the only way" or 
the best way to talk about God and to reach agreement on
what he sees as clearly universal and absolute points.

He is like the professor who is convinced that quantum
mechanics is the best gift in the world,
or using facebook or skype as a medium is the "end all be all"
that is going to connect and save all humanity.

Yes and no.
Yes, it is the core of points and process that if we
all go through and come to terms with, yes we will all be on the same page
and can resolve any other conflicts to the contrary preventing that unity.

But no, other people need to add some other
process or perspectives for their own experience and
path with this same process. so it is greater than just
the literal TAG proof itself, it is the whole process around it, too!

MD and Justin don't see this becuse they are not process people.
they are black and white, you are either with the picture or
you are a "liar and phony"

I don't get this black and white, kill all the lawyers approach.
but that is how they think and the challenge is to 
work with that and with people like you and me who
include other factors and ways of processing this same content.

we really need both, and find where these connect and agree.

I guess it is easier for me to come from a relative position
and include the absolutes and the relatives
but for someone who only thinks in absolutes
they can't always include the relative approaches.

If you are multilingual and each person only speaks one language
then the multilingual person ends up changing language for
each person, but that person doesn't have to accommodate the
others they just keep speaking only their language and translation is needed.

the content is absolute
but the language and context is relative

Justin and MD don't get this
or they take it for granted they don't need to mess with it
and everyone else is going to have to translate back and forth for them
while they only speak their native language and nothing else.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
Click to expand...


Come on.  We've already defined what logic we're talking about.  We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined.  GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic.  He's an idiot.  He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic.  He's phony.  Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom.  They are phonies.  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on.  We've already defined what logic we're talking about.  We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined.  GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic.  He's an idiot.  He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic.  He's phony.  Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom.  They are phonies.  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.
Click to expand...

I've refuted that they're even axioms to begin with, and I've done so without any refutation whatsoever. 

*Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
*
Hold the phone, there's no controversy over the existence of god!!?!?!?!!?

Up is down, retard.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
Click to expand...


Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not. 

To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that. 

I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought. 

What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.
> 
> To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.
> 
> I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.
> 
> What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.
Click to expand...


What a phony.  The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore.  The laws of organic logic  prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting?  Anthropomorphizing?  Same thing!   That does not logically follow.  The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this?  You don't have any.  You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility  obviously cannot be denied,  you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic.  You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way.  That's the whole point, you retarded phony.  You're begging the question without justification.  The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted.  Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No.  Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No.  When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens?  The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours.  That's a fact of human thought.  There's no getting around it.   .


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.
> 
> To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.
> 
> I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.
> 
> What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a phony.  The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore.  The laws of organic logic  prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting?  Anthropomorphizing?  Same thing!   That does not logically follow.  The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this?  You don't have any.  You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility  obviously cannot be denied,  you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic.  You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way.  That's the whole point, you retarded phony.  You're begging the question without justification.  The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted.  Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No.  Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No.  When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens?  The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours.  That's a fact of human thought.  There's no getting around it.   .
Click to expand...


I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names? 

It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.
> 
> To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.
> 
> I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.
> 
> What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a phony.  The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore.  The laws of organic logic  prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting?  Anthropomorphizing?  Same thing!   That does not logically follow.  The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this?  You don't have any.  You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility  obviously cannot be denied,  you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic.  You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way.  That's the whole point, you retarded phony.  You're begging the question without justification.  The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted.  Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No.  Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No.  When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens?  The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours.  That's a fact of human thought.  There's no getting around it.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?
> 
> It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.
Click to expand...


it's funny to him too
he thinks you're the one saying
2+2=5 when he is agreeing with MD that
2+2=4

do you see what is happening Boss?

Boss if you speak Spanish and you say Gato = means "CAT"
And if Justin speaks French and he says Gateaux = means "CAKE"

both of  you accuse the other of trying to say a Cake is the same as a Cat
or a Cat is the same as a Cake

even though the word LOGIC sounds the same
it means something different the way
each of you is using it in different contexts.

in this case it is almost like OPPOSITE
in meaning

you are both going to think the other person
is REALLY messed up! and you both see
how you are right and makes sense but
can't see how the other person is saying whatever....


----------



## G.T.

Gateaux means from the hood


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the argument is not that god doesn't exist, it's that he's not been proven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to what any good scientist is gong to tell you not to say.  My science teacher told me to stop saying that, but I was jus a kid.  Are you still a kid, a little boy?  Science doesn't prove things, logic does.  Logic proves that the laws of thought are universal and must be organically hardwired in humans and the sciences of neurobiology and psychology have verified that. Logic proves that God exists and that God's logic would have to be same as ours. Science cannot verify or falsify these logic proofs so science doesn't matter. You're being phony.  The only way you can say that is by saying that materialism is true.  Prove that against the logical proofs in organic logic.  You can't do that phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your assertion that logic proves god is simply not true, your quibbling over prove and verify left aside.
> 
> Also, materialism is not the only way. It's doubt, and the doubt arises when the presented "proof" is merely weak assertion.
> 
> Every counterpoint or objection to what you two clowns has to say is glossed over, and you simply copy paste some clap trap that doesn't even apply. I'm sorry, I can't help you with presupper 3d syndrome, and don't even want to.............but the relevant result is that yourself and md have burnt so many bridges with your immaturity that we've all lost count, and further, you've completely embarrassed yourself with the level of fawning you commit over a not so bright presuppositional apologetic.
> 
> You can stick all of that up your three legged horse's ass and then smoke it out its mouth, Mario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. Axioms are not informal logical fallacies, you phony.  This stupid vomit is not true in formal logic of organic, modal or constructive logic the first time you   it and like that idiot armchaos believes and it's not this billionth time you   it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said axioms were, dunce.
> 
> I said it's not an axiom to begin with.
> 
> You dip, duck and dodge that because it's necessary for you to save face for a failed assertion.
> 
> But noone being dumber than you, it logically follows that it's above your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what you said, you retarded phony.  You said it's not an axiom because it's an informal logical fallacy, you retarded phony.  The axioms of organic logic are not informal logical fallacies, because they're true no matter what, you retarded phony.  If your retarded phoniness were true than all axioms of organic logic would be informal logical fallacies, including A:A=A, you retarded phony.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin: If you are about to take off time here and focus elsewhere,
you could be losing patience with all of us. I see no reason to declare
everyone "phony's" for lack of a better term or way to respond to express your objections.

Just saying you object and question that response is FINE
you do't have to make assertions or attacks against the person.

If you do, this could be a sign that you are losing interest
becuase your attention is needed elsewhere, and you don't
have time to mess with this right now.

So if you leave, when you come back maybe we can pick up 
and try to work things out.

GT and amrchaos are not phony at all.

when I asked to consider spiritual healing, they are open to it
and ask healthy normal questions about what this involves.

Justin if they were phony or had other intent,
they would be more like Hollie and either avoid the question
and ONLY focus on arguing points they can win.

Just to attack and object and trump the opposing or offending point.

GT and amrchaos have not avoided the issue that I said
could resolve a huge gap in this puzzle between
secular science taht is observable and can be replicated to demonstrate consistently
and religious symbolism for spiritual concepts or process that is abstract
and covers collective ground beyond what science can capture.

since GT and amrchaos do not reject for the sake of rejecting
I can tell they are for real and not phony, not in it to make a quick
slam dunk on mistakes or weaknesses they can use to smear someone.

Inevitable is also sincere and less afraid than Hollie
who has not answered about this spiritual healing but seems to avoid it
and only jump on MD for the sake of jumping


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.
> 
> To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.
> 
> I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.
> 
> What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a phony.  The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore.  The laws of organic logic  prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting?  Anthropomorphizing?  Same thing!   That does not logically follow.  The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this?  You don't have any.  You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility  obviously cannot be denied,  you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic.  You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way.  That's the whole point, you retarded phony.  You're begging the question without justification.  The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted.  Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No.  Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No.  When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens?  The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours.  That's a fact of human thought.  There's no getting around it.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?
> 
> It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.
Click to expand...


No one is saying logic trumps God, you punk ass lying whore.  I'm telling you God _is_ Logic, you punk ass lying whore.  You've been told that over and over again, you punk ass lying whore. So your imaginary bull, the same kind of absurdity that something can come nothing, about God becomes not-God tomorrow is a straw man, you punk ass lying whore.  I can imagine my dog's a cat too and that's all you stupid idea about God creating logic is.     

I'm calling you out for a punk ass lying whore because the people you started to verbally abuse the people who don't believe that your  dog = cat bull is a fact like you claim.  You started calling me an idiot and liar as you pretend not to understand that the logic we have could be God's logic, not created at all but endowed.  The logic we have could have always existed in God.  God created logic?  So God doesn't have logic?  You can explain how God's logic would be different than our logic?  Then explain how God believes that a cat is the same thing as a dog if His logic is different than ours.


----------



## G.T.




----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> Gateaux means from the hood



so instead of being the GOTO person 
it's about being the Gateaux person?

is that Ghetto speak?
or Gateaux speak?

Seriously
GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
have any suggestions what TERMS to use
for explaining the distinction 
Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
vs.
Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
and represent that using Man's logic terms.

They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.

Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.

Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.

clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
off base and going around in our own circles and not
any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.

whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.

the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
may mirror each other and we need to align
the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
same for the next person, but each may need to be
resolved distinctly. 

Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
instead of fighting over whose system is going to 
dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
each person KEEP their own system and 
translate where things lie under both systems
and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.

G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
for better terms or descriptions to specify what
Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
that is true in their system, I can try to work with
MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.

by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.

the content underneath is the same for all people
but our expressions for these abstract levels
can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
different terms for the levels of awareness that 
American English does not distinguish from each other).
In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
while we only have one. And Greeks had different
words for the different types of LOVE while English
requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
how many different levels or aspect could we
quantify there?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in post 4622.  "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."
Click to expand...


*Boss' What if Pigs Could Fly?*

Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is _not_ a formal possibility in those forms of logic.

Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.

Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.

Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would _first_ ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be _yes, that's possible_. But in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be _no, that's not necessary_, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.

In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a _might or might not be true_ value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would _not_ be assigned a _*valid*, might or might not be true_ value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic*:* for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.

However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic _the law of the excluded middle_ and _double negation elimination_ (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not _is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)?_ or _is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)?_ but _what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the phenomenal object of the original proposition? _

Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God _does_ exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that _*if*_ God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.

Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are _valid, might or might not be true_ propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what *neurobiology* or *psychology* has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are *bioneurologically hardwired* and, therefore, universal.

Hence, on that level, we have a proposition *inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence*. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the *organic* axiom of_ double negation elimination_, in this case, positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive _God bestowed His logic_ relative to the *organic* law of _the excluded middle_.

Boss' notion is falsified.

It is _*not*_ a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.

It is a merely an imaginary _what if_. What if pigs could fly?  Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove the negative of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that neither he or nor any other human being can negate.

All he's really saying in the end is that the universal, bioneurologically hardwired absolutes of organic logic are not absolutely true ultimately or transcendentally! 

Prove it!

And, of course, he can't do that, for, once again, any argument launched against any one of the two imperatives of the Transcendental Argument will invariably be inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, will positively prove the opposite to be true, logically.


----------



## G.T.

MD you should look up redundant in a dictionary and then read your last paragraph there over and over and over again until it sinks in.

Then, and for fun, fill a water gun with bleach and have a war with your curtains.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
Click to expand...


Boss and I are talking about logic in the very same context, the context of the formal laws of thought*:*  the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle.  That is the logic _we_ have.  Boss claims that the imperatives of that logic anthropomorphize God, that the imperatives of that logic project the constituents  of our consciousness on God's consciousness  as if God's logic or the fundamental constituents of God's mind were something different in nature than ours, rather than different in magnitude. 

Of course, what Boss is literally saying is that the philosophers and theologians of history, and the billions of believers in history are doing that just because.  LOL!  But that's just Boss *≠* Boss, but = Tiny Little god (Boss) in the gap pretending not to understand that it's the objective facts of human cognition which hold that the logic we have was not created by God, but has always existed in God and was bestowed on us by God.  According to organic logic, we were theologized by God, which is the _*only*_ logical possibility or logical necessity in formal logic, while constructive logic formally allows for the alternative possibility that nature is the bestowing agent.  Nowhere in formal logic does the notion that God created our logic hold up.  It is negated/falsified in all forms of logic!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in post 4622.  "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is _not_ a formal possibility in those forms of logic.
> 
> Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.
> 
> Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.
> 
> Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would _first_ ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be _yes, that's possible_. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be _no, that's not necessary_, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.
> 
> In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a _might or might not be true_ value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would _not_ be assigned a _*valid*, might or might not be true_ value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic*:* for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.
> 
> However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic _the law of the excluded middle_ and _double negation elimination_ (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.
> 
> So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not _is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)?_ or _is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)?_ but _what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition? _
> 
> Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God _does_ exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that _*if*_ God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.
> 
> Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are _valid, might or might not be true_ propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.
> 
> Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of_ double negation elimination_, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive _God bestowed His logic_ relative to the organic law of _the excluded middle_.
> 
> Boss' notion is falsified. It is _*not*_ a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.
> 
> It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings and Boss:
I hate to see you continue to misread what each other means
by taking what you post so literally and mixing the contexts where you are
losing the meaning and talking past each other.

You are both conscientious minded, with the best convictions,
but these are getting the worst of you right now.

You are so offended that the other person is contradicting
and insulting what you are saying and what you mean,
that you are not getting what each other really means.

You are too caught up in trying to explain and defend your views.
This is chaotic and crossing wires!

My mother pointed out to me there are at least 3 levels of communication
A. the REAL truth for you, what you MEAN underneath
B. your expression of it
C. the other person's perception/interpretation of B

We are not getting past C and B
to get to A.

I tend to process things holistically as an Empath.
So I "read" vibes on level 
and then struggle to reconcile the concepts and principles/content in A
using B and C and those are the levels where the mutual cross-entanglements
get so confused we can't see what each other means on level A.

Online it is even worse!
People question each other's motives, who is being a hard ass
or deliberately or unconsciously skewing or screwing it around or whatever.

That is one point I dont waste time on.
I don't waste time accusing people
becuase I'm too busy trying to disentangle
confusion over B and C to get to A!

Now I am going into this assuming we all
ahve the best intent and have consistent truth on level A

And where things are getting entangled is B

and then when we misread each other's intent
we screw up C by thinking the other person is a screwball

What can we do to untangle
the problems on levels B and C

I want to get to A and the concepts there.

You are both focusing on the words used in B.

How do we align all these levels so there is no confusion
and false accusations of each other's intent, character intelligence or whatever.

Do you understand that this problem is going on
and masking what each other thinks of what the other person is trying to do or say?

The miscommunication and cross wires are so bad,
people are taking insult and then insulting the other person for the same,
and then taking insult that other people are either calling names or being called names.

All that is from the superficial levels.

I want to focus and stick to the real underlying content in level A.
how do we get there from this messy entanglement where we are now?

thanks and sorry this happens
online it is worse
but with the intelligence and commitment to getting things
right and consistent, as long as we don't give up, we'll straighten this out!


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in post 4622.  "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is _not_ a formal possibility in those forms of logic.
> 
> Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.
> 
> Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.
> 
> Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would _first_ ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be _yes, that's possible_. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be _no, that's not necessary_, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.
> 
> In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a _might or might not be true_ value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would _not_ be assigned a _*valid*, might or might not be true_ value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic*:* for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.
> 
> However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic _the law of the excluded middle_ and _double negation elimination_ (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.
> 
> So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not _is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)?_ or _is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)?_ but _what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition? _
> 
> Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God _does_ exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that _*if*_ God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.
> 
> Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are _valid, might or might not be true_ propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.
> 
> Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of_ double negation elimination_, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive _God bestowed His logic_ relative to the organic law of _the excluded middle_.
> 
> Boss' notion is falsified. It is _*not*_ a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.
> 
> It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.
Click to expand...


So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?


----------



## emilynghiem

Ok one point at a time thanks this helps tremendously:



M.D. Rawlings said:


> *(A) Boss claims that the imperatives of that logic anthropomorphize God, that the imperatives of that logic project the constituents  of our consciousness on God's consciousness  as if God's logic or the fundamental constituents of God's mind were something different in nature than ours, rather than different in magnitude.*




Boss thought you were doing this. thought you were saying our logic "determines or controls" God

so you are both objecting to the same concept
but both thinking/accusing the other of saying it wrong and gettin git backwards

Since both you and Boss are objecting to the notion
that man's logic creates God,
I can only surmise that you agree this is messed up.

Sorry your words are getting twisted around backwards
but Boss was also complaining those interpretations were NOT what Boss meant either!

(B) God's logic being different in nature than ours rather than in magnitude

True, when we are one, then God magnifies this collectively
whereas we experience life in a microcosm or reflection of the whole

False, when we Contradict higher laws and go by man's fallacies and faulty logic which
we should call "illogic" to distinguish when this is OFF, as Boss seems to
want to DISTINGUISH,
then this IS INDEED not in harmony with God's logic or laws.

I would say God's ideal is that we be united in truth and liberated from division
discord strife and falsehood error or confusion skewing us off target with each other
instead of "agreeing in Christ" or united as one in mind/conscience

But when we keep sticking to that which is dividing us
that runs contrary.

the examples I gave were
a. continuing to insult or attack others when we know this isn't resolving or helping anything
but making it worse, so it is ILLOGICAL and makes no sense to keep bashing back and forth
b. doing that ^ while complaining others are doing it to us while doing it back saying we are justified in dishing it back
because they did it to us, but then say they are not justified because we didn't do that to them we were justified!
so that's another level of not making sense stacked on top:
if we KNOW we don't like it and don't respond or change/correct anything if people do this to us
WHY do it to others knowing they aren't going to like it and aren't going to correct anything by being attacked either!

so this is an example of how man's decisions which seem natural to us
go against God's higher ideals and laws or logic/wisdom as to what will get us toward agreement in truth

this sidetracking of bashing to vent our past issues is
part of the process of working it all out, but if we don't
recognize this, we judge and criticize each other in circles.

so that is where man's ways are definitely in conflict with God's higher path plan and purpose,
and these ways of man will come to an end, exhausting themselves,
and leave God's ways as self-sustaining

we will eventually grow tired of our ways that don't work
and submit to God's ways that are consistent and lasting[/QUOTE]


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?



1. I don't think Boss is interested in limiting the discussion or definition of God
to just the TAG points process outline and approach. Boss objected to trying to control
the image of God using this "logic" approach, that doesn't work for Boss but leaves out
the parts or process that Boss does relate to and connect with.

BreezeWood also does not follow this spelling out of God using TAG
but dismisses it as just another Christian biased projection or idolatrous image of God
being worshipped in place of the Almighty transcending the words on the page.

2. You and MD are busy defending TAG and the logic of using this approach.

BreezeWood and Boss are basically saying the true understanding of God/Almighty
exceeds that anyway and want to start the conversation from a different approach.

they fear that limiting the discussion of God to just this doesn't prove
or explain the greater things about God they feel are being missed.

3. I guess it is like arguing
a. if capturing the entire symphony on the page is "all we need" and WE'RE DONE!
b. or forget the sheet music, what's important is enjoying and experiencing the symphony.

B. one group is afraid if you focus on the central representation of the music
you limit yourself to that or idolize it or miss the bigger picture and performance that transcend the notes on the page

A. I think you and MD are so concerned about establishing agreement
on the absolute, that we can summarize in writing, like getting all the actual NOTES of the CONTENT right,

that you nix anyone who wants to take that same melody
and play it without following the same sheet music,
and aren't following the exact same core patterns that you establish is within everyone's parts.

We need both, these do not compete with each other.

We can AGREE on the scales used, and AGREE on the chords and melody lines,
but if one person plays a part differently from someone else, there's room for that.

When the orchestra plays together YES each part needs to be in sync with the others in that section.

What you are missing is even if
ALL the players and sections are playing the same symphony
in perfect synch and harmony and following the score perfectly,

the flute part looks Nothing like the drum part
the sax part is in a Different key from the clarinets or trumpet

so it is mistake to try to get all the players to play
"the same notes on the same page at the same time"

their music isn't even written that way
but is in different keys for a reason
and it makes the symphony work out anyway
it's designed that way!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Justin, could you tell me what post you're talking about because I don't think I said that Boss' idea is a formal possibility in logic or a hypothesis in science as far as that goes, though it's certainly possible, being human, that I said something that implied that. I just can't find it. But if I did, you're right. I wouldn't have meant it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in post 4622.  "Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of logical possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Got it. Boss' notion is not even a potentiality or a hypothetical in classic or modal logic, but an absurdity, so it is _not_ a formal possibility in those forms of logic.
> 
> Obviously, if God doesn't exist, the idea of logic being created is meaningless. But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.
> 
> Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility. For any attempt to argue what Boss is arguing in the same necessarily negates itself and positively proves the opposite is true.
> 
> Modal logic is the formal logic of necessity and possibility. In modal logic, one would _first_ ask whether or not it's possible that God created logic for humans without any consideration given to any other logical issues or knowledge to the contrary. In other words, one just asks the question in isolation, on the face of it. The answer would be _yes, that's possible_. But then in modal logic, one would then ask whether or not God necessarily created logic for humans with all the known rational or empirical (if there be any of the latter) facts on the table. The answer would be _no, that's not necessary_, and because it's not necessary, indeed, self-negating, it would be falsified/negated in modal logic.
> 
> In constructive logic, Boss' notion would be assigned a _might or might not be true_ value at first as it pertains to something that is not empirical in nature, i.e., is not inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. Note that only in constructive logic are the terms proof and verification used, not interchangeably, but side-by-side because constructive logic is the more technical logic used to produce hypothesis for science. Also, note that it would _not_ be assigned a _*valid*, might or might not be true_ value, as the double proofs of the TAG would be. Why? Because Boss' notion irredeemably violates the principle of identity, which is the universally indispensable axiom for all forms of logic*:* for organic logic and for any alternate, analytic forms of logic.
> 
> However, it can still be considered in constructive logic on the merit of its face value as either a rational or irrational proposition. Remember, in constructive logic _the law of the excluded middle_ and _double negation elimination_ (which is the axiom Boss' notion violates, the one that reveals the notion's violation of the principle of identity) are suspended as axioms, though the violations of these imperatives can still be demonstrated on a case by case basis.
> 
> So in constructive logic, which is all about intuiting hypotheses for science, the question is not _is this proposition consistently ration (organic logic)?_ or _is the proposition's claim possible or necessary on the face of it (modal logic)?_ but _what are the alternatives that might account for the phenomenal subject and/or the object of the original proposition? _
> 
> Well, the imperatives of organic logic hold that God _does_ exist and that God must have bestowed His logic on the creation. The imperatives of modal logic hold, without consideration given to any other factors, such as Gödel's ontological proof for God's existence in modal logic, that _*if*_ God does exist then He necessarily bestowed His logic on the creation.
> 
> Constructive logic holds that the proofs in organic and modal logic regarding God's agency in this matter are _valid, might or might not be true_ propositions, and that the alternate agent is nature. Hence, Boss' notion that logic was created is negated. Further, as constructive logic is the technical logic for science, one would ask what neurobiology or psychology has to say about it. Both hold that the laws of thought are bioneurologically hardwired and, therefore, universal.
> 
> Hence, on that level, we have a proposition inhabited by a scientifically verifiable proof of direct evidence. On a case by case basis then we see that Boss' notion violates the axiom in organic logic of_ double negation elimination_, in this case positively proving the opposite to be true, and by extension proving that it is the falsified expression of the positive _God bestowed His logic_ relative to the organic law of _the excluded middle_.
> 
> Boss' notion is falsified. It is _*not*_ a formal possibility in any form of logic and is not a legitimate hypothesis for science. Boss' notion is neither rationally nor empirically demonstrable.
> 
> It is a merely an imaginary thing. Boss is demanding that the imperatives of organic logic prove a negative in the face of his refusal to believe the rational evidence of the imperatives of organic logic that he cannot negate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Boss' goof is not a formal logical possibility or even close to being a necessity in logic?
Click to expand...


That's right.  It's neither . . . in formal logic.  But it's okay to say that it's a possibility or a potentiality that can be imagined, a _what if_.  But because it is not something that is logically possible to explain without  proving the opposite . . . well, what do we normally call such things?  Absurdities!  So no I shouldn't have said _*logical possibility*_, just a possibility of human imagination that immediately collapses the moment you apply the laws of thought to it.  But you shouldn't compare it to _something from nothing_ because the latter has an empirical element to it which allows it to be considered as a hypothesis in science, however improbable.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emily, I have no problem with what humans define as logic. My problem is with projecting this human construct onto God and insisting there is such a thing as "God's Logic." Then, taking that false and baseless presumption and making the argument that human logic is an extension of "God's Logic" which wasn't created by God. I cannot pretend we are on the same page when we're not.
> 
> To further clarify what I am saying; I don't believe human beings have an adequate vocabulary to define God. Our construct of thought is inadequate for such a task. It is akin to a chimpanzee understanding nuclear fission. We apply these human constructs to God because we are attempting to rationalize God, but we can't fully rationalize something outside our scope of understanding any more than a chimpanzee can do that.
> 
> I believe that God "intelligently designed" us... BUT... I use these words because those are the words we've assigned meaning to, that we comprehend. Perhaps "intelligent" is inadequate to define the "mind" of God? Perhaps "design" is equally inadequate? Maybe humans don't have the vocabulary or comprehension to explain it? We've simply applied this term because it's something we can rationalize and comprehend. The same can be said for "Logic" and other human constructs of thought.
> 
> What I know, or more accurately, what I _believe_ I know, is that there is a mercurial spiritual energy coursing through our universe, to which we are intrinsically aware, for whatever reason. Again, I use the words "spiritual energy" because there is no other words we have in our vocabulary to adequately define it. It's the best we can do as humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a phony.  The objective thinker using the laws of organic logic is not projecting anything, you punk ass lying whore.  The laws of organic logic  prove that the our logic could not have been created, but either came from nature or from God, you punk ass lying whore. Projecting?  Anthropomorphizing?  Same thing!   That does not logically follow.  The claim that the laws of organic logic project themselves on God or anthropomorphize God assumes that God's logic is not the same as ours. What is your proof or your scientific evidence for this?  You don't have any.  You just refuse to believe that God gave his logic to us when that possibility  obviously cannot be denied,  you punk ass lying whore and your punk ass lying whore garbage has been proven false in logic.  You are a closed-minded cult leader pretending to know something you can't possibly known logically or any other way.  That's the whole point, you retarded phony.  You're begging the question without justification.  The FACT is that we cannot think about God in any other way but by the laws of organic thought as you already admitted.  Can you explain how the laws of thought are not true? No.  Can you explain how God's logic could be different then ours? No.  When you try to say that God's logic is different than ours what happens?  The laws of logic prove that God's logic must be the same as ours.  That's a fact of human thought.  There's no getting around it.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never have claimed that God didn't give humans logic. God created humans, therefore, God created logic. Why must you continue to lie about things I've said and call me names?
> 
> It's really funny to me... You want to argue that logic says 2+2=4... But... We could all wake in the morning, and IF God wanted 2+2=5, then our perception would be that 2+2=5 is logical, and we'd have no memory of yesterday, when logic said 2+2=4. Logic doesn't trump God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is saying logic trumps God, you punk ass lying whore.  I'm telling you God _is_ Logic, you punk ass lying whore.  You've been told that over and over again, you punk ass lying whore. So your imaginary bull, the same kind of absurdity that something can come nothing, about God becomes not-God tomorrow is a straw man, you punk ass lying whore.  I can imagine my dog's a cat too and that's all you stupid idea about God creating logic is.
> 
> I'm calling you out for a punk ass lying whore because the people you started to verbally abuse the people who don't believe that your  dog = cat bull is a fact like you claim.  You started calling me an idiot and liar as you pretend not to understand that the logic we have could be God's logic, not created at all but endowed.  The logic we have could have always existed in God.  God created logic?  So God doesn't have logic?  You can explain how God's logic would be different than our logic?  Then explain how God believes that a cat is the same thing as a dog if His logic is different than ours.
Click to expand...


Please, Justin, turn the volume down a little.  Look, I get the disgust with Boss' evasions, but just state the matter with satire. Okay?  I'm swearing off all name calling regardless what others say because it's getting out of hand.  However, I don't fault your observations about all the phoniness flying around this place.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
Click to expand...

Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.

My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dude, stop drooling. jesus christ
Click to expand...

He has lost his mind hasn't he?

Justin, chill, it's just an opinion.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
Click to expand...

Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God. 

You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> It does not mean it's truth, we can't know truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. God can know truth, but we're not God.




*we can't know truth ...*

the Triumph of Good over Evil or of Evil over Good, the parable of Noah is the means for knowing Truth necessary for Remittance to first becoming a Spiritual being and Judged by that outcome necessary for the goal of Admittance to the Everlasting.


but we're not God ... it is silly to enslave yourself to such a silly concept -

God is the gatekeeper against Evil - anything else is achievable.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science doesn't prove things, logic does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. Logic doesn't prove anything.
> 
> A thousand years ago, "logic" said that if you traveled the ocean westward, you would eventually fall off the edge of the earth. Aristotle "logically" concluded that things have gravity because they long to be close to earth. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was rebuked because it defied the "logic" of Newton's Laws of Motion. What we see is a very long history of human "logic" being incorrect and not proven. This is not to say that logic is not useful, but it's not infallible and it certainly doesn't supercede God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Boss
> then it is clear we are not using logic the same way
> but two different contexts.
> 
> There is neutral logic
> that once you define A to be the capital version of a
> and B to be the capital version of b
> then AB is the capital version of ab
> 
> There is ALSO true logic or wisdom
> and there is faulty logic
> 
> False logic tells us that we are right to attack someone if they attack us so it is fair.
> 
> True logic tells us we are more likely to RESOLVE issues/misunderstanding
> causing the attacks if we agree to STOP attacking each other and work it out regardless.
> so this is where I mean that forgiveness sometimes comes first before correction follows.
> but our minds tell us we want to correct things first, and then forgive them afterwards.
> 
> Boss you made a distinction between God's higher logic
> that we humans could only guess and conjecture and rely on our own thinking logic or perception
> to tell us if we THINK or BELIEVE (or KNOW if you are MD or Justin) that this is aligned with God's truth/logic
> 
> and man's logic on a lesser level that is
> finite and fallible
> 
> So Boss, what terms do you suggest we use to
> distinguish between
> man's false, faulty or flawed logic that is either wrong in some cases or could be wrong
> or is right but hypothetically could change if proven otherwise
> vs.
> true logic or God's logic or whatever you call the absolute//universal level of truth
> that MD and Justin refer to
> 
> Boss if you keep defining logic to apply to false examples
> then you are going to conflict with definitions and usage of logic to mean something true
> 
> This is like one person saying God = something positive
> while someone else says no God is bad = something negative, punitive and ugly
> 
> We cannot get anywhere if we argue about God as meaning two different things
> tht contradict
> 
> same with whatever you and MD are calling logic
> 
> this isn't lining up so that's why you are disagreeing
> 
> like attributing things of Satan to be God
> and then arguing with someone who uses a different term for
> what God means and what Satan means and doesn't say all that comes from God
> 
> Can you and MD please spell out what you
> mean by logic, which level, which kind can be faulty, etc.
> and not confuse this with anything else meant by logic.
> 
> we can't use the same word logic for contradictory things
> and expect to communicate clearly.
> 
> tht is like several people doing a math proof
> but one person has set up
> X = 1 and another X = 2 and another X = 1.5
> and you aren't getting the same answers.
> well duh, you haven't agreed what
> to call 1, 2 and 1.5
> but keep arguing the other person's
> values for X is messed up because you use X for a different value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on.  We've already defined what logic we're talking about.  We're talking about the three formal organic laws of thought, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle and the absolute standard of objectivity. It's been thoroughly defined.  GT keeps trying to impose the fallacies of informal logic that only apply to secondary propositions, not to the axioms of formal logic.  He's an idiot.  He knows he cannot refute the axioms of formal logic.  He's phony.  Boss is trying to argue that an imaginary absurdity, which is a secondary proposition that is a logical fallacy refutes formal axiom.  They are phonies.  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof phonies everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've refuted that they're even axioms to begin with, and I've done so without any refutation whatsoever.
> 
> *Axiom: an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
> *
> Hold the phone, there's no controversy over the existence of god!!?!?!?!!?
> 
> Up is down, retard.
Click to expand...


Why are you talking to Justin about this when you know that I've already negated this many times?  You're just one of the redundant broken records of duh around here who never acknowledges the any objective standards of discourse.

Straw man!

The fact of the matter is *there is no such thing as an axiom that is universally accepted without controversy*.  So your wrong from the jump!  However, legitimate objections are asserted from definitive premises in keeping with the formal standards of academia and the conventional standards of justified true belief/knowledge (JTB/K).  Your standards are illegitimate and intellectually dishonest.  The fallacies of informal logic (FIL)  apply to secondary propositions when they are asserted as established JTB/K, propositions that are not necessarily rationally or empirically demonstrable.  The FIL do not apply to the primary axioms of formal logic, i.e., the incontrovertibly universal facts of human cognition.  The latter may, however, be legitimately doubted on  the basis of rationally or scientifically pragmatic skepticism and thereby tested in order to determine whether a contradiction can be deduced from them or in order to determine if any given postulate/theorem subsequently predicated on them can be negated/falsified by direct evidence.

Seriously?  You used a series of question marks and exclamation points to underscore the historical controversy over God's existence on a thread about that very thing? 

Let me find an appropriate smiley for that banality*:*          .  Actually, there are several appropriate smilies for that bilge.


The Transcendental Argument (TAG) does not assert that there is no controversy over the question of God's existence. 

*See "The Transcendental Argument (TAG) Does not Assert #2, but #1!" **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
Click to expand...


Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
Click to expand...

No, are you an atheist?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
Click to expand...


No.  I know better, on both counts.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
Click to expand...

Okay, because I can explain this both ways.

It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.

You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.

So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.

I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.
> 
> My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.
Click to expand...


Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge.  Science verifies or falsifies things. 

Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact _the_ evidence for God's existence. 

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
Click to expand...


He got it from a Cracker Jack box.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you stop acting like a child let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.
> 
> My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge.  Science verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact _the_ evidence for God's existence.
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*
Click to expand...

So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss: to tell you the truth
> I believe Justin and M.D. have to go through this
> to understand the concept of mirroring,
> of removing the beam from our own eyes
> before messing with the splinters in our neighbors' eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He got it from a Cracker Jack box.
Click to expand...

At least I have something other than calling people names. And arrogance to match the most conceited atheist.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*


So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Inevitable:
I believe it can be either way
the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
that's one approach I see people relate to
or Life as we know it
can have a beginning point of Creation
OR
our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
can have a beginning point

I have seen all these different ways

As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.

One person can be looking at just Earth
another the Solar System
Another the Milky Way
and another the whole spiel

And we can still agree that 
the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth

Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
we can agree that you can use
a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.

We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
to use it and understand the basic concepts 

Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks, Inevitable:
> I believe it can be either way
> the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
> can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
> that's one approach I see people relate to
> or Life as we know it
> can have a beginning point of Creation
> OR
> our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
> can have a beginning point
> 
> I have seen all these different ways
> 
> As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
> frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
> and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.
> 
> One person can be looking at just Earth
> another the Solar System
> Another the Milky Way
> and another the whole spiel
> 
> And we can still agree that
> the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth
> 
> Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
> and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
> we can agree that you can use
> a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.
> 
> We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
> to use it and understand the basic concepts
> 
> Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
> to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
> and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
> like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
> or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
> to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
> body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
> all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....


All I am really trying to do is to get people to think. I am afraid that in current company I feel much like Sisyphus.


----------



## G.T.

So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.

How many does that make, now?

I lost track around ten.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.


"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates

I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to watch the movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.  "Mendacity" is the theme, the phoniness people live with each other, all the while knowing  they're being phony with each other, but pretending not to know, pretending to believe each other's phoniness when they all know it's all phony  because it's easier for them to be phonies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.
> 
> My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge.  Science verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact _the_ evidence for God's existence.
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.
Click to expand...


I see that you gave that information all the thought that you give to the chore of brushing your teeth.  God is speaking to you, Son, _right now_ in your mind, but you're not listening . . . even after I gave you all the clues in _The Seven Things_ that God has revealed to mankind from the heavens.  These things are in your mind and in the universe in which you live.  He's telling you that *I AM!*  You didn't hear His voice because you're not listening to Him, but to the noise of popular culture.  Think very carefully about _The Seven Things_ and pay particular attention to *#6*.  Get serious.  The evidence and the proofs for God existence are inside your mind and all around you.


----------



## BreezeWood

Inevitable said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> .
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
Click to expand...




> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.


.

they lose because they have no practical application.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss *≠* Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap*




emilynghiem said:


> Boss is also arguing that
> 
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> 
> Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
> 
> we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
> 
> so whatever logic God created for us on our level
> 
> is determining whatever we look at. it is always
> 
> limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.


*
*
Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (_the law of contradiction_) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question*:*

[indent[God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing _but_ His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) ≠ Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between *(1)* operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and *(2)* informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).[/indent]


We _can_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _can_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain _how_ God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.

In other words*:*

*1. How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: _*for any given A: A = A*_? God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?

* 2. How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction*:* _*for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)*_? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?

* 3. How* could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: _*for all A: A OR ~A*_? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive _and_ the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?​
Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is _not_ God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That _is_ the inescapably reality of human cognition. _*For any given A: A = A*. _It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on *A: A **≠** A*!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, *Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap*!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that *(1)* God exists and that *(2)* God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

_Knock Knock_

Anybody home?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
Click to expand...


Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Little god Boss in the Gap Fallacy is Refuted Again!
*


emilynghiem said:


> How about this:
> 1. Given God created all things in the universe
> 2. there was some reason or logic for God to create the universe
> 3. the reason or logic had to exist BEFORE God created the universe
> Since #1 and #3 contradict each other then
> A. either the logic or reason was already there,
> B. the whole universe was already preexistent also and not created
> C. we don't know if it was A or B
> I think Boss is saying
> C
> we don't know, we can only theorize what God's logic or reasons
> are and what is the process of God's creation or order of the steps etc.
> As for human logic:
> A. Given God created all things, including humans, human nature and conscience
> B. Human logic is part of the human conscience, and the laws of logic and
> science are part of the laws of creation
> C. then one could argue that when God created humans and our relationship
> to all things in the world, then the logic ON THAT LEVEL was created by God
> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.




Boss is arguing la-la. His "reasoning" is utterly arbitrary. Like all relativists, he's a slogan spouter. Those things that he likes that obviously hold true due to the logic we have he believes. Those things that he doesn't like that obviously hold true due to the logic that we have (For what other logic do we have but the logic that we have?) he disbelieves.

Nevertheless, I understand Boss' rational. I always have.

The bottom line*:* Boss necessarily holds that our logic anthropomorphizes God!

That's inevitably what he holds to be true. In fact, I know Boss has followed the line of reasoning that necessarily follows from his premise to its conclusion because he emphatically stated humans tend to ascribe sentience to God and, therefore, believe God desires to have relations with us due to the fact that human logic is the only means they have to think about God. And Boss is right. That's true. Our logic is the only means we have to think about God or about anything else. I do not dispute that.

But Boss doesn't stop there.

He goes on to say, that "only rubes like Rawlings actually believe that God has sentience or desires to have relations with us as our logic suggests. Rawlings is silly to believe that. I am more enlightened than Rawlings as I have a special logic that is not human. God created the logic we have for us because it leads us to believe spiritual things and to pursue spiritual things that are good for us [paraphrase]."

Hence, Boss *knows* for a fact that God does . . . *not* have sentience and does not desire to have relations with us!

_Crickets Chirping_

Non sequitur!

*Rawlings:* "So why do you refuse to believe that, Boss?"

*Boss:* "I refuse to believe that! We can only believe what's true, not know what's true, except what I know is true and you don't?"

Boss can't *know* that to be true, because his secrete knowledge does not necessarily follow.

According to Boss, there's no possibility at all that God theologized us. No. That's not possible. Nope. That couldn't be true. God didn't give us His logic. Nah. Human logic was created. There's no way in hell the logic we have is God's logic. That's stupid. Only idiots believe that.

In fact, Emily, you don't have Boss entirely right. He didn't just say that God created _human_ logic. He said God created logic. Logic didn't exist before God created it.

(Though in his most recent post he wrote that in the absence of Logic is chaos. I wonder what that Logic is.)

Boss holds that God doesn't have logic. Doesn't use logic. Doesn't need logic. He also said that God doesn't have a mind or consciousness. Doesn't use these things. Doesn't need these things. Boss* knows* these things are true.

And how do we know that Boss is necessarily saying he *knows* these things are true, isn't merely saying that he believes these things are true?

*Answer: *Because when I tell him that none of these ridiculous ideas necessarily follow, he tells me that I'm an idiot. He tells me that anyone who believes (you know, like the *billions* of followers of the major monotheistic religions of the world) that God has sentience and desires to have relations with us are idiots.

So all these *billions* of people are idiots, but Boss has the inside track. He *knows* that our logic anthropomorphizes God for our own good, but God's . . . nonexistent mind . . . is not really like ours in anyway whatsoever. God didn't theologize us with His logic. That's not logically possible.

Boss *knows* this based on a non sequitur, based on something not recommended by logic at all, based on some special knowledge, some special logic, contrary to the ramifications of the logic we have . . . based on something he could not possibly *know* unless he were God Himself. (By the way, How does God known anything at all without a mind?) Boss thinks he's God. More to the point, Boss is a little god standing in the gap, just making things up as he goes along. He's a slogan spouter.

And Boss *knows* these things because according to him we can only believe things; we can't *know* things. Oh, wait! Apparently, Boss doesn't really mean *we. *He just means the rest of us mere mortals. He, on the other hand, *knows* things none of the rest of us can *know*.

*That's weird.*

Boss *knows* things that contradict the one thing that all the major religions of the word in history have in common, the one thing that all the major philosophical and theological constructs of divinity have in common, hold to be necessarily true, logically*:* God did not create logic, but bestowed His logic on His creation.

You see, the relativist is just an intellectual bully. He's arrogant, boastful, full of piggish pride. He's a petulant child. Smarmy. Some of the things that are logically true about God according to the laws of thought are cool. Other things that are logically true about God according to the laws of thought are not cool. It just depends on how this or that thing tastes in his mouth. The things that might have a tinge of obligation attached to them, curiously enough, aren't cool. Like I said, the relativist is a slogan spouter.

He's the self-anointed arbiter of truth who gets angry and abusive when you point out to him the non sequiturs and contradictions of his intellectual bigotry . The relativist is insulted by these things. How dare the commonsensical rubes of the world point out the idiocy of the unexamined decrees of the enlightened folks of the world!

*I have always plainly seen and understood what you presented in the above, Emily, on the grounds of epistemological skepticism.* The cogitation that God must have bestowed His logic on us could arguably be a freak of nature, a mere fluke of the bioneurologically hardwired logic of human cognition. It might not be ultimately or transcendentally true beyond the confines of our minds. That's because I'm an objective observer of things.

Though I do not believe that to be true in the face of logical necessity and probability, I can clearly see that what Boss is asserting might be true as a matter of potentiality—a hypothetical that is not outside the bounds of possibility, even though it be a weak possibility that actually undermines the proofs for God's existence, which flies right over Boss' head. No wonder the atheists like it, that is . . . when they're not arguing against Boss' other irrationalities that conflict with their irrationalities.

Nevertheless, I allow, unlike Boss who allows no proposition but his own irrational proposition, that Boss could be right. But let's be clear about something*:* If Boss is right, our logic necessarily _does_ anthropomorphize God and, therefore, is not directing us to understand anything that's necessarily true about God at all. Boss has no grounds whatsoever to assert anything about God, not even the idea that we instinctively know God exists.

Paradox. Contradiction. Incoherency.

That's just Boss contradicting the logic the rest of us have with the special logic of the little god in the gap that he is. That's what Boss is calling reasonable. That's what he's saying he *knows* to be true after saying that we can't *know* anything to be true. That's the paradox of his believe-know dichotomy, fraught with incoherency and chaos, that applies to everyone else but him.

*The little god Boss in the gap fallacy.*


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you still have nothing? Thanks for knowing when you are bested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a total phony.  I asked you if you existed, punk.  You said that you know you existed, punk.  I asked how you came to exist, punk.  "Stop asking questions", you said, punk. How did you come to exist, punk?  You're the first piece of evidence for God's existence, punk.  You know that either the universe made you or that everything was created by God, punk.  Those are the options, punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, ease up there friend. No need to stop being a lady about it.
> 
> My existence really doesn't prove the existence of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, logic proves or disproves things regarding empirical and transcendental propositions for justified true belief/knowledge.  Science verifies or falsifies things.
> 
> Your existence and the existence of the universe are in fact _the_ evidence for God's existence.
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So The universe needs a god to create it? Why? Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you gave that information all the thought that you give to the chore of brushing your teeth.  God is speaking to you, Son, _right now_ in your mind, but you're not listening . . . even after I gave you all the clues in _The Seven Things_ that God has revealed to mankind from the heavens.  These things are in your mind and in the universe in which you live.  He's telling you that *I AM!*  You didn't hear His voice because you're not listening to Him, but to the noise of popular culture.  Think very carefully about _The Seven Things_ and pay particular attention to *#6*.  Get serious.  The evidence and the proofs for God existence are inside your mind and all around you.
Click to expand...

WhileI am glad you left behind the attitude, I don't think you understand. I didn't ask you for what you provided. I asked you for proof.

Don't worry with my faith, it is unshakeable by things as frivolous as culture.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.



.
certainly, the hungry lion will have the same response ... 


step away from your bible mdr, try thinking clearly.

.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
Click to expand...

Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.


----------



## Inevitable

BreezeWood said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> .
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> they lose because they have no practical application.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Funny how md shifted gears to prattle about popular culture and such while preaching his sermons.

Anything to avoid the question.


----------



## Inevitable

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> certainly, the hungry lion will have the same response ...
> 
> 
> step away from your bible mdr, try thinking clearly.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> We _can_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _can_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain _how_ God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.



^ RE: above ^ I get this same impression from Boss' objections also,
or close enough, or coming from the other side: where
to ASSUME we are aligned with God's logic is presupposing
and projection our perception. Very close even if you are coming
from view A and applying to view B, and Boss is coming from
view B and applying similar to view A. ^
======================

V RE: below V
*


			
				MD said:
			
		


			1. How

Click to expand...

*


			
				MD said:
			
		

> could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: _*for any given A: A = A*_? God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?



Because God is infinite and we are taking representations of God
one presentation at a time,
we have to be careful we didn't do things like this:

Person A says God = Life Creation Universe etc.
Person B says God = Love Good will Positive Energy
Person C says God = Truth Wisdom Knowledge

So God = C values
God = B values
God = A values
but A *≠ B ≠ C

BreezeWood is looking at God as beyond just Creator
Boss also does not make the leap that the representation of God in your
TAG is the most universal effective consistent or "only way" to frame
or present God

Just because we don't agree how to represent God best,
does not mean we ARENT talking about the same God.

I dn't know why BW insists we are talking about two different Gods
as if teh Christian God is not a representation of the Almighty BW believes in.

There is only one God by definition of what we mean by God
so this has to all point to the same source.

and we just each have different ways to develop a construct
to explain the relations and differences or connections between
us as individuals, other people in society, and the collective whole.


*​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.
Click to expand...


Actually, why preach to me?  I just gave the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  Are you saying those things aren't true?  Are you making an argument or just being rude?  You asked me to provide information to you. 

This is the first time I've talked you, but is this your pattern?  You ask a question.  I answer it with things you've never considered or thought about before.  That's obvious!  It looks like your mind's made up about things to which you obviously gave absolutely no serious consider. 

It's your position that God has not proven His existence to mankind? Are you Christian?  I see that there's a cross on your signature.  If you don't believe me  at this point then read the first chapter of Romans, beginning with verse 18.  Then read the post on _The Seven Things_ again . . . for reals. God is speaking to all of us all the time in our minds about Himself and His creation. That's a fact, not a sermon.  You're saying you don't believe that?  Your refusal to open you mind and seriously consider the things I've shared with you = there is no proof, or = an admission that there is no proof? 

Really?

How's that?

How do you figured you've refuted something you haven't seriously considered at all?  How do you figure you've refuted something when you haven't even dared to put anything into evidence regarding the things you imply to have refuted?

Hmm.  The only reason I spoke to you in the first place is because Emily said you were an open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person.  Looks like she is wrong about you.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Inevitable:
> I believe it can be either way
> the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
> can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
> that's one approach I see people relate to
> or Life as we know it
> can have a beginning point of Creation
> OR
> our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
> can have a beginning point
> 
> I have seen all these different ways
> 
> As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
> frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
> and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.
> 
> One person can be looking at just Earth
> another the Solar System
> Another the Milky Way
> and another the whole spiel
> 
> And we can still agree that
> the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth
> 
> Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
> and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
> we can agree that you can use
> a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.
> 
> We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
> to use it and understand the basic concepts
> 
> Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
> to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
> and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
> like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
> or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
> to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
> body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
> all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....
> 
> 
> 
> All I am really trying to do is to get people to think. I am afraid that in current company I feel much like Sisyphus.
Click to expand...


Well I feel like the person who gets smashed to smithereens
when all the weight goes crashing
downhill and crushes whoever is at the very bottom
after everyone else scatters


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.



1. one good thing I notice is that Inevitable is good at taking anotherwise
esoteric argument and keeping it real in local terms of direct experience.
Like asking hey let's see proof of God's existence on that level.

We need this to keep us anchored.

Inevitable is able to navigate both realms and keep them both real
and as consistent as possible, verbalizing when something is off soemwhere

MD you do this too but you focus on the intellectual terms
and go to extremes on that side, while Inevitable is not going to
compromise in house reality for theory in fancy terms. It has to be real, too.

I think this is a plus.

2. as for listening to God
by the time each of us can get past the noise
and really hear the good points each other is presenting
then we can better hear the whole of what God
is trying to reveal to us through this diverse exchange

I think your advice applies to all of us

we all need to get past the noise
and try to fine tune to each other!

Thanks MD I think this will get easier as we go

Once more people get in tune with
where the note C is and where the rest of the scale is,
the others will align as well.

then we can play some music ifwe
can tune all our instruments to align in harmony

we may not have the same ranges
or be in the same key or have the same sounds or timbres
but the songs we produce as a team with
our different voices and parts should be in harmony


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, why preach to me?  I just gave the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  Are you saying those things aren't true?  Are you making an argument or just being rude?  You asked me to provide information to you.
> 
> This is the first time I've talked you, but is this your pattern?  You ask a question.  I answer it with things you've never considered or thought about before.  That's obvious!  It looks like your mind's made up about things to which you obviously gave absolutely no serious consider.
> 
> It's your position that God has not proven His existence to mankind? Are you Christian?  I see that there's a cross on your signature.  If you don't believe me  at this point then read the first chapter of Romans, beginning with verse 18.  Then read the post on _The Seven Things_ again . . . for reals. God is speaking to all of us all the time in our minds about Himself and His creation. That's a fact, not a sermon.  You're saying you don't believe that?  Your refusal to open you mind and seriously consider the things I've shared with you = there is no proof, or = an admission that there is no proof?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How's that?
> 
> How do you figured you've refuted something you haven't seriously considered at all?  How do you figure you've refuted something when you haven't even dared to put anything into evidence regarding the things you imply to have refuted?
> 
> Hmm.  The only reason I spoke to you in the first place is because Emily said you were an open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person.  Looks like she is wrong about you.
Click to expand...

God asked me to take a leap of faith. That was extremely difficult for me. But if there is proof why would I need to take a leap of faith? What value would faith have if there was fact?

I came to my faith by asking these questions. And realizing nobody knew the answers beyond speculation.

All I have done is ask questions. If my questions make you feel like I am persecuting you, perhaps it's because I already know the answer as do you and you are attempting to give me falsehoods because it is something you would like to know.

I personally don't need proof, I don't need to see angles, I don't need to hear God speak. Frankly I don't really want to.  Faith is good enough for me. I don't feel the need to call people phoney Christians frankly that isn't my place. If you ask me, I am Christian. Given things about who I am you probably wouldn't think that I am. So take it or leave it.

Back to the point, if you have proof that God exists please show it to the atheists. Or tell me so that I can deliver the message. Why wouldn't you?


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Inevitable:
> I believe it can be either way
> the Universe/Creation/all things in existence/Collective truth
> can be taken to be self-existent, with no beginning and no end, as the concept of God being infinite and eternal
> that's one approach I see people relate to
> or Life as we know it
> can have a beginning point of Creation
> OR
> our PERCEPTION and self-awareness of laws and of existence
> can have a beginning point
> 
> I have seen all these different ways
> 
> As long as people can understand and accept where the other person
> frames the timeline, we can still align and discuss/agree on points
> and principles WITHIN the laws of these systems.
> 
> One person can be looking at just Earth
> another the Solar System
> Another the Milky Way
> and another the whole spiel
> 
> And we can still agree that
> the laws of gravity work a certain way on Earth
> 
> Even if we don't agree on Quantum Physics
> and if time being relative can be warped through wormholes or whatever,
> we can agree that you can use
> a combination of gravity and friction to walk across the floor.
> 
> We don't have to agree on what created this gravity
> to use it and understand the basic concepts
> 
> Inevitable I will be so happy when we don't have
> to argue about conditions that aren't necessary to agree on,
> and we can focus on the practical stuff that can do the most good in the world,
> like not arguing "how old the trees are the oranges came from"
> or "when did the forces of nature first produce these trees"
> to agree that Vitamin C in oranges helps the
> body's natural immune system. if we had to agree on
> all that other stuff BEFOREHAND we'd never get to the orange juice....
> 
> 
> 
> All I am really trying to do is to get people to think. I am afraid that in current company I feel much like Sisyphus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I feel like the person who gets smashed to smithereens
> when all the weight goes crashing
> downhill and crushes whoever is at the very bottom
> after everyone else scatters
Click to expand...

Don't give up, no matter how hard it seems how pointless it may feel your words do make a difference They may be insignificant at first but like all good things time nourishes it.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> We _can_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _can_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain _how_ God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ RE: above ^ I get this same impression from Boss' objections also,
> or close enough, or coming from the other side: where
> to ASSUME we are aligned with God's logic is presupposing
> and projection our perception. Very close even if you are coming
> from view A and applying to view B, and Boss is coming from
> view B and applying similar to view A. ^
> ======================
> 
> V RE: below V
> *
> 
> 
> 
> MD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> MD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: _*for any given A: A = A*_? God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because God is infinite and we are taking representations of God
> one presentation at a time,
> we have to be careful we didn't do things like this:
> 
> Person A says God = Life Creation Universe etc.
> Person B says God = Love Good will Positive Energy
> Person C says God = Truth Wisdom Knowledge
> 
> So God = C values
> God = B values
> God = A values
> but A *≠ B ≠ C
> 
> BreezeWood is looking at God as beyond just Creator
> Boss also does not make the leap that the representation of God in your
> TAG is the most universal effective consistent or "only way" to frame
> or present God
> *​
Click to expand...


I agree with BreezeWood.  God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that?  I can't do anything about that.  I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness.  As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd.  He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness.  He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily.  You're not helping him by making excuses for him.  The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted.  It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!  If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are_* not*_ logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily!  Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily!  Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the  atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the  problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about.  But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things.  All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> We _can_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _can_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain _how_ God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ RE: above ^ I get this same impression from Boss' objections also,
> or close enough, or coming from the other side: where
> to ASSUME we are aligned with God's logic is presupposing
> and projection our perception. Very close even if you are coming
> from view A and applying to view B, and Boss is coming from
> view B and applying similar to view A. ^
> ======================
> 
> V RE: below V
> *
> 
> 
> 
> MD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. How
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> MD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity: _*for any given A: A = A*_? God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because God is infinite and we are taking representations of God
> one presentation at a time,
> we have to be careful we didn't do things like this:
> 
> Person A says God = Life Creation Universe etc.
> Person B says God = Love Good will Positive Energy
> Person C says God = Truth Wisdom Knowledge
> 
> So God = C values
> God = B values
> God = A values
> but A *≠ B ≠ C
> 
> BreezeWood is looking at God as beyond just Creator
> Boss also does not make the leap that the representation of God in your
> TAG is the most universal effective consistent or "only way" to frame
> or present God
> *​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood.  God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that?  I can't do anything about that.  I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness.  As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd.  He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness.  He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily.  You're not helping him by making excuses for him.  The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted.  It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> "I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> "I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> "The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!  If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are_* not*_ logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily!  Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily!  Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the  atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the  problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about.  But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things.  All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
Click to expand...

It's closed minded to ask a question of you? One you freely admitted having the answer for? 

I don't understand.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the phonies of the peanut gallery are "crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun."   I don't care who you are that's even funnier than a three-legged horse running in the Belmont Stakes.   Would you please tell us how God's logic could be different from the logic of organic thought?
> 
> 
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
Click to expand...


Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?

Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.

Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.

Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.

The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.

I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.

Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organic Thought doesn't lead to the sacred, only the profane. Divine though leads to God.
> 
> You are attempting to make what is profane into what is sacred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
Click to expand...

By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.

Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this. 

Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.

That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, why preach to me?  I just gave the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  Are you saying those things aren't true?  Are you making an argument or just being rude?  You asked me to provide information to you.
> 
> This is the first time I've talked you, but is this your pattern?  You ask a question.  I answer it with things you've never considered or thought about before.  That's obvious!  It looks like your mind's made up about things to which you obviously gave absolutely no serious consider.
> 
> It's your position that God has not proven His existence to mankind? Are you Christian?  I see that there's a cross on your signature.  If you don't believe me  at this point then read the first chapter of Romans, beginning with verse 18.  Then read the post on _The Seven Things_ again . . . for reals. God is speaking to all of us all the time in our minds about Himself and His creation. That's a fact, not a sermon.  You're saying you don't believe that?  Your refusal to open you mind and seriously consider the things I've shared with you = there is no proof, or = an admission that there is no proof?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How's that?
> 
> How do you figured you've refuted something you haven't seriously considered at all?  How do you figure you've refuted something when you haven't even dared to put anything into evidence regarding the things you imply to have refuted?
> 
> Hmm.  The only reason I spoke to you in the first place is because Emily said you were an open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person.  Looks like she is wrong about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God asked me to take a leap of faith. That was extremely difficult for me. But if there is proof why would I need to take a leap of faith? What value would faith have if there was fact?
> 
> I came to my faith by asking these questions. And realizing nobody knew the answers beyond speculation.
> 
> All I have done is ask questions. If my questions make you feel like I am persecuting you, perhaps it's because I already know the answer as do you and you are attempting to give me falsehoods because it is something you would like to know.
> 
> I personally don't need proof, I don't need to see angles, I don't need to hear God speak. Frankly I don't really want to.  Faith is good enough for me. I don't feel the need to call people phoney Christians frankly that isn't my place. If you ask me, I am Christian. Given things about who I am you probably wouldn't think that I am. So take it or leave it.
> 
> Back to the point, if you have proof that God exists please show it to the atheists. Or tell me so that I can deliver the message. Why wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe what God has revealed or not.  God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that *I AM*!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/

*#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!

*


----------



## percysunshine

.

If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*I AM!*

*See #6 of  The Seven Things ™* that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.
_______________*

You have moved a bit closer, *Boss*, to the objective world of human cognition as opposed to what you were initially advocating way earlier on this thread. In fact, right now, you are but one simple step away from a mind-blowing epiphany.

I still disagree with the expression that "_objectivity is subjective". _In other words, I know what you're getting at, but allow me to propose something else.  Drop the violation of the second law of thought (the law of contradiction) and simply assert the only proper response to the foundation of wisdom: Faith!

That's the response I've been standing on all along via the incontrovertible laws of organic thought, which, ultimately, are, collectively, the universal Principle of Identity.

Stay with me, grab a seatbelt, buckle up for this ride.

As I've said before you are so close to what is true in terms of _perfect _logic, though you remain a bit off. I hear you, Boss. I always have. And you've been all around it, but not quite on it.

Don't take offense. It's got nothing’ to do with me. I'm nobody. The brilliance of the argument you alluded to is not mine. It took God years to get me on it. Years! For something right in front of me all along. That's how screwed up we are! But what's been really freakin' me out all along with you is that while I'm more learned than you on this stuff, I am not necessarily smarter than you. You're naturally onto to something profound that God had to hammer through my thick skull.

"No, no, Michael!"

"But, Lord . . ."

"You're still way off."

"But, Lord . . ."

"Hush and listen."

"Okay, Lord . . . Wait, wait, I see it. Whoa!"

"Pretty cool, eh?"

Boss, there's no reason for the violation of the second law of thought, all of which, ultimately, are moral in nature. Just let the laws of thought stand. Abide by them. Obey them. Make your thoughts and your expressions unanimously conform to them, as you can't escape the actuality of their revelations or sanctions, respectively, anyway. No one can or does.

(By the way, that's the foundational understanding about why and how absolute omniscience and actual free will coherently coexist. You're free to choose, but whatever choice you make, the outcome is known by God, because embracing the laws of thought is reward, disregarding them is disaster. The ultimate understanding of this dynamic, however, in terms of God's absolute knowledge about the unique details of each individual's choices, is revealed by simply embracing the objectively logical fact of number 4 of The Seven Things: the multidimensional simultaneity of infinity.)

Don't violate the laws of thought and what you're trying to get at becomes crystal clear.
* 
Theorem*: humans are finite beings of faith who hold that objectivity is possible by faith. If something is objectively possible, it must be true. For in this instance, it is necessarily and axiomatically true as a matter of practicality and must, therefore, be true as a matter of ultimacy.

Stay with me.

This is a logical proof for the fact that _faith_ is the means, though not the ground, by which we embrace absolutely certain knowledge. Ultimately belief and knowledge are one.

What is that logical proof for faith ultimately based on? Answer: reason. Who is the ultimate essence of that reason?

Each person has to decide that for themselves, but for those of us who personally know Who the answer for that question is, this is the order of things:  God . . . logic . . . information . . . faith . . . true knowledge.

On the very face of it, it's not logically possible for either a _finite mind _or for a _creature_ to think/state "God (Creator) doesn't exist." That thought or statement is logically self-negating. It's actually a thought/statement that God _does_ exist!

Hence, *"I AM!"*

Now some are still conflating *#2* with* #1* (See *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039225/*), but apparently you've got it down.

* 1. *And because *I AM* you may know that the apparent, every-day-walk-in-the-park distinctions you must necessarily make as a matter of practicality are concretely real!

*2.* The distinction between objectivity and subjectivity is concretely real!

*3.* The apparent world beyond the world of your mind is concretely real!

*4.* The apparent synchronization of the rational forms (dimensional, geometric, spatial) and logical categories (the propositional delineations of linguistic and mathematical apprehensions/expressions) with the properties and processes of the cosmological order is concretely real!

* I AM* the Ground of existence and the unifying Principle.

Do you believe, children, what *I AM* telling you or not about all these things, via that incontrovertible axiom of human cognition by which you cannot _logically_ deny that *I AM*_, _whether you think this axiom holds up beyond the confines of your mind or not?

* I AM* Wisdom. *I AM* the Logos.* I AM* that first principle of wisdom that I put into your heads. *I AM* the foundation of the logic I put into your heads. *I AM* the Way, the Truth and the Life. To _believe_ Me is to _know_ with _absolutely certainty_ that those things that are apparently true to all—axiomatically, objectively, logically—are concretely real!

Moreover, *I AM* infinitely perfect in attribution, just as the objectively applied logic I put in your heads tells you when you apply it to the construct of infinity that immediately follows the recognition that *I AM* the foundation of the universal principle of identity, which is bioneurologically hardwired in you.

* I AM* infinitely powerful. *I AM* infinitely all-knowing. *I AM* infinitely present. Hence, *I AM* absolutely perfect. I cannot and do not ever lie; I cannot not and will not ever make a mistake.

Do you _believe_ that the axiomatic declaration of the *I AM* in your mind is My "voice"? Do you _believe_? Do you _trust_ what I'm telling you?

God (Reason) . . . logic . . . information .. . faith . . . true knowledge.

But whether you believe Me or not, regardless of who or what you put in the place of the *I AM* in your heads as the actual foundation for it all—nature, forces, principles or divinity—the objectively and universally axiomatic facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin remain what they are in terms of the apparent distinction between things like objectivity and subjectively.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser" - Socrates
> 
> I don't really take the name calling offensively, it's a sign that they have lost the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, why preach to me?  I just gave the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  Are you saying those things aren't true?  Are you making an argument or just being rude?  You asked me to provide information to you.
> 
> This is the first time I've talked you, but is this your pattern?  You ask a question.  I answer it with things you've never considered or thought about before.  That's obvious!  It looks like your mind's made up about things to which you obviously gave absolutely no serious consider.
> 
> It's your position that God has not proven His existence to mankind? Are you Christian?  I see that there's a cross on your signature.  If you don't believe me  at this point then read the first chapter of Romans, beginning with verse 18.  Then read the post on _The Seven Things_ again . . . for reals. God is speaking to all of us all the time in our minds about Himself and His creation. That's a fact, not a sermon.  You're saying you don't believe that?  Your refusal to open you mind and seriously consider the things I've shared with you = there is no proof, or = an admission that there is no proof?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How's that?
> 
> How do you figured you've refuted something you haven't seriously considered at all?  How do you figure you've refuted something when you haven't even dared to put anything into evidence regarding the things you imply to have refuted?
> 
> Hmm.  The only reason I spoke to you in the first place is because Emily said you were an open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person.  Looks like she is wrong about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God asked me to take a leap of faith. That was extremely difficult for me. But if there is proof why would I need to take a leap of faith? What value would faith have if there was fact?
> 
> I came to my faith by asking these questions. And realizing nobody knew the answers beyond speculation.
> 
> All I have done is ask questions. If my questions make you feel like I am persecuting you, perhaps it's because I already know the answer as do you and you are attempting to give me falsehoods because it is something you would like to know.
> 
> I personally don't need proof, I don't need to see angles, I don't need to hear God speak. Frankly I don't really want to.  Faith is good enough for me. I don't feel the need to call people phoney Christians frankly that isn't my place. If you ask me, I am Christian. Given things about who I am you probably wouldn't think that I am. So take it or leave it.
> 
> Back to the point, if you have proof that God exists please show it to the atheists. Or tell me so that I can deliver the message. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe what God has revealed or not.  God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that *I AM*!
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/
> 
> *#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!
> *
Click to expand...

Thank you, one must choose to believe. I know that already and I have repeatedly said that. If it was a fact believe would be irrelevant as would faith.

So than there is no proof.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you get that banality from a fortune cookie?
> 
> 
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
Click to expand...



I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the noise of popular culture stocking your ego?  Listen to God instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Why preach to me? Just post your proof our admit you don't have any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, why preach to me?  I just gave the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.  Are you saying those things aren't true?  Are you making an argument or just being rude?  You asked me to provide information to you.
> 
> This is the first time I've talked you, but is this your pattern?  You ask a question.  I answer it with things you've never considered or thought about before.  That's obvious!  It looks like your mind's made up about things to which you obviously gave absolutely no serious consider.
> 
> It's your position that God has not proven His existence to mankind? Are you Christian?  I see that there's a cross on your signature.  If you don't believe me  at this point then read the first chapter of Romans, beginning with verse 18.  Then read the post on _The Seven Things_ again . . . for reals. God is speaking to all of us all the time in our minds about Himself and His creation. That's a fact, not a sermon.  You're saying you don't believe that?  Your refusal to open you mind and seriously consider the things I've shared with you = there is no proof, or = an admission that there is no proof?
> 
> Really?
> 
> How's that?
> 
> How do you figured you've refuted something you haven't seriously considered at all?  How do you figure you've refuted something when you haven't even dared to put anything into evidence regarding the things you imply to have refuted?
> 
> Hmm.  The only reason I spoke to you in the first place is because Emily said you were an open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person.  Looks like she is wrong about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God asked me to take a leap of faith. That was extremely difficult for me. But if there is proof why would I need to take a leap of faith? What value would faith have if there was fact?
> 
> I came to my faith by asking these questions. And realizing nobody knew the answers beyond speculation.
> 
> All I have done is ask questions. If my questions make you feel like I am persecuting you, perhaps it's because I already know the answer as do you and you are attempting to give me falsehoods because it is something you would like to know.
> 
> I personally don't need proof, I don't need to see angles, I don't need to hear God speak. Frankly I don't really want to.  Faith is good enough for me. I don't feel the need to call people phoney Christians frankly that isn't my place. If you ask me, I am Christian. Given things about who I am you probably wouldn't think that I am. So take it or leave it.
> 
> Back to the point, if you have proof that God exists please show it to the atheists. Or tell me so that I can deliver the message. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe what God has revealed or not.  God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that *I AM*!
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/
> 
> *#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, one must choose to believe. I know that already and I have repeatedly said that. If it was a fact believe would be irrelevant as would faith.
> 
> So than there is no proof.
Click to expand...


Whaaaaaa?

Let's try this again. . . .


Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about *the objective facts of human cognition* regarding the problems of existence and origin that *reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence* so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe *what God has revealed* or not.  *God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that I AM*!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/

*#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!


Romans 1:  18 - 20:*

For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who *hold the truth* *in unrighteousness*;
 Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are *clearly seen*, being *understood* by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are *without excuse*.

What is wrong with you, Inevitable?

You're saying God is a liar?

Of course, there's proof!  I just gave you the proof.  READ!  THINK!  BELIEVE!  HEAR!  If you believe in God, why are you having such a difficult time believing Him and hearing Him?


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, are you an atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
Click to expand...

I think you are blaming your short comings on the wrong people.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Whaaaaaa?
> 
> Let's try this again. . . .


You do understand the distance between genius and insanity right?




> Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about *the objective facts of human cognition* regarding the problems of existence and origin that *reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence* so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe *what God has revealed* or not.  *God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that I AM*!


What you are posting here is paradoxical you have to first assume a conclusion to then have proof? That is completely backward.  perhaps it is why you are having such difficulty with this subject.

Why is faith too much to ask from you?




> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 447 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum





> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/
> 
> *#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!
> 
> 
> Romans 1:  18 - 20:*
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who *hold the truth* *in unrighteousness*;
> Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are *clearly seen*, being *understood* by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are *without excuse*.


Save the preaching. I have told you already faith does not come from Dusty old books.



> What is wrong with you, Inevitable?
> 
> You're saying God is a liar?


I am saying you have it wrong. Not God. Unless you believe yourself to be God.

There is nothing wrong with me, clearly you are one again projecting your short comings onto other people.



> Of course, there's proof!  I just gave you the proof.


Where? If God supplied you with proof but denies it to atheists than he clearly doesn't love everybody, and you are not only saying that God is a liar but that he is also evil.



> READ!  THINK!  BELIEVE!  HEAR!  If you believe in God, why are you having such a difficult time believing Him and hearing Him?


You aren't God. I am not having any difficulty with God. It's with what you call proof and the implications of your statements.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I know better, on both counts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are blaming your short comings on the wrong people.
Click to expand...


You're going to discuss the issues with me or without me. You're not going to change the topic and draw me into your little faggot boy baby talk.  

If you're going to talk to me, we're going to talk about real things that pertain to this OP.  If you want to talk about _me_, you little hypocrite, then, as is the wont of womanish people and faggots,  go gossip about me with the atheists, because that's all they ever do.  That's all they've done, because they cannot  refute the facts.  That way you don't have to argue with anyone.  You can just kiss their asses, as they kiss your ass, and you guys can have your little circle jerk. 

Check?


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, because I can explain this both ways.
> 
> It isn't natural for man to believe in God. Itis natural for us to be selfish and think ourselves gods.
> 
> You are called, 1 Peter 2:21.
> 
> So you can use your favorite new word "benelity" to dismiss this statement. Continue with your egotistical dumbassery or you can realize that people have to choose to follow down a path that is narrow and difficult.
> 
> I really don't get the high and mighty attitude some people have. Why so defensive? God doesn't really require such behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe _*in*_ God or believe God exists? Those are not the same beliefs are they?
> 
> Where is the rude, petulant attitude coming from?  Dumbassery?  What dumbassery, son?  You have no idea what has been demonstrated on this thread by me and other theists.  NONE!  If you're going to call something dumbassery than state what it is and why you think it's wrong.  Address specific things, quote specific things and explain why they're wrong.  Thus far, the only "high and mighty", the only "defensiveness" has been coming from you.
> 
> Further, the Bible does not teach that it is unnatural for man to believe that God exists or that God has not proven His existence to mankind.  False!   On the contrary, the Bible teaches the opposite is true on both counts.  What it teaches in this regard is that man's nature is inherently corrupt and contrary to the things of God, that only a comparatively small portion of the human race will choose to believe* in* God's testimony, place their destiny _*in*_ His hands, follow  and obey Him as persons who do not merely believe that God exists, but as persons who believe *in* God and obey.
> 
> Inevitably, most men give themselves over to false gods in name only. Oh they will say they believe in God, for only a very small fraction of the world's population has ever held that God does not exist.  Atheist and agnostics make up a very small fraction of the world's population regarding the issue of  God's existence. Ultimately, the god they believe in, as you say, is themselves, including atheists and agnostics.
> 
> The topic of this OP is not about belief _*in*_ God, but about the evidence and the proofs _*for*_ God's existence by which men may come to believe _*in*_ God with the help of God.
> 
> I am not talking about the belief *in* God, but the facts of the latter.  And you have yet to come to terms with the facts of the latter or refute a single one of them.
> 
> Why the hostility, son?  Do *you* believe *in* God? If so then why are you hostile to the claims of God regarding the objective facts of the latter that are in your mind and in the universe according to God's word, the Bible? Why are you hostile to the enterprise of divulging what these facts of human cognition are regarding the problems of existence and origin that reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By dumbassery I am referring to your childish behavior. And your conceited attitude. Not very Christ like.
> 
> Further I don't really care what you want to think the bible teaches. The nature of man is sin. Not everything comes from the bible. I am a Christian I worship Christ, not the bible. Christ asks of us to take a leap of faith, to ignore our fear and defy our nature. It is not in our nature to do this.
> 
> Further the bible cannot prove God exists or that he loves you. It's just a book. But it also is a map to those willing to put aside their arrogant tendencies. It holds no proof, it is up to the reader to take the leap. Once you have made that leap the bible is still inadequate.  I came to my faith not by reading dusty old books. But through perils and spiritual turbulence. And the leap of faith.
> 
> That is why it is unshakeable. I also don't feel the need to condescend to people on the internet. I am not your damned son. I have a father and a mother, they are the best people I know, they call me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've been hanging around the atheists too long.  Stick to the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are blaming your short comings on the wrong people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to discuss the issues with me or without me. You're not going to change the topic and draw me into your little faggot boy baby talk.
> 
> If you're going to talk to me, we're going to talk about real things that pertain to this OP.  If you want to talk about _me_, you little hypocrite, then, as is the wont of womanish people and faggots,  go gossip about me with the atheists, because that's all they ever do.  That's all they've done, because they cannot  refute the facts.  That way you don't have to argue with anyone.  You can just kiss their asses, as they kiss your ass, and you guys can have your little circle jerk.
> 
> Check?
Click to expand...


I could have told you he was just another phony.  He has the facts from God's word telling him that God has put the proofs for his existence into his mind and has put them into the universe, the facts of the laws of logic tell him what these proofs are. He talks about faith but doesn't believe anything God tells him.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whaaaaaa?
> 
> Let's try this again. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand the distance between genius and insanity right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I agree.  We must all take the leap of faith.  This thread is about *the objective facts of human cognition* regarding the problems of existence and origin that *reveal what God has proven to mankind about His existence* so that men may come to believe _*in*_ God with God's help.  One must necessary choose to believe *what God has revealed* or not.  *God is speaking to all of us all the time, telling us that I AM*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are posting here is paradoxical you have to first assume a conclusion to then have proof? That is completely backward.  perhaps it is why you are having such difficulty with this subject.
> 
> Why is faith too much to ask from you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 447 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10039574/
> 
> *#6* of _The Seven Things_*:  I AM!
> 
> 
> Romans 1:  18 - 20:*
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who *hold the truth* *in unrighteousness*;
> Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are *clearly seen*, being *understood* by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are *without excuse*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save the preaching. I have told you already faith does not come from Dusty old books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you, Inevitable?
> 
> You're saying God is a liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am saying you have it wrong. Not God. Unless you believe yourself to be God.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with me, clearly you are one again projecting your short comings onto other people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, there's proof!  I just gave you the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where? If God supplied you with proof but denies it to atheists than he clearly doesn't love everybody, and you are not only saying that God is a liar but that he is also evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ!  THINK!  BELIEVE!  HEAR!  If you believe in God, why are you having such a difficult time believing Him and hearing Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't God. I am not having any difficulty with God. It's with what you call proof and the implications of your statements.
Click to expand...


You think real men of God care what a little sissy like you, who obviously holds the truth in unrighteousness, thinks about anything?


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> You're going to discuss the issues with me or without me.


You are completely welcome to discuss things with me.The only reason you don't is you are either too frustrated, belligerent, or weak willed to do so. The choice is yours.



> You're not going to change the topic and draw me into your little faggot boy baby talk.


I didn't try to change the topic.calling names is so very mature. Often a sign of a very well reasoned thought.




> If you're going to talk to me, we're going to talk about real things that pertain to this OP. If you want to talk about me, you little hypocrite,


I think that is rather hypocritical of you. I didn't really talk about you.  You talked about me when you whined about me hanging around with atheists. I am willing to let it go if you stfu about how you think I am having around atheists. But you made it personal first kid.



> then, as is the wont of womanish people and faggots, go gossip about me with the atheists, because that's all they ever do.


Again with these atheists. I think you have a persecution complex.



> That's all they've done, because they cannot refute the facts.


You didn't present any.



> That way you don't have to argue with anyone. You can just kiss their asses, as they kiss your ass, and you guys can have your little circle jerk.


Keep me out of your fantasies.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> You think real men of God care what a little sissy like you, who obviously holds the truth in unrighteousness, thinks about anything?


You seem to care a lot. Are you saying that you aren't a "real man of God?"

I can't help you with such angst kiddo.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> I could have told you he was just another phony.  He has the facts from God's word telling him that God has put the proofs for his existence into his mind and has put them into the universe, the facts of the laws of logic tell him what these proofs are. He talks about faith but doesn't believe anything God tells him.


Everybody that refuted you is a phoney? 

Likely story.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.



Such as?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?



Such as?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.

You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.

It's quite sad.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

Most of what you said. Particularly about there being proof of God.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go



Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what you said. Particularly about there being proof of God.
Click to expand...


Such as?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what you said. Particularly about there being proof of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

I already answered this.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.
> 
> You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.
> 
> It's quite sad.
Click to expand...


You don't like me.  Got it punk.  I got it the first time punk.  I don't like your faggot ass.  So now we're even.





Topic.  OP.  Facts.  Issues.  Got any?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what you said. Particularly about there being proof of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered this.
Click to expand...



  Such as?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
Click to expand...

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?



> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.





Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
Click to expand...

talk about personal attacks.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even looking at the bible he is making shit up that is in opposition to the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of what you said. Particularly about there being proof of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already answered this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

This question first make any sense


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.
> 
> You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.
> 
> It's quite sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like me.  Got it punk.  I got it the first time punk.  I don't like your faggot ass.  So now we're even.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topic.  OP.  Facts.  Issues.  Got any?
Click to expand...

I don't think the topic is whether or not we like each other. I am sorry you don't like me, though I can't really do anything about that.

But if you ever stopworrying about me and my sexuality and how I feel about you, we could get back on the topic. 

Which is proof that God exists  I am still waiting.


----------



## G.T.

MD and Justin now both resorting to calling a poster "faggot?"

They are beyond fucking losers at this point.

I actually hope more theres some sort of good god now so they can face the damn flames, dirtbags.

TAG is childish, as as you see the idiots who think that presupposing an outcome can prove said outcome are cut from that same childish cloth.

"Faggot?" Really? Are we 12, bully boys? You are damn lames. Called it from jump.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> MD and Justin now both resorting to calling a poster "faggot?"
> 
> They are beyond fucking losers at this point.
> 
> I actually hope more theres some sort of good god now so they can face the damn flames, dirtbags.
> 
> TAG is childish, as as you see the idiots who think that presupposing an outcome can prove said outcome are cut from that same childish cloth.
> 
> "Faggot?" Really? Are we 12, bully boys? You are damn lames. Called it from jump.


They both accused me of attacking them.

It really doesn't bother me, it made them look foolish.

Internet jerks don't really bother me. Honestly I just chuckled at it.


----------



## amrchaos

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
Click to expand...



First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.

When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.


I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.  

In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.  

In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.


----------



## G.T.

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
Click to expand...

This reminds me to rant - 343 better fix their damn server issues, they launched Halo Monday at midnight and its been a nightmare trying to get in a game ever since.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Inevitable the Drama Queen


Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right?  _Giggle_  I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really.  God!  Wow!  Just think about that . .  . but not really.  That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _ Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _ Giggle
_
And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible.  I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things.  _Giggle_

Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _ Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, one of the cool sheep.  _Giggle_  Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . .  and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too.  _Giggle_

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_  And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really.  _Giggle   _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?  And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds?  Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings.  My favorite magazine is _People_.   Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything.  _Giggle_  I just go on and on like that  sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all.  _Giggle_  I'm so cute and  funny that way.

Oh!  Oh!  And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
*
_The Seven Things™_ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
*
*


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.
> 
> Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility.



Sorry, you've simply NOT shown that.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right?  _Giggle_  I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really.  God!  Wow!  God!  Just think about that . .  . but not really.  That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _ Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _ Giggle_
> 
> Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _ Giggle_ I got some new speedos too . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. _Giggle_  Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . .  and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too.  _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_  And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really.  _Giggle   _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?  And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds?  Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings.  My favorite magazine is _People_.   Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything.  _Giggle_  I just go on and on like that  sometimes, never making a lick a sense about anything.  _Giggle_  I'm so funny and cute that way.
> 
> Oh!  Oh!  And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> _The Seven Things™_ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


Gee whiz, fundie crank. Why are you still promoting your foul fraud of _The Seven Fraudulent Things™_ when that disaster of self-refuting, confused no sense was so thoroughly trashed?


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.



Yes, the number of people who they feel inclined to malign, insult, denigrate, lie about what was said and claim are "phonies" continues to grow. And it doesn't really seem to matter if they believe in a spiritual God or not... that's the amazing part. Rawlings continues to claim he has proven his argument but the only poster who seems to be totally convinced is Justin. Emily, bless her heart, keeps trying to reel them back into sanity and civility, but it doesn't seem to be working. 

Like I said before, keep these two away from box cutters and airlines.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right?  _Giggle_  I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really.  God!  Wow!  God!  Just think about that . .  . but not really.  That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _ Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _ Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible.  I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things.  _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _ Giggle_ I got some new speedos too . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. _Giggle_  Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . .  and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too.  _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_  And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really.  _Giggle   _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?  And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds?  Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings.  My favorite magazine is _People_.   Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything.  _Giggle_  I just go on and on like that  sometimes, never making a lick a sense about anything.  _Giggle_  I'm so funny and cute that way.
> 
> Oh!  Oh!  And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> _The Seven Things™_ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.








"Just think about that . .  . but not really."

I know.  Right?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.
> 
> You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.
> 
> It's quite sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like me.  Got it punk.  I got it the first time punk.  I don't like your faggot ass.  So now we're even.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topic.  OP.  Facts.  Issues.  Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think the topic is whether or not we like each other. I am sorry you don't like me, though I can't really do anything about that.
> 
> But if you ever stopworrying about me and my sexuality and how I feel about you, we could get back on the topic.
> 
> Which is proof that God exists  I am still waiting.
Click to expand...


Go play with your poodle.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right?  _Giggle_  I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really.  God!  Wow!  God!  Just think about that . .  . but not really.  That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _ Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _ Giggle_
> 
> Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _ Giggle_ I got some new speedos too . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. _Giggle_  Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . .  and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too.  _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_  And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really.  _Giggle   _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?  And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds?  Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings.  My favorite magazine is _People_.   Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything.  _Giggle_  I just go on and on like that  sometimes, never making a lick a sense about anything.  _Giggle_  I'm so funny and cute that way.
> 
> Oh!  Oh!  And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> _The Seven Things™_ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee whiz, fundie crank. Why are you still promoting your foul fraud of _The Seven Fraudulent Things™_ when that disaster of self-refuting, confused no sense was so thoroughly trashed?
Click to expand...


Go play with your poodle too.


----------



## Boss

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> *When Boss talks of "God's logic"* I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
Click to expand...

Correction: Boss has never implied or argued anything regarding this "God's Logic" nonsense. Boss contends that God doesn't need or depend on Logic and has omnipotence which negates any such need.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Boss' proposition is that God _does_ exist and created the logic humans have.
> 
> Well, as I've shown, organic/classical logic negates that, so in organic/classical logic it's neither a logical necessity nor a logical possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you've simply NOT shown that.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Boss, it just doesn't add up.


*The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!

1. The Divine Law of Identity*

God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*. Hence, *God = Boss*.

Check!​

*2. The Divine Law of Contradiction
*
God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). *Hence, the propositions that *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

*3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle
*
God holds that *for all A: A AND ~A*. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: *Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.)

Check!​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> *When Boss talks of "God's logic"* I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correction: Boss has never implied or argued anything regarding this "God's Logic" nonsense. Boss contends that God doesn't need or depend on Logic and has omnipotence which negates any such need.
Click to expand...



Sorry, Boss, that just doesn't add up.  There has to be an operating system for there to be any subsequent rhyme or reason, and if that rhyme or reason is not consistent with the operating system, in this case, human logic anthropomorphizes God, and you have no legitimate grounds on which to assert anything about anything at all.  You're not God Boss, and you never will be, but thanks for proving, once again, thanks for presupposing, once again, that God exists and that the laws of organic logic are necessarily God's logic, which was bestowed on us by God, not created.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
Click to expand...


You do realized that you just proved the double proofs of the TAG again, don't you?  No, of course, you don't.


----------



## Boss

Rawlings, why don't you stop lying and contorting what people say and drop all the long-winded high brow pontifications? You can sit here and insult me all day long, it doesn't effect me. Is it making you feel better about yourself? Do you think it's impressing other people? So what is your purpose? 

There is no such thing as "God's Logic" and it has nothing to do with 2+2 or my mental stability. It also has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God. The term "God's Logic" is simply your way of elevating human logic and making it seem more important than it really is. You feel the need to do this in order to make your argument more valid but it only serves to demonstrate your arrogance. 

The only "proof" for God is faith in God. The "evidence" for God is quite simple, man exists. If there were no such thing as God, man couldn't exist. We're too smart for our own good. With our level of ingenuity and imagination, the world would have been destroyed in chaos without something to reel us back in and humble us. So you are making a completely unnecessary complex argument when the argument is really very simple. Then you are condemning people for not going along with your complex argument by repeatedly beating them down with insults. This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we can add another poster who came here in earnest that these two charlatan scumbags couldn't refrain from ad homming like a couple of prissy teenagers.
> 
> How many does that make, now?
> 
> I lost track around ten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the number of people who they feel inclined to malign, insult, denigrate, lie about what was said and claim are "phonies" continues to grow. And it doesn't really seem to matter if they believe in a spiritual God or not... that's the amazing part. Rawlings continues to claim he has proven his argument but the only poster who seems to be totally convinced is Justin. Emily, bless her heart, keeps trying to reel them back into sanity and civility, but it doesn't seem to be working.
> 
> Like I said before, keep these two away from box cutters and airlines.
Click to expand...


*The Self-Deluded Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap*


*Bottom line:*  your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid!  There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets, hold to your nonsense!  It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!  Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you.  Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.

That's all.  That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy earlier on this thread.

We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.



*The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing Now but My Utter Contempt!*

*Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!*

And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.

That's all. That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your *2 + 2 = 4* analogy earlier on this thread.

We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Rawlings, why don't you stop lying and contorting what people say and drop all the long-winded high brow pontifications? You can sit here and insult me all day long, it doesn't effect me. Is it making you feel better about yourself? Do you think it's impressing other people? So what is your purpose?
> 
> There is no such thing as "God's Logic" and it has nothing to do with 2+2 or my mental stability. It also has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God. The term "God's Logic" is simply your way of elevating human logic and making it seem more important than it really is. You feel the need to do this in order to make your argument more valid but it only serves to demonstrate your arrogance.
> 
> The only "proof" for God is faith in God. The "evidence" for God is quite simple, man exists. If there were no such thing as God, man couldn't exist. We're too smart for our own good. With our level of ingenuity and imagination, the world would have been destroyed in chaos without something to reel us back in and humble us. So you are making a completely unnecessary complex argument when the argument is really very simple. Then you are condemning people for not going along with your complex argument by repeatedly beating them down with insults. This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.



Rawlings is not lying, you .  He understands what any sane person should understand, the same thing that I and some others said to you way back.  It's the same thing that the world's theists and  religions in history say to you.   We understand where your logic leads and what it  would  mean about reality and about God (no God or a crazy God) and you don't, nutjob. You're just totally out of touch with the reality of your thinking.  You're the one insulting people, nubjob, insulting people's intelligence like you know what you're talking about when theists who understand this in history know you're a fruitcake.  You , this idea you have is the same argument made by atheists about ultimate reality to argue against God existence, plank head.    Go tell your stories to Inevitable.  He's an idiot who goes with the crowd.  Maybe he'll believe your jive. He likes stories and endless gossip, anything but the topic of this OP.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing Now but My Utter Contempt!*
> 
> *Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!*
> 
> And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.
> 
> Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.
> 
> That's all. That's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your *2 + 2 = 4* analogy earlier on this thread.
> 
> We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.
> 
> I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.
> 
> Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.
Click to expand...


I understand what Boss is trying to say though.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!


*The Three Refusals:*

*1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

*2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

*3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right?  _Giggle_  I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really.  God!  Wow!  Just think about that . .  . but not really.  That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _ Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _ Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible.  I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things.  _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that’s all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _ Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, one of the cool sheep.  _Giggle_  Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . .  and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too.  _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop-poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_  And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really.  _Giggle   _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?  And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds?  Oh, and I like rainbows are us and stars and sparkly things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings.  My favorite magazine is _People_.   Oh, I'm really good at talking but never really saying anything at all that matters about anything.  _Giggle_  I just go on and on like that  sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all.  _Giggle_  I'm so cute and  funny that way.
> 
> Oh!  Oh!  And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> _The Seven Things™_ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


Trying to discredit me with childish behavior doesn't prove your point.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as every time you called me a punk or a phoney.
> 
> You frighten so easily from discussion that forces you to think, you just lash out at people.
> 
> It's quite sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't like me.  Got it punk.  I got it the first time punk.  I don't like your faggot ass.  So now we're even.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topic.  OP.  Facts.  Issues.  Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think the topic is whether or not we like each other. I am sorry you don't like me, though I can't really do anything about that.
> 
> But if you ever stopworrying about me and my sexuality and how I feel about you, we could get back on the topic.
> 
> Which is proof that God exists  I am still waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go play with your poodle.
Click to expand...

This is off topic.

Thanks for conceding the point. But you could try to be less of a sore loser.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.


I am not being intolerant and narrow minded because I hold your feet to the fire.

You said their was proof of God existing. If there is, I would like to know because it would help in converting atheists. 

You seem to be calling me intolerant because I am skeptical and speech this subject from an unbiased stand point. I simply don't let my belief cloud my judgement


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> I understand what Boss is trying to say though.



*Boss Special Knowledge is Weird*


So do I.  As I said before it's rather ingenious . . . at first blush, if we pretend the problems don't exist.  Generally, it's an old idea, a failed idea, one better suited to materialism proper, but his particular take on it is rare, not new to me, because I considered it from this angle years ago when I was still an atheist, but rare, more sophisticated than most of the historical renditions.

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump.  He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.  God doesn't have to think about anything. What does He need logic for?  Boom!  The perfect knowledge of all of existence or potential existents is in God's mind all at once and all the "time."

But only those who go _Wow_ and stop thinking are going to buy it.

For the question arises, one that we're apparently not permitted to ask if Boss is right, that I'm an idiot and a liar*:*  well, does God hold that all things are one and the same thing?

How could that be?  Does God know there's a difference between dogs and cats, or not?  And if He doesn't, how can He have all-knowledge?  More to the point, how can He have less knowledge than we have?  God must have the delineating logic of the three laws of thought!

Any way we go at it, we cannot escape thinking about Him as one Who has a mind just like ours, albeit, infinitely greater.  And we cannot think how His logic could possibly be different than ours.  God's logic is eternal, for it is His preexistent logic endowed to us, not created!  If we're wrong, we're wrong.  But that wouldn't make any difference to us. Any attempt to negate this apparent necessity is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite must be true.  God did not create logic!

And the final issue*:*  God, by definition, is all-knowing; hence, He would know that we can't logically hold that He doesn't have logic and that He doesn't have or didn't have (pantheism/panentheism) a mind like ours, though one much, much greater.  So a perfect God, knowing this, intentionally gave us minds and a form of logic that leads us to believe things that are not true about Him, a form of logic that, ultimately, gives us no certainty about anything?  Indeed, where does Boss get off asserting this apparent absurdity as an absolute fact when the ramifications of his very own premise assert that nothing is absolutely certain?

Huh?  Special pleading?  Special knowledge?  Special logic?  Boss knows something the rest of us don't?

*That's weird.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.



*Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.



*The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*

No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of  ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it’s possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real argument is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the potential validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious.  So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies."  Relativists.)

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're trying to defend against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into the sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for  computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply shift to or adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now, even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.


----------



## Boss

Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are. 

*You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.* 

All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the fucking nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.



No, that would be *OMNISCIENT...* Which God also IS! 

You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that _*God Almighty*_ is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a fucking whack job!


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
Click to expand...




> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*


......



> No one comes to the Father except through me.




when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -


* (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".*
Click to expand...


You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted.  Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

 We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be *OMNISCIENT...* Which God also IS!
> 
> You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that _*God Almighty*_ is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a fucking whack job!
Click to expand...


Yes, of course, _omniscient_.  That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote.  I'm the whack job?  Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Edit:  In post #4807, I wrote omnipotent, but should read omniscient.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are.
> 
> *You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.*
> 
> All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the fucking nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?



*You're outside your mind.
*
No, I'm exposing a fool for what he is, because instead of conceding the obvious, he insists on blathering CULTISH HOGWASH OF A BRAINWASHED KIND, *as he tries to discredit the only rational conclusion and discredit me by repeatedly calling me an idiot and a liar like a raving lunatic*.

*You* have not explained how logic would constrain God in the first place.  How could/would logic constrain God?  And I have emphatically and repeatedly stated, you know, *against* the arguments of the likes of *QW and Foxfyre* (Recall?), who tried to play the same game that you're playing right now,  that there are *no* constraints on God's power whatsoever . . . save one:  *God = God; God ≠ NOT-God, *the latter being the ramification of your idea, not mine!

*Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .*


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be *OMNISCIENT...* Which God also IS!
> 
> You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that _*God Almighty*_ is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a fucking whack job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, _omniscient_.  That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote.  I'm the whack job?  Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...


I wish we could forget about what you write, but you just keep on posting nonsense. Yep, you're the certifiable whack job here, you and Justin. And no, you're not in good company because the vast and overwhelming majority of believers in God believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. Next thing you know, you and Justin will be arguing that God isn't omnipresent because He's constrained by the principles of physics! (*GOD's Physics... which God didn't create!)  

*He's suggesting that because God is [omniscient], He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.*

And you are suggesting that your God doesn't.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings, you just keep pretending that I have made some irrational argument that everyone has refuted and they all agree with you and Justin... that only demonstrates what a nut job you are.
> 
> *You have simply not explained why an OMNIPOTENT God would be, should be, or could be constrained by LOGIC or any damn thing else your feeble mind conjures up.*
> 
> All you are doing now is flailing away at me with baseless insults and claims of outrageous shit I never said. And you have the fucking nerve to use people who totally reject your argument as those who take your side against me. You're a pathetic joke, Rawlings. You're the closed-minded prick here and I believe everyone would agree with me except for Justin, who seems to have his head so far up your ass he could give you a visual colon exam. Do you two belong to the same church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You're outside your mind.
> *
> No, I'm exposing a fool for what he is, because instead of conceding the obvious, he insists on blathering CULTISH HOGWASH OF A BRAINWASHED KIND, *as he tries to discredit the only rational conclusion and discredit me by repeatedly calling me an idiot and a liar like a raving lunatic*.
> 
> *You* have not explained how logic would constrain God in the first place.  How could/would logic constrain God?  And I have emphatically and repeatedly stated, you know, *against* the arguments of the likes of *QW and Foxfyre* (Recall?), who tried to play the same game that you're playing right now,  that there are *no* constraints on God's power whatsoever . . . save one:  *God = God; God ≠ NOT-God, *the latter being the ramification of your idea, not mine!
> 
> *Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . .*
Click to expand...


That is YOUR argument, lunkhead! Now you are running back to the position that God is omnipotent and not constrained by things like Logic or Sentience. Which one is it? 

I don't know about other people's arguments, I am not making their argument, I am making MY argument, and you're not refuting it. Instead, you seem to be totally agreeing with my argument, and pretending I've made some contradicting argument that wasn't made. Save the formulas for someone who is arguing algebra... I've said none of that shit. 
God=God 
Logic=Logic 
God ≠ Logic! 
Logic ≠ God!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?
> 
> .




Definitely paper!  That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation.  Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.


----------



## percysunshine

M.D. Rawlings said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely paper!  That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation.  Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.
Click to expand...


I think God would ask for plastic. As a petroleum based product, plastic was originally a tree that was buried, heated, and squished. God would know that paper and plastic are the same thing.

.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fundie whackjob, there is no such thing as "bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted.  Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
Click to expand...





> *mdr:* *We even know the parts of the brain* where many of the pertinent operations are conducted.





> *mdr:* Also,* humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system*, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts .












is that your ( genesis ) speaking for you again rawlings ?

*
just for the record*, is mr. carnivore above illogical -

really, we would like to know ... don't be afraid to answer, its alright to be stupid just like gunslinger you swing together.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

percysunshine said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> If God went to the 'Whole Markets Food' grocery store, would he ask for paper, or plastic?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely paper!  That's directly comprised of a substance from His creation.  Now angels prefer plastic because it's more durable and lasts longer against the wind shear of the high speeds at which they fly when they carry things along with them on their errands like angel dust and whatnot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think God would ask for plastic. As a petroleum based product, plastic was originally a tree that was buried, heated, and squished. God would know that paper and plastic are the same thing.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, you got me there!


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of  ignorance.
> 
> All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it’s possible to refute these things?
> 
> In your dreams, Missy.
> 
> The real argument is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.
> 
> The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.
> 
> BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the potential validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.
> 
> Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!
> 
> I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious.  So I told him to piss off.
> 
> But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.
> 
> (I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies."  Relativists.)
> 
> Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're trying to defend against Boss' assault.
> 
> In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into the sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.
> 
> And why is that true?
> 
> Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for  computer science and the natural sciences.
> 
> Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply shift to or adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now, even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.
> 
> These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.
> 
> Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.
Click to expand...

You're right, nobody refuted you. You just haven't proven anything.

I still would like to see that proof. So far there is nothing to refute. So I apologize. I was wrong when I said I refuted you.

Whenever you can deliver proof, I'll be waiting.


----------



## Inevitable

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.


----------



## Inevitable

Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.

Proof is without bias and requires no faith.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?

By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
Click to expand...


Missy wasn't around the first time you answered this question or the second time or the third time.  BreezeWood asked me the same kind of question twice.  The answers don't suit him because they show how pointless it is and puts the ball back in his court that he can't answer or won't answer.  Funny that.  But Missy wants to believe it means something because Missy doesn't like the poop poop heads who know who the real poop poop heads are.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
> 
> Proof is without bias and requires no faith.




That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.  

"You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
Click to expand...

I think you are addressing the wrong person.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.



Shouldn't that be four refusals?


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
> 
> Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
> 
> "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
Click to expand...

You haven't produced any proof.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
> 
> Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
> 
> "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't produced any proof.
Click to expand...


Proof for what?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
Click to expand...


You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Justin Davis said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> "I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> 
> *The Three Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were so, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be four refusals?
Click to expand...


Yeah.  Messed up.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
> 
> Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
> 
> "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't produced any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof for what?
Click to expand...

God existing.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
Click to expand...

It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.
Click to expand...


You butted your nose in, suggesting that it was a problematical question.  So explain it or stop pretending to understand things you don't.  It's nothing of the kind.  It's been answered more than once.   It's a pointless question.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something that first requires blind faith to obtain proof is paradoxical. Proof should stand alone, and speak for itself.
> 
> Proof is without bias and requires no faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That what we keep telling you blind faithers but you keep blindingly believing in magical things and skip the proofs standing right in front of you.
> 
> "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't produced any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God existing.
Click to expand...


So now you're a theist claiming  God the Creator doesn't exist.  That's more than just a little off.


----------



## G.T.

Its not pointless, its a good question.

Proof hasn't been provided.

Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......

Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omnipotent, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that would be *OMNISCIENT...* Which God also IS!
> 
> You are the one clinging to some irrational belief that _*God Almighty*_ is somehow confined to your human imagination and humanistic constraints of thought. You're a fucking whack job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of course, _omniscient_.  That's what I meant, forget about what I wrote.  I'm the whack job?  Well, then, jackass, I'm in good company, for only a small minority of histories religious systems of thought, invariably cultish in nature, hold to your brainwashed nonsense; you know, how like the billions of monotheistic and pantheistic believers of the world think you're the whack job, whack job, for obvious reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish we could forget about what you write, but you just keep on posting nonsense. Yep, you're the certifiable whack job here, you and Justin. And no, you're not in good company because the vast and overwhelming majority of believers in God believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. Next thing you know, you and Justin will be arguing that God isn't omnipresent because He's constrained by the principles of physics! (*GOD's Physics... which God didn't create!)
> 
> *He's suggesting that because God is [omniscient], He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things.*
> 
> And you are suggesting that your God doesn't.
Click to expand...


    Christianity, Islam, Hinduism teach that God created logic? Pantheists believe God created logic? Since when? Cracker Jack theology.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"



Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?  "Cognition", the only word in the English language that has the full connotation intended and you called that stupid.    I know.  I know.  You were thinking "cogitation" weren't you?


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You butted your nose in, suggesting that it was a problematical question.  So explain it or stop pretending to understand things you don't.  It's nothing of the kind.  It's been answered more than once.   It's a pointless question.
Click to expand...

I butted into nothing. I am a member here and can post on any thread I wish. It wasn't a private discussion.

You never once posted proof of God. That is all I asked for. You than attacked me, and you still are.

Just admit there is no proof or post proof. There is no need for all this silliness.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
Click to expand...

I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.

So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You butted your nose in, suggesting that it was a problematical question.  So explain it or stop pretending to understand things you don't.  It's nothing of the kind.  It's been answered more than once.   It's a pointless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I butted into nothing. I am a member here and can post on any thread I wish. It wasn't a private discussion.
> 
> You never once posted proof of God. That is all I asked for. You than attacked me, and you still are.
> 
> Just admit there is no proof or post proof. There is no need for all this silliness.
Click to expand...


That's right.  You're a member.  You implied you understood what the question meant.  So I asked you what does it mean, what does it imply and why would the thing BreezeWood is implying follow.  I treated you like a member of the board.  Your response was to suggest that it was none of your business in the first place.  So you were just doing what again?  Talking about nothing, just babbling and giggling again?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"




They're variants of the same term. I use them interchangeably depending on the context. So what's your point atheistic agnostic relativist?  In common edited writing:  it*'s* problematic, that*'s* problematic, she*'s* problematic; however, *which is* problematical, *this is* problematical.    _*Problematica*l_ was the standard in _all_ cases a century ago.  Followed by the distinction in the above, which is still made, depending on the editing style of the publication, though this distinction has been fading away in the last decade or so in favor of _problematic_ in all cases with contractible or non-contractible noun/pronoun-verb expressions.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
Click to expand...



What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.

GT =


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
Click to expand...


So let's get back to the  proofs that are all over the place on this thread that you never read.  I asked you a question. Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> You're right, nobody refuted you. You just haven't proven anything.
> 
> I still would like to see that proof. So far there is nothing to refute. So I apologize. I was wrong when I said I refuted you.
> 
> Whenever you can deliver proof, I'll be waiting.



I GAVE YOU THE PROOF.  You know what this calls for don't you?  See below.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Inevitable the Drama Queen 

Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
_
And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_

Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.

Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

*


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Christianity, Islam, Hinduism teach that God created logic? Pantheists believe God created logic? Since when? Cracker Jack theology.



Well yes. If they believe that God created the universe and humans, because logic is a construct of human thought and exists as a part of this universe. Can you show me some text from the Bible. Qaran, etc., which indicates God didn't create logic? 

The only argument you've ever made is: "God didn't create [blank] because that is God's [blank]!" And the problem with letting this argument stand is, it means God didn't create anything. Everything is simply belonging to God and on loan to us. That's fine if it's what you believe, it's just not in accordance with any religious doctrine I am familiar with. Most Christians believe God created everything.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *


And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

*The Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

1.* We exist!

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.*
*2. The cosmological order exists!*
*Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

*

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.

*It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*

*Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*


3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

*Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
*

4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

*And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.

*

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists! 

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.

*

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

*It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.

*

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

*No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Missy wasn't around the first time you answered this question or the second time or the third time.  BreezeWood asked me the same kind of question twice.  The answers don't suit him because they show how pointless it is and puts the ball back in his court that he can't answer or won't answer.  Funny that.  But Missy wants to believe it means something because Missy doesn't like the poop poop heads who know who the real poop poop heads are.



Not sure if you are aware of how message boards work, but once you've posted something it remains available to read, it doesn't go away once we go to another page. Lots of people read these threads and never respond, you can see that result in the 'views/replies' stat. Some people enjoy their morning cup of coffee while reading through the posts and never bother responding... it doesn't mean they weren't around. 

As for "poop heads" it seems to me you have pretty much lumped everyone except for you and Rawlings into the "poop head" category. Not only "poop heads" but all sorts of other degrading and insulting things as well. Only you, Rawlings and your phony incarnation of God who is neither omnipotent or omniscient and trapped by the confines of your logic... that's the only ones who are not "poop heads" in your opinion.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You butted your nose in, suggesting that it was a problematical question.  So explain it or stop pretending to understand things you don't.  It's nothing of the kind.  It's been answered more than once.   It's a pointless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I butted into nothing. I am a member here and can post on any thread I wish. It wasn't a private discussion.
> 
> You never once posted proof of God. That is all I asked for. You than attacked me, and you still are.
> 
> Just admit there is no proof or post proof. There is no need for all this silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  You're a member.  You implied you understood what the question meant.  So I asked you what does it mean, what does it imply and why would the thing BreezeWood is implying follow.  I treated you like a member of the board.  Your response was to suggest that it was none of your business in the first place.  So you were just doing what again?  Talking about nothing, just babbling and giggling again?
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my question. I won't entertain yours until I have something.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, nobody refuted you. You just haven't proven anything.
> 
> I still would like to see that proof. So far there is nothing to refute. So I apologize. I was wrong when I said I refuted you.
> 
> Whenever you can deliver proof, I'll be waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I GAVE YOU THE PROOF.  You know what this calls for don't you?  See below.
Click to expand...

That wasn't proof. And you are ranting and raving and posting such nonsense and I am a drama queen?

I haven't posted a thousand word post attacking you. Btw, I don't read your tantrums


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =


I am flattered that you fancy my pants.

How would somebody be embarrassed on an anonymous post board? I think you are a bit full of yourself.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *


Thanks I am flattered


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's get back to the  proofs that are all over the place on this thread that you never read.  I asked you a question. Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

No, I never once said that.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are addressing the wrong person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only pretending to understand the question, phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was written in response to me, yet has nothing to do with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You butted your nose in, suggesting that it was a problematical question.  So explain it or stop pretending to understand things you don't.  It's nothing of the kind.  It's been answered more than once.   It's a pointless question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I butted into nothing. I am a member here and can post on any thread I wish. It wasn't a private discussion.
> 
> You never once posted proof of God. That is all I asked for. You than attacked me, and you still are.
> 
> Just admit there is no proof or post proof. There is no need for all this silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right.  You're a member.  You implied you understood what the question meant.  So I asked you what does it mean, what does it imply and why would the thing BreezeWood is implying follow.  I treated you like a member of the board.  Your response was to suggest that it was none of your business in the first place.  So you were just doing what again?  Talking about nothing, just babbling and giggling again?
Click to expand...

I don't remember, frankly I don't care. You shouldn't need to ask leading leading questions and play coy if you had proof. You would just present it and all argument would be futile.

Since you have failed in that I simply take it to mean you are all breeze and no sails.


----------



## Inevitable

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity, Islam, Hinduism teach that God created logic? Pantheists believe God created logic? Since when? Cracker Jack theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes. If they believe that God created the universe and humans, because logic is a construct of human thought and exists as a part of this universe. Can you show me some text from the Bible. Qaran, etc., which indicates God didn't create logic?
> 
> The only argument you've ever made is: "God didn't create [blank] because that is God's [blank]!" And the problem with letting this argument stand is, it means God didn't create anything. Everything is simply belonging to God and on loan to us. That's fine if it's what you believe, it's just not in accordance with any religious doctrine I am familiar with. Most Christians believe God created everything.
Click to expand...

I don't think these fellows are playing with a full deck


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
Click to expand...

Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.

Good thing we all don't think that way.

Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =
Click to expand...

Odd, I don't recall this exchange.

Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, I don't recall this exchange.
> 
> Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?
Click to expand...

I think we are being trolled


----------



## Inevitable

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missy wasn't around the first time you answered this question or the second time or the third time.  BreezeWood asked me the same kind of question twice.  The answers don't suit him because they show how pointless it is and puts the ball back in his court that he can't answer or won't answer.  Funny that.  But Missy wants to believe it means something because Missy doesn't like the poop poop heads who know who the real poop poop heads are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if you are aware of how message boards work, but once you've posted something it remains available to read, it doesn't go away once we go to another page. Lots of people read these threads and never respond, you can see that result in the 'views/replies' stat. Some people enjoy their morning cup of coffee while reading through the posts and never bother responding... it doesn't mean they weren't around.
> 
> As for "poop heads" it seems to me you have pretty much lumped everyone except for you and Rawlings into the "poop head" category. Not only "poop heads" but all sorts of other degrading and insulting things as well. Only you, Rawlings and your phony incarnation of God who is neither omnipotent or omniscient and trapped by the confines of your logic... that's the only ones who are not "poop heads" in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.


----------



## Hollie

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
Click to expand...


I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
Click to expand...

It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.


----------



## Boss

Inevitable said:


> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.



What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch. 

At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are. 

I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions. 

It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.


----------



## Hollie

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.
Click to expand...

You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle
> _
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_
> 
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is_ People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I think the conspiracy exists but is within their own mind.


----------



## Inevitable

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.
> 
> At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.
> 
> I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.
> 
> It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.


----------



## Hollie

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the conspiracy exists but is within their own mind.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced it does. Nothing throws fear into the mind of the true believer like a challenge to their partisan beliefs. 

Critical analysis of a worldview is nothing other than a critical analysis of a worldview. It's not the critic's fault if the worldview exhibits flaws! It's the fault of the worldview, nothing more. To assert otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. There's nothing wrong with atheists’ perspectives on theistic assertions. They make claims, I look at their validity and apply the same standards for logic and consistency as I would for any and everything else, upon which I base my replies. I don't ever appeal to some unexplained and unexplainable method that precludes others from coming to some understanding. There's no eternal mystery for me-- it's just the need for discovery, quite within the capacity of the human mind to incorporate.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, I don't recall this exchange.
> 
> Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?
Click to expand...



There's nothing odd about you lying again.  Are you lying for your girlfriend, fancy pants, showing off?  Does this ring a bell?

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
_noun_
noun: *cognition*

the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

synonyms:perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight;More
reasoning, thinking, thought
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.
plural noun: *cognitions*


----------



## G.T.

No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.
> 
> At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.
> 
> I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.
> 
> It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.



Ooh, look, he's trying to impress his girlfriend fancy pants. How creepy is that?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, he's trying to impress his girlfriend fancy pants. How creepy is that?
Click to expand...

The only person/people trying to impress anyone on the internet is you and your mancrush.

Your fawning for m.d. and his for you is magical. You guys should meet for a swan boat ride, and bring something to wet your thumbs. They don't like you reaching outside the boat.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> Nothing throws fear into the mind.......



Sounds like a byline from some alternate world soap opera for paranoid schizophrenics.  Did you think of that all by yourself or do you have a writing staff?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, he's trying to impress his girlfriend fancy pants. How creepy is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only person/people trying to impress anyone on the internet is you and your mancrush.
> 
> Your fawning for m.d. and his for you is magical. You guys should meet for a swan boat ride, and bring something to wet your thumbs. They don't like you reaching outside the boat.
Click to expand...


Does this ring a bell liar.  Flexing your muscles for fancy pants? She'll believe anything you say. See right through you.  Showing off for fancy pants. Let's ring the bell again.  Are you saying I can't find and quote your stupid idea that "cognition" wasn't the right word liar?

cog·ni·tion
ˌkäɡˈniSH(ə)n/
_noun_
noun: *cognition*

the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

synonyms:perception, discernment, apprehension, learning, understanding, comprehension, insight;More
reasoning, thinking, thought
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
a result of this; a perception, sensation, notion, or intuition.
plural noun: *cognitions*


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.
> 
> 
> Fraud Alert!
> 
> 
> Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things
> 
> *The Seven Fraudulent Things™
> 
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your *_*Seven Phony Things*_*™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> *
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> *It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.*
> 
> *Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.*
> 
> 
> 3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> *
> 
> 4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> *And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 
> *
> 
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> *Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 
> *
> 
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> *It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> *
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> *No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the conspiracy exists but is within their own mind.
Click to expand...


Oh look, everybody, fancy pants thinks whack job Hollie's  post makes sense.  No surprise there.


----------



## G.T.

I feel like we should be concerned with this guy


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.
> 
> At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.
> 
> I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.
> 
> It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.
Click to expand...


The argument is brilliant isn't it?  There's no doubt about that.  Any sane and reasonably intelligent person can see that,  though fancy pants never even got that far did she?  She's got brilliance right in front of her, a powerful, mind-blowing argument for God's existence, given the link to the argument a bunch of times and she doesn't even bother to read it.  This idiot keeps asking for the proof she's been given already.  She thinks it's nothing because of what a bunch of total morons told her to believe about Rawlings and his argument.  *Isn't that right, Boss?*  Fancy Pants is a gullible dumbass who obviously hasn't even read or thought about the argument.  *Isn't that right?*  Yeah, you know that's true. 

But you're lying Boss.  You know what a logical proof is and that logic proves things, and *you know there's no question about it that the axiom for God's existence is real and can't be refuted.  You agreed with that so why are you lying to fancy pants*? You said we can't KNOW if what logic proves is true for sure, which is not the same thing as saying God's existence can't be PROVEN in logic.  *It is proven in logic, liar, and you know that, liar.* You agree with that liar. Why are you misusing the word "prove" now liar?  If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof.  Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?



No, because that's what YOU'VE said, dimwit. You have stated several times now that God didn't create logic. Then you invented "God's Logic" to justify your notion that logic is something more than human cognition at work. So you have already relegated "God The Creator" to God who created some things and didn't create other things convenient to your thoughts and imagination. At one point you even claimed that "Logic=God" ...your words exactly! But nothing equals God. 

Since you've been completely unable to support your belief in a God who is clearly neither omnipotent or omniscient, who must conform to human logic and sentience, you've taken to hurling insults at everything that moves... other than Rawlings, who you have shown a deep affinity and admiration for all through this thread. Amid your cheap shots, you consistently try to lie and manipulate the conversation, morphing things that have been said into quite the opposite, so that you can strut around like a billy-bad-ass. I've lost count at the number of sheer lies you've told about me and my viewpoints, but that doesn't really matter to me because everyone here is dismissing you as the kook you are now. So you've buried yourself with your big fat arrogant mouth.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> I feel like we should be concerned with this guy



Shut up you lying punk. Everyone left on this thread EXCEPT FOR FANCY PANTS knows you're lying about the "cognition thing," pretending not to remember. So you must be trying to show off for your new girlfriend fancy pants who thought I was talking to her. Flex your muscles for fancy pants again, she believes anything she's told.  Oh look, everybody, GT is showing off for his new girlfriend. 

Does your wife know that you're flirting with  forum bimbos?  Are you saying I can’t find your post and quote it, you lying punk?


----------



## G.T.

Kay man


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because that's what YOU'VE said, dimwit. You have stated several times now that God didn't create logic. Then you invented "God's Logic" to justify your notion that logic is something more than human cognition at work. So you have already relegated "God The Creator" to God who created some things and didn't create other things convenient to your thoughts and imagination. At one point you even claimed that "Logic=God" ...your words exactly! But nothing equals God.
> 
> Since you've been completely unable to support your belief in a God who is clearly neither omnipotent or omniscient, who must conform to human logic and sentience, you've taken to hurling insults at everything that moves... other than Rawlings, who you have shown a deep affinity and admiration for all through this thread. Amid your cheap shots, you consistently try to lie and manipulate the conversation, morphing things that have been said into quite the opposite, so that you can strut around like a billy-bad-ass. I've lost count at the number of sheer lies you've told about me and my viewpoints, but that doesn't really matter to me because everyone here is dismissing you as the kook you are now. So you've buried yourself with your big fat arrogant mouth.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  I do admire his posts.  They're brilliant.  So what?  I don't envy his brilliance. I applaud it.  I've learned tons from him and how to write much better.  No one ever took the time to tell me how to write better before.  And just reading his posts has helped me get even better.  So what?  I'm no fool.  I'm wise enough to see brilliance and learn from it, not argue with it like a damn fool.  I'm a brilliant plumber, have designed original systems.  That's my schooling since the age I could hold a wrench.   I've got patents on designs used in real homes.  You think you or Rawlings can do what I do?  I don't think so. What a phony. You just said his argument is brilliant, and there's no doubt about that.  Only total morons like Hollie and Fancy Pants can't see that. GT knows it's brilliant but won't admit it. He's smart enough to get that. What a bunch of phonies. So now you're saying that logic doesn't prove things, pretending that you just replaced CAN'T KNOW with CAN'T PROVE?   Okay, punk, so stop trying to manipulate Fancy Pants and just tell her you’re not following proper academic standards but just making up your own standards. Tell her the truth, punk.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Kay man



Kay punk.  Showing off for forum bimbos, doesn't know the editing standards for problematic.  Look who the real pretentious show off is.  Yepper it's GT again.  Heck, I didn't know that obviously.  But only you are damn fool enough to challenge Rawlings on word smithing.  Twice now, getting your butt handed to you on a platter.  Informal fallacies apply to axioms.  Idiot.  You never learn.    What a fool you are.


----------



## G.T.

OK dude.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.



I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE. 

We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should. 

"Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine. 

But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.



It's just amazing that a Christian can't understand the evidence and proofs for God's existence, has been given them, claims they prove nothing.  So let's see your Fancy Pants argument that proves these proofs are wrong.  Where's this refutation of yours, dingbat?  Oh but you didn’t even read or think about the proof did you?


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.
> 
> We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.
> 
> "Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.
> 
> But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.
Click to expand...


I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> OK dude.



You're damn right it's okay that I say you're lying because you are lying, and we all know that ....... except your new girlfriend Fancy Pants.   Your "showing off for forum bimbos" sentences are down to monosyllabic words. And the next step is to look up your posts and quote them to show how you lied. Hey, liar, save me the time. You wrote the posts, so you can find them easier than me. * Be honest and show everyone what you wrote.*

I know you wrote them. Boss knows you wrote them. Everyone knows that but your new girlfriend Fancy Pants.  Don't let your wife find out.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.
> 
> At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.
> 
> I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.
> 
> It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.
Click to expand...


What a  pussy.  They're attacking me.  Ooooooh.  

No you little punk you came on to this thread talking big poop poop about how there's no evidence or proof for God's existence. You got called on your poop poop. You were told to put up a proof for this poop poop or shut up your poop poop. You even thought you could talk poop poop to your betters rather than just civilly talk about what was being shared with you. But no you had to get all smartass and mouthy. It was especially unwise to think you could talk poop poop to Rawlings as if you were anywhere near his league intellectually. What a fool. That's like a gnat flying into an elephant. Guess who the gnat is, fool?

So where's YOUR PROOF for this poop poop of yours. Where's your proof, Fancy Pants? You haven't given one. You haven't answered any of the questions put to you. You haven't refuted the proof for God's existence given to you. When you say no proof has been given to you, you lie, punk. So if that's true how come we don't see any argument  from you showing why that proof is not true, punk? Where's your refutation, punk? Nope. Don't see one. Looks like you're full of poop poop.   Just another phony talking  poop poop you can't back.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.
> 
> We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.
> 
> "Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.
> 
> But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
Click to expand...


Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic. 

I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things  have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true. 

I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not pointless, its a good question.
> 
> Proof hasn't been provided.
> 
> Also, m.d. Mr. Perpetually playing fake smart......
> 
> Did you mean "problematical" or "problematic?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, I don't recall this exchange.
> 
> Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we are being trolled
Click to expand...


No you think wrong.  GT is lying and you being the gullible little girl that you are bought it hook, line and sinker.  I know he's lying.  Boss knows he's lying.  Rawlings can tell you he's lying.  Hollie and seallybobo know he's lying.  BreezeWood knows he's lying.  Course they won't tell you the truth because they just kiss each others' ass.  Everyone knows he's lying but you, sweet pea. So you kiss the asses of those who are lying to you either by commission or omission?  Wow.  How sick and self-degrading is that?  You weren't here, dumbass, when he wrote his infamous post. What an idiot.  Anyone can just tell you anything, you believe it and kiss their asses . . . except when people tell you the truth about God. That's just gay.    And you say you're a theist.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're damn right it's okay that I say you're lying because you are lying, and we all know that ....... except your new girlfriend Fancy Pants.   Your "showing off for forum bimbos" sentences are down to monosyllabic words. And the next step is to look up your posts and quote them to show how you lied. Hey, liar, save me the time. You wrote the posts, so you can find them easier than me. * Be honest and show everyone what you wrote.*
> 
> I know you wrote them. Boss knows you wrote them. Everyone knows that but your new girlfriend Fancy Pants.  Don't let your wife find out.
Click to expand...

Kay bro


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.
> 
> We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.
> 
> "Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.
> 
> But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.
> 
> I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things  have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...


  A psychotic cult leader calling those who hold to logical truth psychotic.   Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?


Headline:  Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!



> These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.



Nope.  Science is not directly based on the laws of logic.  It's ultimately based on the laws of logic.  In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract *inferences of probability only, not absolutes.*  The inferences are *always* subject to revision or falsification.  That's why the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are *always* less sure than the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is *always true* when properly  based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or *mostly true* when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories .  Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete.  Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected.  But *the laws of logic*, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, *are never wrong*!  *The laws of logic that are always right* hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and *the laws of logic are proven to be true* intuitively and *have been proven to be true* over and over again by the realities of historical experience.

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge,  *not because the laws of logic are wrong*, cult leader.  *The laws of logic are always right, *cult leader. Data and *the laws of logic that are always right *are not the same thing, cult leader.  Your argument all messed up because it makes data and *the laws of logic that are always right *the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader.  See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread.  He knows what he's talking about.  You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody that refuted you is a phoney?
> 
> Likely story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality*
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> * (Hint)  temper tantrums are not a response ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems that some folks just get really testy when you question them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Explain to us precisely what his question is, Missy.  What is he implying and why in the hell would his implication necessarily  follow from the *scientific fact* of my statement, Missy?
> 
> By the way, Missy, this isn't the first time Blowhard BreezeWind has asked me this tiresome question. He's been given an answer, Missy, and he's still stupidly arguing with me when his real argument is with Boss, Missy.
Click to expand...





> He's been given an answer, Missy,



not once, some stupid reply about Emily wouldn't let you .....




> *just for the record*, is mr. carnivore above illogical -



is that hard to understand ?





> No one comes to the Father except through me.



when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -


*I am the way and the truth and the life =/= No one comes to the Father except through me.*

are you just stupid or just unwilling to respond ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> He's been given an answer, Missy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not once, some stupid reply about Emily wouldn't let you .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *just for the record*, is mr. carnivore above illogical -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> is that hard to understand ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one comes to the Father except through me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you refuse to respond in support for the basis of your belief, how can you say you have not been refuted -
> 
> 
> *I am the way and the truth and the life =/= No one comes to the Father except through me.*
> 
> are you just stupid or just unwilling to respond ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



*BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame*

*BreezeWood:*  Hi, my name's BreezeWood.  I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever.  Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.

Christians are really evil people and stuff.  They're poop-poop heads.  I don't like them.  I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?

No. Tell me what happened

It wilted.

And do you know what happened after that?

No.  Tell me what happened.

Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.

And do you know what happened to the flower?

No.  Tell me what happened.

It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that.  It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Uh . . . no, BreezeWood.  This is your dream.  Tells me what happened.

Oh, that's right.  _Giggle
_
Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.

And do you know what happened after that?

No!

The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . .  and so on . . .  and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .

_Whack_

Oh, sorry.  _Giggle_  This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped.   It was like magic . . . or whatever.

And do you know what happened after that?

Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no.  Noah was very nice to me.  But that Christian gave me a  dirty look.

And do you know what happened after that?

I said, do you know what happened after that?

Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?

Oh, no.  That nice man Noah wouldn't let him.  But he did give me another dirty look.

Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?

Would it stop you if I said _no_?

Oh, no.  _Giggle_

Uh-huh.  So what happened, BreezeWood?

Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.

And do you know what they did with all that lumber?

I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?

No.  But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question,  BreezeWood.  This is your dream, BreezeWood.  Don't ask anymore questions.  Just tell me the story of your dream or die.

Oh, that's right.  _Giggle_ I forgot.

They built an Ark.  And do you know. . . .  _Giggle_ I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah.  And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .

_Whack
_
Oh, sorry.  _Giggle _Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died.  Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting.  And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood.  This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  _Giggle_

What happened to the Singularity?

The Singularity died too.  _Giggle_

The End.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.
> 
> I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things  have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.




*Boss' Special Knowledge is Weird*

So do I. As I said before it's rather ingenious . . . at first blush, if we pretend the problems don't exist. Generally, it's an old idea, a failed idea, one better suited to materialism proper, but his particular take on it is rare, not new to me, because I considered it from this angle years ago when I was still an atheist, but rare, more sophisticated than most of the historical renditions.

But, yeah, I get it, did from the jump. He's suggesting that because God is omniscient, He instantaneously, universally and automatically knows all things. God doesn't have to think about anything. What does He need logic for? Boom! The perfect knowledge of all of existence or potential existents is in God's mind all at once and all the "time."

But only those who go _Wow_ and stop thinking are going to buy it.

For the question arises, one that we're apparently not permitted to ask if Boss is right, that I'm an idiot and a liar*:* well, does God hold that all things are one and the same thing?

How could that be? Does God know there's a difference between dogs and cats, or not? And if He doesn't, how can He have all-knowledge? More to the point, how can He have less knowledge than we have? God must have the delineating logic of the three laws of thought!

Any way we go at it, we cannot escape thinking about Him as one Who has a mind just like ours, albeit, infinitely greater. And we cannot think how His logic could possibly be different than ours. God's logic is eternal, for it is His preexistent logic endowed to us, not created! If we're wrong, we're wrong. But that wouldn't make any difference to us. Any attempt to negate this apparent necessity is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite must be true. God did not create logic!

And the final issue*:* God, by definition, is all-knowing; hence, He would know that we can't logically hold that He doesn't have logic and that He doesn't have or didn't have (pantheism/panentheism) a mind like ours, though one much, much greater. So a perfect God, knowing this, intentionally gave us minds and a form of logic that leads us to believe things that are not true about Him, a form of logic that, ultimately, gives us no certainty about anything? Indeed, where does Boss get off asserting this apparent absurdity as an absolute fact when the ramifications of his very own premise assert that nothing is absolutely certain?

Special pleading? Special knowledge? Special logic? Boss knows something the rest of us don't?

*That's weird.*


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame*
> 
> *BreezeWood:*  Hi, my name's BreezeWood.  I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever.  Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.
> 
> Christians are really evil people and stuff.  They're poop-poop heads.  I don't like them.  I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.
> 
> And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?
> 
> No. Tell me what happened
> 
> It wilted.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> No.  Tell me what happened.
> 
> Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.
> 
> And do you know what happened to the flower?
> 
> No.  Tell me what happened.
> 
> It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that.  It was like magic . . . or whatever.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Uh . . . no, BreezeWood.  This is your dream.  Tells me what happened.
> 
> Oh, that's right.  _Giggle
> _
> Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> No!
> 
> The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . .  and so on . . .  and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .
> 
> _Whack_
> 
> Oh, sorry.  _Giggle_  This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped.   It was like magic . . . or whatever.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?
> 
> Oh, no.  Noah was very nice to me.  But that Christian gave me a  dirty look.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> I said, do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?
> 
> Oh, no.  That nice man Noah wouldn't let him.  But he did give me another dirty look.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?
> 
> Would it stop you if I said _no_?
> 
> Oh, no.  _Giggle_
> 
> Uh-huh.  So what happened, BreezeWood?
> 
> Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.
> 
> And do you know what they did with all that lumber?
> 
> I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?
> 
> No.  But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question,  BreezeWood.  This is your dream, BreezeWood.  Don't ask anymore questions.  Just tell me the story of your dream or die.
> 
> Oh, that's right.  _Giggle_ I forgot.
> 
> They built an Ark.  And do you know. . . .  _Giggle_ I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah.  And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .
> 
> _Whack
> _
> Oh, sorry.  _Giggle _Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died.  Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting.  And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood.  This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  _Giggle_
> 
> What happened to the Singularity?
> 
> The Singularity died too.  _Giggle_
> 
> The End.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems all they know how to do is attack. Not often a valid argument to make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is so bizarre is, I actually thought M.D. Rawlings made a really impressive argument at the start. You can go back and read where I praised his brilliance in putting together a sound syllogistic argument as challenged by the OP. However, I couldn't agree that he had "proven" God exists and I explained my reservations. Since then, he has been one vicious and rude son of a bitch.
> 
> At first, I was kind of taken aback by his attacking me, someone who had actually thought he made a sound argument. Here are all these Atheists who totally disagree with his argument top to bottom, and he picks ME to focus on attacking... it didn't make sense. Then I realized, it's because something I said was seen by him as totally undermining his argument. Because he thought what I said had threatened his viewpoint, I became the object of his angst and here we are.
> 
> I now realize his entire argument is rooted in the premise that human logic is above God. That God is somehow constrained by human logic and thought. And if we can't all pretend that is true, then his argument has a fatal flaw. Therefore, he is relegated to attacking someone who also believes in a Spiritual God, although MY God is omnipotent and omniscient and not subject to human emotions.
> 
> It's been really fascinating to watch he and Justin self-destruct his own argument for the sake of attacking a fellow believer in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I have been an object of their attacks as well and I am a believer in God. Odd how these two posters behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that God the Creator doesn't exist, fancy pants?
Click to expand...

I am flattered you fancy my pants.

And for the second time, no.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Summary Post - Part I
*
All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).


Let us review*: 
*
It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._

*Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*

That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​

The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).

Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently one must take leave of all there senses to be a believer.
> 
> Good thing we all don't think that way.
> 
> Btw out of curiosity are you atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a non-believer in any of the asserted gawds, past and present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just amazing to me that so many believers are so incredibly difficult to have a simple discussion with.  They act as though placing their bias aside will betray their God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. It's as though any questioning of their views is a part of some conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the conspiracy exists but is within their own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look, everybody, fancy pants thinks whack job Hollie's  post makes sense.  No surprise there.
Click to expand...

You aren't getting into my pants no matter how many times you say that are fancy.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not really ringing a bell you overly obsessed creepy weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooh, look, he's trying to impress his girlfriend fancy pants. How creepy is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only person/people trying to impress anyone on the internet is you and your mancrush.
> 
> Your fawning for m.d. and his for you is magical. You guys should meet for a swan boat ride, and bring something to wet your thumbs. They don't like you reaching outside the boat.
Click to expand...

He keeps telling me how fancy my pants are.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!



"All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."

False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.

The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better. 

What a moron.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Summary Post - Part II*

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of _irrationalism_, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on *(1) *the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against *(2) *the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (*Post #3945*).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*:* *(1) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in *Post #4195*) and *(3) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (_*for any given A: A = A*_, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction)*:* See *Posts #2358, #2368, #2359* and *#2405*.

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are _not_, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, _The Seven Things_ stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

*The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**).

The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, **[URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/).The']http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/*[/URL]*).

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/**)

Divine Sentience 
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921*


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."
> 
> False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.
> 
> The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.
> 
> What a moron.
Click to expand...



In your case, Hollie, and in the case of the moron who stupidly agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is the nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness, which is just about that zero baseline.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you asking to get clobbered again after your embarrassing episode over the word "cognition"?  Already forgot how stupid you looked over that?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall being clobbered our embarrassed. Frankly you calling me names has little effect on me. Since that was all you did I assume that is what you are referring to.
> 
> So call me a punk and a phony and carry on about how I am having secret meetings with atheists or just post your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you chattering about now, fancy pants? I was talking to GT. He embarrassed himself way back before when he said there was a better word for Rawlings to use than "cognition" for the entire connotations of human mental activity in the English language, which there isn't though "consciousness" can be used sometimes. And he just got clobbered again trying to be what he accused Rawlings of. Yepper. Looks like GT is the real pretentious fool around these parts again. Look at Rawlings' post.
> 
> GT =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Odd, I don't recall this exchange.
> 
> Do you happen to have a link, fanboy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we are being trolled
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you think wrong.  GT is lying and you being the gullible little girl that you are bought it hook, line and sinker.  I know he's lying.  Boss knows he's lying.  Rawlings can tell you he's lying.  Hollie and seallybobo know he's lying.  BreezeWood knows he's lying.  Course they won't tell you the truth because they just kiss each others' ass.  Everyone knows he's lying but you, sweet pea. So you kiss the asses of those who are lying to you either by commission or omission?  Wow.  How sick and self-degrading is that?  You weren't here, dumbass, when he wrote his infamous post. What an idiot.  Anyone can just tell you anything, you believe it and kiss their asses . . . except when people tell you the truth about God. That's just gay.    And you say you're a theist.
Click to expand...

Nothing but ad hominem garbage. That is all you post.

And you think there is a conspiracy? Seems a bit paranoid.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."
> 
> False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.
> 
> The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, Hollie, and in the case of the moron who stupidly agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is the nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness, which is just about that zero baseline.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Nothing but ad hominem.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."
> 
> False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.
> 
> The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, Hollie, and in the case the moron he stupidity agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness.
Click to expand...

A classic example of a confused, incoherent _Rawling'ism_


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness."
> 
> False, undemonstrated, mere opinion and totally unsupported.
> 
> The rest of your pointless rattling fares no better.
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, Hollie, and in the case the moron he stupidity agreed with you, inanimate mindlessness is nearest equivalent to the quality of your consciousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A classic example of a confused, incoherent _Rawling'ism_
Click to expand...

This isn't even fun any more.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Summary Post - Part I
> *
> All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.
> 
> As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).
> 
> 
> Let us review*:
> *
> It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensically objective standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
> 
> *Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!*
> 
> That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.
> 
> Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​
> 
> The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_)*:* the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.
> 
> The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness*:* a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization (*See Posts #4195 and #4208*).
> 
> Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Summary Post - Part II*
> 
> Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of _irrationalism_, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.
> 
> In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.
> 
> These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on *(1) *the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against *(2) *the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (*Post #3945*).
> 
> Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*:* *(1) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in *Post #4195*) and *(3) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.
> 
> The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (_*for any given A: A = A*_, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction)*:* See *Posts #2358, #2368, #2359* and *#2405*.
> 
> Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are _not_, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.
> 
> The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> Hence, _The Seven Things_ stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
> _________________________________________
> 
> *The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**).
> 
> The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/**).*
> 
> *
> The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/**)
> 
> Divine Sentience
> #3918
> #3919
> #3920
> #3921*




* Oh my, the boys rattling on with the thoroughly discredited, soundly refuted and utterly pointless, The Seven Fraudulent Things™ *


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Summary Post - Part II*
> 
> Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of _irrationalism_, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.
> 
> In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.
> 
> These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on *(1) *the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against *(2) *the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (*Post #3945*).
> 
> Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*:* *(1) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in *Post #4195*) and *(3) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.
> 
> The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (_*for any given A: A = A*_, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction)*:* See *Posts #2358, #2368, #2359* and *#2405*.
> 
> Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are _not_, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.
> 
> The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> Hence, _The Seven Things_ stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
> _________________________________________
> 
> *The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**).
> 
> The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/**).*
> 
> *
> The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/**)
> 
> Divine Sentience
> #3918
> #3919
> #3920
> #3921*



Brilliant!


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary Post - Part II*
> 
> Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of _irrationalism_, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.
> 
> In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.
> 
> These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on *(1) *the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against *(2) *the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (*Post #3945*).
> 
> Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*:* *(1) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in *Post #4195*) and *(3) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.
> 
> The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (_*for any given A: A = A*_, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction)*:* See *Posts #2358, #2368, #2359* and *#2405*.
> 
> Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are _not_, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.
> 
> The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.
> 
> Hence, _The Seven Things_ stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
> _________________________________________
> 
> *The Seven Things™ (Post #3935, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**).
> 
> The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence (Posts #3944, #3945 #4463 and #3941, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123144/**).*
> 
> *
> The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ (Post #3934, **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122815/**)
> 
> Divine Sentience
> #3918
> #3919
> #3920
> #3921*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Oh my, the boys rattling on with the thoroughly discredited, soundly refuted and utterly pointless, The Seven Fraudulent Things™ *
Click to expand...


So where's the link for your seven stupid things again so I can demolish them.  I'm ready to take a crack at them.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce)*

No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are _not_ logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the _God axiom_, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the _God axiom_ is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the _God axiom_ and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist*'*s!*


I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.

Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.

*The Four Refusals:*

*1. *"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

*2. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

*3. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!

*4. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​

The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!

Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!

These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!

Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.
> 
> We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.
> 
> "Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.
> 
> But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.
> 
> I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things  have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A psychotic cult leader calling those who hold to logical truth psychotic.   Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
> 
> 
> Headline:  Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Science is not directly based on the laws of logic.  It's ultimately based on the laws of logic.  In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract *inferences of probability only, not absolutes.*  The inferences are *always* subject to revision or falsification.  That's why the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are *always* less sure than the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is *always true* when properly  based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or *mostly true* when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories .  Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete.  Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected.  But *the laws of logic*, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, *are never wrong*!  *The laws of logic that are always right* hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and *the laws of logic are proven to be true* intuitively and *have been proven to be true* over and over again by the realities of historical experience.
> 
> Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge,  *not because the laws of logic are wrong*, cult leader.  *The laws of logic are always right, *cult leader. Data and *the laws of logic that are always right *are not the same thing, cult leader.  Your argument all messed up because it makes data and *the laws of logic that are always right *the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader.  See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread.  He knows what he's talking about.  You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.
Click to expand...


LMAO @ "Laws" of logic! Now they are no longer "God's Logic" but "LAWS of Logic!"  Oooooo! We must never question the LAW! No matter what we think, it's the LAW! This special pleading has gotten way out of hand with you two. There is no "law of logic" which supersedes God the Creator. Like I said, if God wants 2+2=5 then you will instantaneously understand that is logical and any previous understanding will be as if it never existed. God has that kind of power. For all WE know, 2+2=3 yesterday and that memory has been replaced by 2+2=4 today... can you prove that's not true? The arrow of time could have stopped for 50 million years while God cleaned the wax out of His ears and we have no recollection of it happening because God "paused" time. 

Human logic (the ONLY kind) is based on human perception, which is often times wrong or incomplete. As I demonstrated before... Logic was wrong about things with gravity, sailing to the west, etc. Now you are trying to write Logic a big pass and say the "data" was flawed, that's why we fucked up and made the wrong logical conclusions. Well no one was saying you could logically sail around the world but the data says you'll fall off the edge. Logic is ONLY based on human perception, nothing else. And human perception is not infallible.


----------



## G.T.

You'd have more of a potential to get laid once in a 'blue moon' if you weren't typing worthless pedantic ramblings that barely make any coherent sense and ad hom out the ass. Bookmarking your posts and cataloging them for future reference like this is some uber important shit you type when its a cluster fuck.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing but My Utter Contempt Now!*


*Bottom line: *your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would directly overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system," Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you can't apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over your head.

That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your *2 + 2 = 4* analogy earlier on this thread.


We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap*



emilynghiem said:


> Boss is also arguing that
> all we HAVE is our human logic.
> Even when we PERCEIVE what God's logic is,
> we are limited and biased by our HUMAN LOGIC
> so whatever logic God created for us on our level
> is determining whatever we look at. it is always
> limited by our human logic, which Boss is saying God created.



Now I want to isolate this thought.

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity*:* omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Boss' failure to properly execute the distinction delineated by the second law of thought (_the law of contradiction_) is the essence of Boss' default to the irrationalism of relativism.

On the grounds of the absolute standard for objectivity, the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the logically highest conceivable standard for divine attribution without begging the question*: *

[indent[God's creative powers are infinitely unlimited, bound by nothing _but_ His nature of absolute perfection. Our creative powers are limited to contriving humanly conceivable things out of preexistent materials. God's knowledge/understanding is infinitely unlimited. Our knowledge is finite as our minds our finite. God is at most immanently and transcendently everywhere, contingent on nothing else but His very own Being. We can only be in one place at a time as far as we know or can tell.

The laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law the excluded middle, comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) *≠* Informational Knowledge.

Hence, we have the distinction between *(1)* operational knowledge (the laws of thought) and *(2)* informational knowledge (the detailed facts/actualities of existence).[/indent]


We _can_ imagine that God's logic is different than ours. We _can_ imagine that our logic is not God's logic, that our logic necessarily anthropomorphizes God, yielding ideas about Him that might or might not be true all we want, but we cannot explain _how_ God's logic could be different than our own without asserting absurdities and/or the inherent contradictions of self-negation that positively prove the opposite is logically true.


In other words*:
*
1. _How_ could God not hold or be bound by the law of identity*: for any given A: A = A*? God holds that _*for any given A: A *_*≠*_* A*_? How's that? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?

2. _How_ could God not hold or be bound by the law of contradiction*: for any two or more propositions NOT(A = NOT-A)*? God holds that two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions are true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?

3. _How_ could God not hold or be bound by the law of the excluded middle: _*for all A: A OR ~A*_? God does not hold that either the positive or the negative form of any given proposition of a single predicate is true, but that both the positive _and_ the negative form would be true at the time? God's a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos? *God **≠** God*?​
Hence, Boss' refusal to believe that our logic is _not_ God's uncreated logic divinely bestowed on us is an absurdity and/or an inherent contradiction of self-negation that positively proves the opposite is logically true.

That _is_ the inescapably reality of human cognition. _*For any given A: A = A*. _It is what it is. If this axiom of human cognition is not ultimately or transcendentally true, nothing is sure. Nothing we assert about anything is necessarily true. Yet Boss claims, not only to believe all of kinds things, but to know all kinds of things based on *A: A **≠** A*!

Boss is outside his mind. God is not a relativist, the God of contradiction and chaos. It is Boss, not God, who is the relativist. Hence, *Boss **≠** Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap*!

Here's the real irony in all of this: at one point Boss held that the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is logically true insofar as God's existence is concerned, but the TAG is a double proof. It necessarily holds that *(1)* God exists and that *(2)* God is the universal Principle of Identity!

According to the laws of thought, our logic was not created, for our logic is God's logic bestowed on us by God. We cannot coherently think our way out of that axiom.

_Knock Knock_

Anybody home?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Bottom line: *your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!



Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent. 

*Omniscient definition*, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. 

*Omnipotent definition*, almighty or infinite in power, as God.

You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us. 

And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity



No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!


----------



## Inevitable

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
Click to expand...

He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If logic doesn't prove anything then 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a mathematical proof. Tell fancy pants the whole truth about your stupid idea that we can't know that 2 + 2 = 4, the stupid argument that everybody, even the atheists told you is moonbat crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen anyone post that my argument is "moonbat crazy" and you've certainly not supported that claim. You keep on saying it, but that doesn't make things TRUE.
> 
> We've been over "2+2=4" several times already, but we can go over it again. The mathematical formula is "true" in the sense that humans assigned values to the parameters and they predictably prove themselves to the satisfaction of our perceptions. But what if our perceptions are incorrect or invalid? Cleary anyone can see that 2 cats + 2 dogs do not equal 4 cats or 4 dogs. In the subatomic environment, we can see that 2 electrons + 2 electrons may equal 4 electrons, but it may not. It could equal 5 electrons if one of the electrons exists in two places at the same time, or it may equal 3 electrons if one has disappeared from existence. Electrons can exist, not exist, or double exist. So you can't always "prove" that 2+2=4, even though it logically makes sense that it should.
> 
> "Logic" also doesn't equal "proof" as much as you want to claim that it does. The term "logic" is a human construct of philosophical thought. It's an ancient Greek word which means: "pertaining to speech or reason." Now we all understand that "reasoning" is simply humans examining possibilities, weighing the options or dismissing implausibles, and formulating an idea or thought. Why would an omniscient God have any use for such a thing? God doesn't need to contemplate the options or formulate an idea or thought if God is omniscient. So God really has no purpose for logic, it's merely a man-made construct of thought. Yet you argue that God didn't create logic, even though God created humans and human thought. Frankly, this is asinine.
> 
> But then... you've proven to be pretty asinine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need you to tell me why 2+2=4 is true, why it is logically impossible for a finite mind to say "God the Creator doesn't exist" without contradicting yourself and proving the opposite is true in logic. You just admitted these things are logically true. You said these things were logically true before. Axioms are axioms. Logical proofs in math and in thought or spoken language are logical proofs. Logic proves or disproves things. If you're going to start taking like an idiot and say that logic doesn't prove things are true tell that to idiots like Fancy Pants, not me, cult leader . Fancy Pants will believe you because Fancy Pants is a gullible fool, can't think for herself, didn't pay attention in school and is an ignoramus. If you're going to talk like an intelligent, educated person and make sense by saying that what logic proves to be true in our minds and in the temporal world might not be true ultimately in the spiritual world then I'll agree. But, hey, it might be true that pigs will spout wings some day and fly or that something can come from nothing too right? That's all you’re saying, idiot. Otherwise, go screw your brainwashed hoes and bros in your little cult following at home, cult leader.
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you go off the deep end claiming I have said things I didn't say and taking a position contrary to the position you previously took. It's like you're psychotic.
> 
> I don't know or care who "fancy pants" is, and couldn't care less about your latest obsession with denigrating someone who doesn't agree with you. I've already demonstrated how your concepts of "logic" are often completely untrue. Logic once told you that if you sailed too far west you'd fall off the earth. Aristotle used logic to say that things slow down because they become tired. Things have gravity because they long to be near earth. Things  have levity because they want to be in the heavens. These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> I'm really sorry if you are too stupid to get that. I can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A psychotic cult leader calling those who hold to logical truth psychotic.   Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately. Can't do that can you, cult leader? Every time you try, logic proves that the laws of logic must be true ultimately. There's no getting around that. Isn't that right, cult leader?
> 
> 
> Headline:  Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These were based on sheer human logic at the time and all proven to be incorrect by Issac Newton. So just because your human logic says something should be true, doesn't mean that it's always true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Science is not directly based on the laws of logic.  It's ultimately based on the laws of logic.  In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract *inferences of probability only, not absolutes.*  The inferences are *always* subject to revision or falsification.  That's why the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are *always* less sure than the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is *always true* when properly  based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or *mostly true* when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories .  Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete.  Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected.  But *the laws of logic*, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, *are never wrong*!  *The laws of logic that are always right* hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and *the laws of logic are proven to be true* intuitively and *have been proven to be true* over and over again by the realities of historical experience.
> 
> Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge,  *not because the laws of logic are wrong*, cult leader.  *The laws of logic are always right, *cult leader. Data and *the laws of logic that are always right *are not the same thing, cult leader.  Your argument all messed up because it makes data and *the laws of logic that are always right *the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader.  See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread.  He knows what he's talking about.  You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO @ "Laws" of logic! Now they are no longer "God's Logic" but "LAWS of Logic!"  Oooooo! We must never question the LAW! No matter what we think, it's the LAW! This special pleading has gotten way out of hand with you two. There is no "law of logic" which supersedes God the Creator. Like I said, if God wants 2+2=5 then you will instantaneously understand that is logical and any previous understanding will be as if it never existed. God has that kind of power. For all WE know, 2+2=3 yesterday and that memory has been replaced by 2+2=4 today... can you prove that's not true? The arrow of time could have stopped for 50 million years while God cleaned the wax out of His ears and we have no recollection of it happening because God "paused" time.
> 
> Human logic (the ONLY kind) is based on human perception, which is often times wrong or incomplete. As I demonstrated before... Logic was wrong about things with gravity, sailing to the west, etc. Now you are trying to write Logic a big pass and say the "data" was flawed, that's why we fucked up and made the wrong logical conclusions. Well no one was saying you could logically sail around the world but the data says you'll fall off the edge. Logic is ONLY based on human perception, nothing else. And human perception is not infallible.
Click to expand...


Poor Boss, reduced to the banalities of Hollie and Company.  You don't even address the substance anymore.  You even contradict what you argued earlier against Amrchaos' nonsense:  Of course subatomic particles, including  electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity.  Of course Amrchaos is an idiot.  You knew that, Boss.  You stood for common sense and real science for a brief moment.  Oh, you burned so bight, Boss!  I had to put on my shades.  But then, I guess, the years of substance abuse overcame you, you veered off course and flew too close to the Sun.

Oh, how low you've fallen, Boss, all the way down to the level of the dregs.   So after talking your way into the cramped and slimy corner of sheer piggish pride, you're reduced to contradicting yourself when you were still making sense.  But, of course, that was before the ramifications of the truths you formally asserted dawned on you.  That was before you came face-to-face with the dreadful stupidity of your irredeemable relativism, the shame to end all shams.

Alas, poor Boss, alas.   

_Taps playing_


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.


.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
Click to expand...



Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad. 

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
_Taps playing_


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Of course subatomic particles, including electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity.



Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity. 

The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
Click to expand...



It would be tragic if it weren't so hilarious.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
Click to expand...


Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .




The organic laws of human thought are not practical.  Right.  Whatever you say Everlasting Noah of the Singularity.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Poor Boss, reduced to the banalities of Hollie and Company.  You don't even address the substance anymore.  You even contradict what you argued earlier against Amrchaos' nonsense:  Of course subatomic particles, including  electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity.  Of course Amrchaos is an idiot.  You knew that, Boss.  You stood for common sense and real science for a brief moment.  Oh, you burned so bight, Boss!  I had to put on my shades.  But then, I guess, the years of substance abuse overcame you, you veered off course and flew too close to the Sun.
> 
> Oh, how low you've fallen, Boss, all the way down to the level of the dregs.   So after talking your way into the cramped and slimy corner of sheer piggish pride, you're reduced to contradicting yourself when you were still making sense.  But, of course, that was before the ramifications of the truths you formally asserted dawned on you.  That was before you came face-to-face with the dreadful stupidity of your irredeemable relativism, the shame to end all shams.
> 
> Alas, poor Boss, alas.
> 
> _Taps playing_



And he went with this headline, poor sap:  "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!"


----------



## Justin Davis

Hey, Boss, how about addressing the substance of this directly.

Nope. Science is not directly based on the laws of logic. It's ultimately based on the laws of logic. In science, there's a middle man, empirical data, which is inductively processed to extract *inferences of probability only, not absolutes.* The inferences are *always* subject to revision or falsification. That's why the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of inductive reasoning are *always* less sure than the *conclusions*, not the laws of logic, of syllogistic, deductive reasoning, which is *always true* when properly based on rational/mathematical axioms, postulates and theorems, or *mostly true* when based on well-established empirical perceptions and theories . Sometimes information is wrong or incomplete. Sometimes logical fallacies go undetected. But *the laws of logic*, which are the things used to detect bad information, incomplete information or logical fallacies, *are never wrong*! *The laws of logic that are always right* hold that all of these things are necessarily true, and *the laws of logic are proven to be true* intuitively and *have been proven to be true* over and over again by the realities of historical experience.

Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, *not because the laws of logic are wrong*, cult leader. *The laws of logic are always right, *cult leader. Data and *the laws of logic that are always right *are not the same thing, cult leader. Your argument all messed up because it makes data and *the laws of logic that are always right *the same thing when they are not the same thing, cult leader. See, I been reading and thinking real hard about what Rawlings has been proving to be right on this thread. He knows what he's talking about. You relativist clowns don't know what you're talking about. Now thank me for straightening you out, cult leader.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *BreezeWood's Fifteen Minutes of Fame*
> 
> *BreezeWood:*  Hi, my name's BreezeWood.  I believe in the Everlasting, but not really, because I don't really know what that is, but it's got something to be with Noah and all that stuff . . . you know, whatever.  Something came before the Singularity or maybe it was after . . . but, you know, whatever.
> 
> Christians are really evil people and stuff.  They're poop-poop heads.  I don't like them.  I had a dream once in which this Christian was talking to Noah and suddenly the Singularity butted in and handed the Christian a flower.
> 
> And do you know what happened to the flower in the hand of that evil, poop-poop head Christian?
> 
> No. Tell me what happened
> 
> It wilted.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> No.  Tell me what happened.
> 
> Well, then the Singularity handed Noah a flower.
> 
> And do you know what happened to the flower?
> 
> No.  Tell me what happened.
> 
> It changed into a tree and grew really big just like that.  It was like magic . . . or whatever.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Uh . . . no, BreezeWood.  This is your dream.  Tells me what happened.
> 
> Oh, that's right.  _Giggle
> _
> Noah raised his hand and spoke to the tree.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> No!
> 
> The leaves blew off it's branches and from these leaves other trees sprung out of the ground . . . and then their leaves blew off their branches . . . and more trees sprung up . . . and so on . . .  and so on . . .  and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and so on . . . and . . .
> 
> _Whack_
> 
> Oh, sorry.  _Giggle_  This went on and on until there was a whole forest of trees as far as the eye could see . . . and then Noah raised his hand and told the trees to stop making more trees, and they stopped.   It was like magic . . . or whatever.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Did someone slap the silly out of you, BreezeWood?
> 
> Oh, no.  Noah was very nice to me.  But that Christian gave me a  dirty look.
> 
> And do you know what happened after that?
> 
> I said, do you know what happened after that?
> 
> Did the Christian try to kill you, BreezeWood?
> 
> Oh, no.  That nice man Noah wouldn't let him.  But he did give me another dirty look.
> 
> Do you want me to tell you what happened after that?
> 
> Would it stop you if I said _no_?
> 
> Oh, no.  _Giggle_
> 
> Uh-huh.  So what happened, BreezeWood?
> 
> Well, the Christian and Noah started cutting down the trees and rendering their trunks into lumber.
> 
> And do you know what they did with all that lumber?
> 
> I said, do you know what they did with all that lumber?
> 
> No.  But I know what I'm going to do with my fist if you ask me another question,  BreezeWood.  This is your dream, BreezeWood.  Don't ask anymore questions.  Just tell me the story of your dream or die.
> 
> Oh, that's right.  _Giggle_ I forgot.
> 
> They built an Ark.  And do you know. . . .  _Giggle_ I mean, all the animals of the Earth, one male and one female, came and went into the Ark, and the Christian counted the animals as they went into the Ark and gave the tally to Noah.  And then Noah took a club and smashed it over the head of the Christian, which made me very happy, because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  And then it started to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and rain and . . .
> 
> _Whack
> _
> Oh, sorry.  _Giggle _Well, Noah and all the animals on the Ark were just fine, but the whole wide world was flooded and everything else died.  Then the waters receded and the Ark came to rest on a mountain top . . . and Noah and the animals came out of the Ark and had life everlasting.  And the best part is that there were no more poop-poop head Christians around ever again because they all died in the Flood.  This made me very happy because Christians are evil poop-poop heads.  _Giggle_
> 
> What happened to the Singularity?
> 
> The Singularity died too.  _Giggle_
> 
> The End.


.
as pointed out before there is no practical purpose to your posts.

.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
Click to expand...


Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance? 
And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> .
> as pointed out before there is no practical purpose to your posts.
> 
> .



So says the Everlasting Noah of the Singularity.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist*'*s!*
> 
> 
> I agree with BreezeWood. God is more than just the Creator according to the laws of logic endowed to us by nature or God, whatever suits one, so why is he arguing with me over that? I can't do anything about that. I have no control over BreezeWood's emotions or biases, just like I have no control over Inevitable's closed-mindedness. As for Boss and the TAG, that's not true. Boss holds that organic logic proves God exists. He holds that axiom of the laws of human thought to be necessarily true, logically, and of course it is.
> 
> Then he does something odd. He abandons these very same imperatives of human logic and refuses to believe them any further when it comes to the objective facts regarding the nature of divine consciousness. He cannot explain, just like no other human on Earth can explain, how God's logic could possibly be different than our logic. It is pride that will not allow Boss to admit that fact, Emily. You're not helping him by making excuses for him. The proofs of the TAG cannot be refuted. It's not possible to do.
> 
> *The Four Refusals:*
> 
> *1. *"I refuse to even consider or think about the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin that are universally self-evident, known to mankind since time immemorial, due to the fact of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *2. *"I refuse to believe what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* prove" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *3. *"I don't care what *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought prove*" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily!
> 
> *4. *"The formal axioms of *the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought* are informal logical fallacies" is not a sound or responsible response, Emily! If that were, *2 + 2 = 4* would be an informal logical fallacy, Emily!​
> 
> The informal logical fallacies of secondary propositions which are* not* logically possible or necessary, do not apply to the innate, primary, intuitive, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, Emily!
> 
> Logic is used to prove or disprove things, Emily! Science is used to verify or falsify things, Emily! Those are the proper terms and conventions of logic and science, Emily!
> 
> These are the only responses that most of the atheists and relativistic theists, like Inevitable, have asserted against the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> Check Inevitable out. I thought you said he was an intellectually open-minded, thoughtful and tolerant person. He comes onto this thread way late in the discussion telling me to admit there is no proof for God's existence when every damn one of the objections to the irrefutable axioms regarding God's existence have been utterly destroyed. There have been nearly a dozen monotheistic theists, including me, two pantheists, three agnostics and even two atheists on this thread (persons who understand the formal standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge) who have told these knuckle heads that they don't know what they’re talking about. But the real truth of the matter, Emily, is that one doesn't necessarily have to be a scholar to grasp these things. All one has to do is open one's friggin' mind for once in one's life and think!
> 
> Emily, for the last time, it is not possible to form a consensus on the basis of irrationalism or on the basis of false standards and conventions for logic, science and justified truth belief/knowledge. I'm standing on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding. I cannot force anyone to come and stand with me on the only foundation of absolute objectivity for mutual understanding.


Does that come with a jingle?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing but My Utter Contempt Now!*
> 
> 
> *Bottom line: *your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would directly overthrow pantheism/panentheism!
> 
> And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system," Boss, whether it be nature or God.
> 
> Just because you can't apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over your head.
> 
> That's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your *2 + 2 = 4* analogy earlier on this thread.
> 
> 
> We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.
> 
> I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.
> 
> Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.


Your cult of two has been exposed as a total fraud of meaningless prattle.


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll



And it took you all of two seconds to close your mind again.  That's a record even for you.  But what am I talking about?  You don't have a mind at all, much less one that's open.


----------



## BreezeWood

.
not a shred of practicality to be found ...

they fail in a swirling downward spin of utter mediocrity to a finalie of oblivion.

.


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Newton's theories of motion are true up to a point, but they are not always or universally true as previously thought because of insufficient knowledge, *not because the laws of logic are wrong*, cult leader. *The laws of logic are always right, *cult leader.



No, the human logic was wrong and proven wrong. Period. What you are trying to do now is make Logic=Truth, and that is simply another attempt to elevate human logic to a superior status it doesn't deserve. Logic doesn't equal Truth any more than Logic equals God. Logic is a philosophical construct of human thought, which can be (and often is) incorrect. I've already demonstrated this, and you simply ignore it, build a caveat for it, and continue on in your rant-fest. 

As for who is a "cult figure" here, that would be you and Rawlings. No one else is agreeing with you on any of this. Now... why don't you go do something "constructive" with your time... like, build an idol to Rawlings out of your mashed potatoes?


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance?
> And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.



Sorry, I don't want your line, Justin. I'm content with MY God who trumps YOUR God because mine is omniscient and omnipotent and yours is a purely human construct.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.
> 
> The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.



How does it defy logic?  My God!  You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos.  You've totally flipped from your previous position.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles.  Oh, I know.  Because of the laws of logic, you idiot.  Identify.  Distinguish.  Exclude.  Those are the operations.  Why, Boss.  Why did you do it?  You went from Boss to whackadoodle.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reduced to the cred of that imbecile Fancy Pants.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Why did you not jump the ship of relativism when you had the chance?
> And this for the inscription on your headstone, poor sap: "Psychotic Cult Leader Spouts His Psychotic Pseudoscience Again!" We even tossed you a line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't want your line, Justin. I'm content with MY God who trumps YOUR God because mine is omniscient and omnipotent and yours is a purely human construct.
Click to expand...


Your god is you Boss, a total whackadoodle not making a lick of sense.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> This isn't even fun any more.








Dumb Blond Justin


----------



## Boss

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.
> 
> The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it defy logic?  My God!  You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos.  You've totally flipped from your previous position.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles.  Oh, I know.  Because of the laws of logic, you idiot.  Identify.  Distinguish.  Exclude.  Those are the operations.  Why, Boss.  Why did you do it?  You went from Boss to whackadoodle.
Click to expand...


How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.

I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well... No, they aren't just like any other existent. Do other things that physically exist pop into and out of existence or exist in two places at once? Or does that simply defy "logic" with other things? How can a "law of identity" apply to an electron which has become non-existent or occupying two places in space at the same time? The identity of something that doesn't exist is, it does not exist. The identity of something that exists in two places is, it has dual identity.
> 
> The ONLY reason we can define this as "logical" is because we know now that it happens. Before we knew that, we would have said that it was illogical. We can clearly see that "logic" is not something divine or infallible, but rather a construct of philosophical human thought and perception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it defy logic?  My God!  You're arguing QW's whackadoodle now, shades of armchaos.  You've totally flipped from your previous position.  Why, Boss?  Why did you do it?  Hey, whackadoodle, how are we able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles.  Oh, I know.  Because of the laws of logic, you idiot.  Identify.  Distinguish.  Exclude.  Those are the operations.  Why, Boss.  Why did you do it?  You went from Boss to whackadoodle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.
> 
> I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.
Click to expand...


*More on Boss' Shamelessly Depraved Demagoguery*

Quantum physics/quantum logic does not defy the three laws of organic/classical thought. Desperation now?  Is that it?  The retarded, pseudoscientific blather of QW-Foxfyre-Amrchaos roundly falsified on this thread by *Delta4Embassy and I*?

As Justin correctly points out, the fundamental operations of the laws of thought are identification, distinction and exclusion.  If quantum physics/quantum logic defied organic logic we wouldn't be able to understand the former, you drooling retard. You're conflating our three-dimensional level of sensory perception with our obvious ability to apprehend and assimilate, with no sweat, the properties and behavioral characteristics of the foundational, subatomic level of quantum physics.  Your analogy has nothing to do with logic as such . . . except for the fact that you're necessarily asserting the first law of organic thought (the law of identity) in order to make the very distinction you're making.

The law of identity itself holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction, the foundational axiom for all forms of logic and mathematical calculi.  We wouldn't be able to do the multidimensional calculi of infinitesimals if what you're implying were true.  Shut up!  Indeed, it's precisely due to the ramifications of the law of identity that we are able to coherently comprehend the exigencies of divine omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, you depraved, contemptible fraud.

You don't even realize that, once again, you're not only undermining the case for theism, but the construct of omniscience relative to actual free will . . . just like that mealy mouthed fraud Foxfyre*:*

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*:* *(1) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary, *Posts #4901 and #4905*, and in *Post #4195*) and *(3) *the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (*for any given A: A = A*, which holds that any given existent may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction)*:* See *Posts #2358, #2368, #2359* and *#2405*.​

*I've already refuted this retarded, pseudoscientific blather here:*

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10156988/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157116/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157191/


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> How does it defy logic? Well let's see... you are sitting at your computer typing right now, is it logical that you are also in Africa helping an Ebola patient? Would you consider it logical if you suddenly vanished from existence? We're able to recognize the behavior of subatomic particles because, a few years ago, we invented a large hadron collider which smashes atoms.
> 
> I don't know where you get that I've flipped my position on anything... nor do I get why you keep repeating yourself like a drunken meth head.



Disgusting behavior.


----------



## Inevitable

Justin Davis said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't even a clever troll. Trolls can be entertaining but these two are just silly. Long winded speeches, that isn't how you troll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it took you all of two seconds to close your mind again.  That's a record even for you.  But what am I talking about?  You don't have a mind at all, much less one that's open.
Click to expand...

Well you called me a phoney and a punk. You posted nothing of any depth.

Why should I even give you a second thought.


----------



## Inevitable

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
Click to expand...


This from you!  This was our conversation:

Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable:  No!

Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.

Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!

Rawlings:  Why do you say that?

Inevitable:  I'm not telling you!  There's no proof!

Rawlings:  Then why do you believe God exists?

Inevitable:  Because.

Rawlings:  Why is there no proof?

Inevitable:  You're a poop-poop head.

Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  You're mean.  I hate you.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Shut up! Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP.  I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
Click to expand...

You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.

Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
Click to expand...

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
Click to expand...


Like BreezeWood, who did nothing but preach, never answering a single question asked of him about what he was trying to say. 

What does this mean, BreezeWood? 

No!  I hate you.  Christians are poop-poop heads. 

The absolutist:  Let us sit down, reason together.

The relativist:  No!  Shut up!  I'm right, you're wrong.  Shut up!  I hate you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.
> 
> Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.
Click to expand...


Why do you say that?

No!  Shut up!  I hate you!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
Click to expand...


Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  Inevitable asked no such thing.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  *Inevitable asked no such thing*.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.
Click to expand...

You're right, you are a pathological liar.

can i not quote inevitable asking that very thing, right now, and make you look like a gigantic douchebag for saying he "asked no such thing?"

Sure I can. I should. Hell, I might. I'm going to give it some thought. Let you grovel, mix it up a little bit. 


Oh wait, nevermind. I dont even need to. You admitted it yourself already. Wow you're a schlub. 

md rawlings aka "blue moon":

*"This from you!  This was our conversation:
*
*Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?"*​


----------



## G.T.

"god created knowledge"

*not a given 
*not an axiom

TAG:

god created knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore, god exists!

Utterly childish, asinine use of reasoning. Circular, proves nothing.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never offered anything supportive of the existence of any of the gawds.
> 
> Your tedious cutting and pasting is a laughable joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> No!  Shut up!  I hate you!
Click to expand...

A classic _Rawling'ism_. Pointless, inane and juvenile.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  Inevitable asked no such thing.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.
Click to expand...

The ranting of the religiously insane.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like BreezeWood, who did nothing but preach, never answering a single question asked of him about what he was trying to say.
> 
> What does this mean, BreezeWood?
> 
> No!  I hate you.  Christians are poop-poop heads.
> 
> The absolutist:  Let us sit down, reason together.
> 
> The relativist:  No!  Shut up!  I'm right, you're wrong.  Shut up!  I hate you.
Click to expand...


.
^  .not a feather of truth ...




> "I am the way and the truth and the life - No one comes to the Father except through me".




interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.

grow up boys ...

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty:  The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*


The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
______________________

*Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


*Rawlings:
*
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation*:* identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

*Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!  

*QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!   Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.  


*Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.  


*BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that? 


*Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?


*Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!  


*Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?


*Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!  


*Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!  


*GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap. 


*Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

*GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! 


*Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer. 


*Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.  


*Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.  


*Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+! 


*Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.


*Rawlings: *You got that right.


*All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you! 


*Rawlings:*


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> 
> *Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*


More self aggrandizement as an attempt to weasel your way out of irrelevance, md.

You're your own #1 fan, Justin bluemoon "logic isn't just a concept" dumbass rawlings.

derp derp derp derp


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> 
> *Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*



Another display of classic _Rawling'isms_. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.

So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that your mindless chatter about the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> 
> *Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another display of classic _Rawling'isms_. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.
> 
> So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
Click to expand...

it's kind of pathetic that he has all of his posts bookmarked and shit so that he can keep referring back to them as though theyre some sort of intelligent chronicles. what a hoot.


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The fleshing out of these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> 
> *Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic is not universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember? LOL!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is., except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another display of classic _Rawling'isms_. A lot of cutting and pasting while offering nothing of merit.
> 
> So, aside from your usual spam, we still know with confidence that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's kind of pathetic that he has all of his posts bookmarked and shit so that he can keep referring back to them as though theyre some sort of intelligent chronicles. what a hoot.
Click to expand...

He's like a toy doll with a pull string and finger hoop. Tug the string and the doll will rattle of one of several programmed messages.


----------



## G.T.

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner

A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
(scroll down to "counter arguments")

Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty:  The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh
> *
> The relativist's idea of discourse: Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation*:* identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
> ​*Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!   Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair and empirical data interpret themselves.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow, man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More self aggrandizement as an attempt to weasel your way out of irrelevance, md.
> 
> You're your own #1 fan, Justin bluemoon "logic isn't just a concept" dumbass rawlings.
> 
> derp derp derp derp
Click to expand...



_Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la-la.  I can't hear you.  I'm a Kool-Aid Drinker of _Duh_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff



More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!



Cute, but totally *NOT* what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot *know* truth, we can only _*believe*_ we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted. 

Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> He's like a toy doll with a pull string and finger hoop. Tug the string and the doll will rattle of one of several programmed messages.



LOL!  Pull on their strings and _fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. I'm a Kool-Aid Drinker of _Duh_.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but totally *NOT* what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot *know* truth, we can only _*believe*_ we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.
> 
> Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.
Click to expand...


True story.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!
Click to expand...

Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies. 

I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.

I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."

You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.


----------



## Justin Davis

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty:  The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation*:* identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> 
> *Hollie:* _Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *QW:*  The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.   The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!   Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> 
> 
> *Foxfyre:*  God is _not_ omniscient!  God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God!  You're limiting God!   I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.  Stop saying that.  God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> 
> 
> *BreezeWood:* You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now.  The answer is still the same as before.  Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* He won't answer the question!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> 
> 
> *Inevitable:* $%@^&**(@#!  You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it.  Shut up!  I hate you!
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@! Cognition is not the right term.   Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!    Inverse is converse.  Converse is inverse.    The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:* You're a pathological liar.  As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> 
> *GT:* &*?%#+*&^(@!
> 
> 
> *Seallybobo:* Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> 
> 
> *Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> 
> 
> *Hollie, GT, Seallbobo:*  Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> 
> *Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> 
> *All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean.  We hate you!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:*





Classic!  Nailed it.   That's the funniest thing on this thread.  Well, after today I'm out of here for awhile.  The relativists will be happy.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.
> 
> I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.
> 
> I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."
> 
> You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.
Click to expand...


No, you're the liar pretending that you can negate the axioms about divinity by saying their informal logical fallacies.  So be logically consistent.  That's means that all axioms and tautologies are informal logical fallacies.  You're crap is just relativism.  Pick and choose.  That's what you relativist atheists do.  If you were a real agnostic you wouldn't do that, phony.  But that doesn't make them go away does it?  Phony.  You think you can just put links in your post from other relativist phonies from the internet like Kant is wrong or like logicians are wrong, like that means the rules of formal academics or the use of presuppositionals in modal logic and constructive just go away.    Phony.  No, they're still there.  Your magic doesn't work.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.
> 
> grow up boys ...
> 
> .



Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you.  No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  Inevitable asked no such thing.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ranting of the religiously insane.
Click to expand...


The ranting of the relativistically insane.  Yeah. I see clearly what Rawlings is talking about now.  I didn't get it at first.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.
> 
> grow up boys ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you.  No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.
Click to expand...

.







gunslinger, you are simply afraid of a critical analysis on the practical and demonstrative level you are not able to manipulate.

.


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.
> 
> I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.
> 
> I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."
> 
> You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're the liar pretending that you can negate the axioms about divinity by saying their informal logical fallacies.  So be logically consistent.  That's means that all axioms and tautologies are informal logical fallacies.  You're crap is just relativism.  Pick and choose.  That's what you relativist atheists do.  If you were a real agnostic you wouldn't do that, phony.  But that doesn't make them go away does it?  Phony.  You think you can just put links in your post from other relativist phonies from the internet like Kant is wrong or like logicians are wrong, like that means the rules of formal academics or the use of presuppositionals in modal logic and constructive just go away.    Phony.  No, they're still there.  Your magic doesn't work.
Click to expand...

you just cant grasp that it's not even an axiom to begin with

youre dumb as rocks


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  Inevitable asked no such thing.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ranting of the religiously insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ranting of the relativistically insane.  Yeah. I see clearly what Rawlings is talking about now.  I didn't get it at first.
Click to expand...

You never got it. You've been duped into the cult of two.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.
> 
> I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.
> 
> I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."
> 
> You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, in the meantime, real agnostics and _absolutist_ atheists agree with me and hold that all you relativists, on this thread and on the Internet with your silly little videos, whatever your religious inclinations, are slap-happy out of your minds.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> 
> A nice refutation of the TAG Transcendental Argument for the existence of God Scary Reasoner
> (scroll down to "counter arguments")
> 
> Debunking the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Peter Says Stuff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More utter bullshit premised on relativism and the idiocy that axioms are informal fallacies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure of anyone who said axioms are informal fallacies.
> 
> I certainly didn't, but you're a known liar, so - not surprised.
> 
> I said what you said is NOT an axiom, not that "its an axiom which is an informal fallacy."
> 
> You lie, you fail, you flair, you do cartwheels and act bitter/childish. Go get laid you obvious virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, in the meantime, real agnostics and _absolutist_ atheists agree with me and hold that all you relativists, on this thread and on the Internet with your silly little videos, whatever your religious inclinations, are slap-happy out of your minds.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/
Click to expand...

Are those the real agnostics and absolutist atheists you meet at the Kingdom Hall?


----------



## G.T.

Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.

Derp  derp  derp


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but totally *NOT* what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot *know* truth, we can only _*believe*_ we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.
> 
> Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.
Click to expand...


Dude!

*Boss:*  I never said *Quantum physics defy logic* or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how *human perception of logic is not always truth*, and this has not been refuted.​
It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.

The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong. That factor of our finiteness has nothing to do with logic in and of itself!

Further, you incessantly equated *(1)* _a priori_ axioms of human logic with *(2)* the merely tentative, ever-revisable and/or falsifiable probabilities/inferences of scientific, inductive reasoning. The former are not revisable. They are absolutes. They always hold. We cannot escape them. They do not support your position regarding the origins of logic. Indeed, they utterly refute it!

Moreover, you emphatically stated, more than once, that the problem with the inductively derived probabilities of science in history was a problem with logic itself. Bull! The laws of logic are the fixed, unchanging axioms of human cognition for all that we do in logic and science. That's why QW's nonsense is so crazy! If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this?  There is no other!  Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.

Are you kidding me? I put up with page after page of this rank stupidity, with the insults and mockery that went with it from utter buffoons trying to tell me that I'm the irrational one: QW, Foxfyre, Hollie, BreezeWood, seallybobo, Amrchaos . . . that Betty Boop Dingbat Inevitable , a fudge-packing degenerate trying to lecture me about morality . . . and others. Giving credit where credit is due, even GT knew that QW and Company's blather on this point was sheer idiocy . . . but then he starts spouting his mangled prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy which amounts to the same thing. LOL! And these are the same buffoons you incessantly complained about the baseball bats with which I smacked 'em upside their pin heads, mostly satire. LOL!

Stop being mean.

Shut up, you mealy mouthed buffoons!

LOL!

The relativist thought they were going to run this thread.  LOL!  Wrong.  Not this time.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.
> 
> Derp  derp  derp



By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when  knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.
> 
> Derp  derp  derp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when  knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?
Click to expand...

You have no clue what the fuck you've read.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> You never got it. You've been duped into the cult of two.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.
> 
> Derp  derp  derp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when  knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no clue what the fuck you've read.
Click to expand...


Is it a secrete?


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> interestingly, the above quote is a certain summation of the two religious zealots - and their demonic, repressive religious dogmatism ... hook line and sinker.
> 
> grow up boys ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never a feather of what you're talking about just mumbo jumbo 24/7 from you.  No one here even knows what you're talking about half the time. Slap some sense into yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> View attachment 34130
> 
> 
> gunslinger, you are simply afraid of a critical analysis on the practical and demonstrative level you are not able to manipulate.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Shaking in my boots. 

Would you care to write something coherent so we could know what you're talking about?


----------



## G.T.

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.
> 
> Derp  derp  derp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, GT, why did you go all crazy relativist when  knowing damn well QW's computer analogy was whack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no clue what the fuck you've read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a secrete?
Click to expand...

Is this English?


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Yes bro. Real agnostics and atheists agree that god is proven.
> 
> Derp  derp  derp




Well, I guess always pretending not to understand is easier than coming to terms with how stupid you are.  Carry on.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> Is this English?



Is it a secrete?


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Dude!
> 
> *Boss:* I never said *Quantum physics defy logic* or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how *human perception of logic is not always truth*, and this has not been refuted.
> 
> It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.
> 
> The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong.



All you are doing is granting logic a caveat of "information plugged in" which doesn't make any sense. LOGIC IS THE INFORMATION PLUGGED IN! That's WHAT Logic IS! Without any information, there is NO Logic! You can't make a logical argument without information! It's not possible! Logic is the reasoning of information, that's all it is or ever will be.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Boss:* Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute, but totally *NOT* what I said. The "laws of thought" are human constructs for humans. Omniscient God doesn't need thought. Relativism is the belief that all truth is relative, which is not what I have argued or what I believe. I am not a Relativist. I have argued that we cannot *know* truth, we can only _*believe*_ we know truth. God knows truth, God is omniscient. I never said Quantum physics defy logic or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how human perception of logic is not always truth, and this has not been refuted.
> 
> Rawlings, I don't hate you, I just believe you are wrong about your incarnation of God. The God I believe in is not constrained by or limited to the constructs of human thought. There is no need for the God I believe in to "think" or have sentience, human emotion, or even use logic. God is omniscient and omnipotent. God created everything including humans, and by extension, all parameters of human thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude!
> 
> *Boss:*  I never said *Quantum physics defy logic* or is impossible to understand. Never said it was magic. I gave it as an example of how *human perception of logic is not always truth*, and this has not been refuted.​
> It has been refuted! Even this statement is bad, misleading.
> 
> The proper perception of logic is that it universally prevails and is never wrong! Only the information we plug in to it can be wrong. That factor of our finiteness has nothing to do with logic in and of itself!
> 
> Further, you incessantly equated *(1)* _a priori_ axioms of human logic with *(2)* the merely tentative, ever-revisable and/or falsifiable probabilities/inferences of scientific, inductive reasoning. The former are not revisable. They are absolutes. They always hold. We cannot escape them. They do not support your position regarding the origins of logic. Indeed, they utterly refute it!
> 
> Moreover, you emphatically stated, more than once, that the problem with the inductively derived probabilities of science in history was a problem with logic itself. Bull! The laws of logic are the fixed, unchanging axioms of human cognition for all that we do in logic and science. That's why QW's nonsense is so crazy! If the ever-revisable inferences of science trumped or had primacy over the laws of logic and the philosophy of science, how in the hell could we ever independently verify or falsify anything? From what other fixed point of apprehension do we accomplish this?  There is no other!  Our organic logic alerts us to the problems of theories in the face of new information, and we revise our previous convictions about empirical things accordingly. In the meantime, the rational convictions of first principles never change! The prescriptive laws of logic are the primary foundation and the infrastructure of human apprehension, not secondary.
> 
> Are you kidding me? I put up with page after page of this rank stupidity, with the insults and mockery that went with it from utter buffoons trying to tell me that I'm the irrational one: QW, Foxfyre, Hollie, BreezeWood, seallybobo, Amrchaos . . . that Betty Boop Dingbat Inevitable , a fudge-packing degenerate trying to lecture me about morality . . . and others. Giving credit where credit is due, even GT knew that QW and Company's blather on this point was sheer idiocy . . . but then he starts spouting his mangled prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy which amounts to the same thing. LOL! And these are the same buffoons you incessantly complained about the baseball bats with which I smacked 'em upside their pin heads, mostly satire. LOL!
> 
> Stop being mean.
> 
> Shut up, you mealy mouthed buffoons!
> 
> LOL!
> 
> The relativist thought they were going to run this thread.  LOL!  Wrong.  Not this time.
Click to expand...

LOL!

The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument.   LOL!


LOL!


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> All you are doing is granting logic a caveat of "information plugged in" which doesn't make any sense. LOGIC IS THE INFORMATION PLUGGED IN! That's WHAT Logic IS! Without any information, there is NO Logic! You can't make a logical argument without information! It's not possible! Logic is the reasoning of information, that's all it is or ever will be.



"Logic is the reasoning of information?"

I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters  in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries.  But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument.   LOL!



I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries. But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jehovah's Witness thought he was capable of producing a coherent argument.   LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that's English. I can tell because all of the letters in that sentence are in the English alphabet and all of the words are in English dictionaries. But I'm ding dang if I can translate it into anything that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Well, you do suffer from any limitations.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The relativist thought they were going to run this thread.  LOL!  Wrong.  Not this time.




as for the past  ????




> No one comes to the Father except through me.





_Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani_ -
*
'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?*'


- obviously the absolutionist in terms of religion leaves little to be desired .... rawly.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bottom line: *your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.
> 
> *Omniscient definition*, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
> 
> *Omnipotent definition*, almighty or infinite in power, as God.
> 
> You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us.
> 
> And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss:
Whether or not MD  "focuses" on the fact that "we don't know in terms of SCIENCE know things" (which he SAID is DELIBERATELY avoiding to focus on the logic/definitions for what we call God), that is still a GIVEN.

MD may not acknowledge this under your terms.

Only if you say it under HIS terms, his way being that SCIENCE does not "prove" anything (ie man's knowledge is limited in this sense) then you can get an agreement out of him.

He is not going to change to your terms, or mine, for saying the same thing.

M.D. objected to my interpretation of Godel as saying man's knowledge was based on hand-me-down information while only God's knowledge was straight from the source.
I thought that was saying the "same thing" but

==> M.D. Objected <==

So he is just not getting that you and I are saying the SAME THING
he means when he says "man's science doesn't prove things."

Boss he is not able to toggle back and forth between "relative"
expressions of the same thing.

If you can't do this either, you and he will continue to fight
like Bulldogs or Pit Bulls wanting to control the rhetoric.

The concept is given. We can't argue it.

What is off is that M.D. says it a "different way"
and for WHATEVER reason cannot handle
anyone else saying the same concept in other terms.

He wants everyone to "conform" to his terminology to
get everyone on the same page. He can't deal with relative expressions,
even though we all know we aren't God and can't contain that knowledge.

M.D. is saying there is universal REPRESENTATION for God
that is based on pure LOGIC DEFINITIONS so if you agree to
align with those, then these are consistent.

He ACKNOWLEDGES that using Science isn't "really going to prove anything absolutely" == presumably for the reasons you point out.

For whatever reason he REJECTS when it is Stated or Explained that way.

Only if you say it HIS WAY that man's science only verifies or falsifies
but does not prove, then he can tell you are on the same page with him.

So I also had to drop whatever way I used of saying or interpreting or agreeing with 
GT on this concept, and just stick with MD's way of saying it.

Boss it is like if I am multilingual and can say the same thing in
German, Spanish, Russian and English,
But MD only speaks English
well of COURSE I'm going to stick to saying it in English.

it isn't MD fault his brain only works in one mode
like I can only speak English and just go to  pieces when I have to
try to think in French or Vietnamese; my brain doesn't go there very easily.

MD language is hardwired and he just doesn't get this
concept of relative expressions for the same thing. His brain
isn't designed to diversify, that's someone else's job like mine,
but he's designed to be bull headed in charge of keeping the pack
on the same page, so he rejects anything that doesn't fit in that set.

it's not personal, it's spiritual, it's part of his design and purpose.

So if that's how he works, I try to stick to that.

just like if a cello has a different range of notes than
a piano, then you let the cello stay in that range.

you don't ask the cello to play notes in a different range or key
that isn't natural for that instrument.

You translate the same song or melody line or harmony
into the range of that instrument, and we can still play along.

MD doesn't play different instruments so he doesn't get that.
it's not his talent, he has other things he needs to be focused on.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
let's get it clear who that is.

JW need to be talked with a certain way.
So this is not a light label to throw around.

You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
"Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!

Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
who didn't think it mattered what the string of
letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.

It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L

You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'

Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
of looking at the world.

Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.

Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.

Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.

I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.

We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
Click to expand...


BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
> If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
> let's get it clear who that is.
> 
> JW need to be talked with a certain way.
> So this is not a light label to throw around.
> 
> You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
> "Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
> You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
> if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!
> 
> Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
> who didn't think it mattered what the string of
> letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.
> 
> It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
> and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
> what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L
> 
> You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
> so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'
> 
> Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
> for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
> of looking at the world.
> 
> Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
> and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.
> 
> Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.
> 
> Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
> you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
> with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.
> 
> I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.
> 
> We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
> very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
> overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
> and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!




Justin is _not_ a JW.  Hollie is just being sarcastic.  Justin is clearly a Trinitarian, holds to Christ's divinity.  He's an orthodox Christian.  He made that very clear.  I'm not a JW either, but an orthodox Christian, so pay no mind to that.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
> If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
> let's get it clear who that is.
> 
> JW need to be talked with a certain way.
> So this is not a light label to throw around.
> 
> You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
> "Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
> You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
> if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!
> 
> Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
> who didn't think it mattered what the string of
> letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.
> 
> It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
> and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
> what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L
> 
> You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
> so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'
> 
> Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
> for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
> of looking at the world.
> 
> Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
> and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.
> 
> Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.
> 
> Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
> you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
> with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.
> 
> I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.
> 
> We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
> very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
> overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
> and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin is _not_ a JW.  Hollie is just being sarcastic.  Justin is clearly a Trinitarian, holds to Christ's divinity.  He's an orthodox Christian.  He made that very clear.  I'm not a JW either, but an orthodox Christian, so pay no mind to that.
Click to expand...


Why not be honest? You formulated your sock account of "Justin" as an annoying JW version of yourself.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
Click to expand...


Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive 
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to 
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on 
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics. 

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
Click to expand...

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner. 

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out. 

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.


----------



## emilynghiem

OK M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
Can we please stop and address this sock account accusation?
I want to know also what are the difference between you that make a difference.

Justin said he is working on some plumbing, is in between contracting jobs
right now, but will soon have to leave us if that  job pulls him away.

I DOUBT that any plumber I know can cite ten million
philosophical points to answer one tiny thing like M.D. does, that
Justin who has no time for this will just answer "No you're a phony."

Can you straighten out
A. what denomination are both of you
what were you brought up
which was your first church(es) you attended in which cities
and which affiliation do you most relate to know

B. what is your profession
M.D. said he was a NCO (noncommissioned officer)
where did you serve last, what was your job or title.
What kind of work do you do now?

Justin said he was a plumber
Can you list some major jobs or vendors you work with

C. What was the first thread topic you responded on USMB
and what led you to connect to this one with MD

D. if you want to give your age, city
or your wives'  names or whatever,
I'm sick of wasting time on false accusations.

If you are the same person say so now
and let's just deal with it. i'm happy either way
just want total transparency so that other
people will open up and be transparent also
and know it's perfectly safe, to be wrong,
to change our minds, to admit we don't know
or don't agree or we have to correct something.

We need to have free speech on here if 
we are going to talk through this.

So any barrier causing conflict has to go!


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bottom line: *your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.
> 
> *Omniscient definition*, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
> 
> *Omnipotent definition*, almighty or infinite in power, as God.
> 
> You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us.
> 
> And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Boss:
> Whether or not MD  "focuses" on the fact that "we don't know in terms of SCIENCE know things" (which he SAID is DELIBERATELY avoiding to focus on the logic/definitions for what we call God), that is still a GIVEN.
> 
> MD may not acknowledge this under your terms.
> 
> Only if you say it under HIS terms, his way being that SCIENCE does not "prove" anything (ie man's knowledge is limited in this sense) then you can get an agreement out of him.
> 
> He is not going to change to your terms, or mine, for saying the same thing.
> 
> M.D. objected to my interpretation of Godel as saying man's knowledge was based on hand-me-down information while only God's knowledge was straight from the source.
> I thought that was saying the "same thing" but
> 
> ==> M.D. Objected <==
> 
> So he is just not getting that you and I are saying the SAME THING
> he means when he says "man's science doesn't prove things."
> 
> Boss he is not able to toggle back and forth between "relative"
> expressions of the same thing.
> 
> If you can't do this either, you and he will continue to fight
> like Bulldogs or Pit Bulls wanting to control the rhetoric.
> 
> The concept is given. We can't argue it.
> 
> What is off is that M.D. says it a "different way"
> and for WHATEVER reason cannot handle
> anyone else saying the same concept in other terms.
> 
> He wants everyone to "conform" to his terminology to
> get everyone on the same page. He can't deal with relative expressions,
> even though we all know we aren't God and can't contain that knowledge.
> 
> M.D. is saying there is universal REPRESENTATION for God
> that is based on pure LOGIC DEFINITIONS so if you agree to
> align with those, then these are consistent.
> 
> He ACKNOWLEDGES that using Science isn't "really going to prove anything absolutely" == presumably for the reasons you point out.
> 
> For whatever reason he REJECTS when it is Stated or Explained that way.
> 
> Only if you say it HIS WAY that man's science only verifies or falsifies
> but does not prove, then he can tell you are on the same page with him.
> 
> So I also had to drop whatever way I used of saying or interpreting or agreeing with
> GT on this concept, and just stick with MD's way of saying it.
> 
> Boss it is like if I am multilingual and can say the same thing in
> German, Spanish, Russian and English,
> But MD only speaks English
> well of COURSE I'm going to stick to saying it in English.
> 
> it isn't MD fault his brain only works in one mode
> like I can only speak English and just go to  pieces when I have to
> try to think in French or Vietnamese; my brain doesn't go there very easily.
> 
> MD language is hardwired and he just doesn't get this
> concept of relative expressions for the same thing. His brain
> isn't designed to diversify, that's someone else's job like mine,
> but he's designed to be bull headed in charge of keeping the pack
> on the same page, so he rejects anything that doesn't fit in that set.
> 
> it's not personal, it's spiritual, it's part of his design and purpose.
> 
> So if that's how he works, I try to stick to that.
> 
> just like if a cello has a different range of notes than
> a piano, then you let the cello stay in that range.
> 
> you don't ask the cello to play notes in a different range or key
> that isn't natural for that instrument.
> 
> You translate the same song or melody line or harmony
> into the range of that instrument, and we can still play along.
> 
> MD doesn't play different instruments so he doesn't get that.
> it's not his talent, he has other things he needs to be focused on.
Click to expand...


I understand what MD's problem is, emily. I also get where you're coming from, trying to patiently wade through all the arguments and bring us together for the common good. I respect the nobility of what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I just don't have patience with people who constantly insult and attack me but expect me to see their point of view. Especially if their view conflicts with mine in a fundamental way. It's just not going to happen, sorry. 

MD and Justin want to promote their incarnation of God above all others, and that is simply unacceptable to me. It's why I am not a "religious" person and never will be. I think they have done more to justify Hollie's antipathy for religion than anyone else in this thread. It is this kind of narrow-minded stubborn thinking that leads to religious fanaticism and extremism, which is not good for humanity. I don't have a problem with their view, I am not "fighting" with them here, I am simply disagreeing that they have "proven" things to anyone other than themselves. 

As MD has tried to debate the human concept of thought known as "logic" it becomes increasingly apparent that he isn't discussing "logic" at all, he is conflating "logic" with "truth" and assuming they are the same thing. It's not that we are playing different instruments, it's that MD is playing a Sea Bass... and you can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
Click to expand...


No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
Click to expand...


Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way. 

But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason:_* "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"
*_
It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> OK M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
> Can we please stop and address this sock account accusation?
> I want to know also what are the difference between you that make a difference.
> 
> Justin said he is working on some plumbing, is in between contracting jobs
> right now, but will soon have to leave us if that  job pulls him away.
> 
> I DOUBT that any plumber I know can cite ten million
> philosophical points to answer one tiny thing like M.D. does, that
> Justin who has no time for this will just answer "No you're a phony."
> 
> Can you straighten out
> A. what denomination are both of you
> what were you brought up
> which was your first church(es) you attended in which cities
> and which affiliation do you most relate to know
> 
> B. what is your profession
> M.D. said he was a NCO (noncommissioned officer)
> where did you serve last, what was your job or title.
> What kind of work do you do now?
> 
> Justin said he was a plumber
> Can you list some major jobs or vendors you work with
> 
> C. What was the first thread topic you responded on USMB
> and what led you to connect to this one with MD
> 
> D. if you want to give your age, city
> or your wives'  names or whatever,
> I'm sick of wasting time on false accusations.
> 
> If you are the same person say so now
> and let's just deal with it. i'm happy either way
> just want total transparency so that other
> people will open up and be transparent also
> and know it's perfectly safe, to be wrong,
> to change our minds, to admit we don't know
> or don't agree or we have to correct something.
> 
> We need to have free speech on here if
> we are going to talk through this.
> 
> So any barrier causing conflict has to go!



I picture Chris Tucker responding to this post, like this:

"nigga, you want his social security number and his height and weight too?"


----------



## emilynghiem

amrchaos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
Click to expand...


^ This is a pretty good analogy ^

MD and JD are blending it together and calling the whole system of God's logic the logic they ARE representing. 

Boss is picking at the programming language,
and I also pointed out it can be written in different ways, not just 
using TAG verbatim but substituting other symbols and still using the overall
same pattern or format at TAG uses.

JD and MD both thought that was "assumed" that God means more than just "Creator" or "source of knowledge," but then keep sticking to TAG based on that.

Boss GT and others have such personal grievances against MD for his own language and offensive ways he's objected to people, they aren't willing to forgive and focus on just the language issues. They are arguing the personal issues with why MD resorts to name calls outside the TAG content.

I don't blame them.

But that confounds and compounds the problem, like pouring gas on fire.

So I appreciate you/amrchaos and Inevitable for not getting distracted with that.

At least you stick with the points. the people who can't are part of the healing process, and unfortunately MD's attitude is bringing out those issues to be addressed and resolved MUTUALLY so only if BOTH sides give and take can they get past this stage.

We'll see if MD and JD are both Christians to the point of forgiving and accepting resolution; or if they prove themselves to be the antagonistic type who don't really forgive but keep expecting other people to. I hate that, but it happens.  Some people don't get it, and it's especially sad to see Christians who don't get their own faith which is powerful and can overcome these things with forgiveness that can heal and transform relations like new.

We'll see if they follow the calling to stick to their faith, and give up whatever unforgiven
issues are causing them to name call like a bunch of heathens who resort to that!


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
Click to expand...





> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:




*mdr: The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.*


relativist = liberal = / = mdr  >  mdr = conservative = absolutionist = the opressed / martyrdom = orthodox Christian



reality = 


 = absolutionist = orthodox Christian


mdr offers nothing new in revision to prove God's existence than using modern language as a similarly oppressive tool as the RACK used during the Spanish inquisition.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani

no Emily, the answer will never be an absolutionsts (bible) declaration for religion without there being the accommodation for an everchanging, relativist universe.


----------



## G.T.

I recommend ASMR videos to people, because it's a great tingly feeling and it's very rewarding to be able to relax like that.

Here is the homey Dmitri, who always makes a great relaxation video. 

Cutting up the tension in this thread is probably a good thing. Let this be an intermission. Let Dmitri hold your consciousness and squeeze the life out of it until it catches a great nap.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.
> 
> But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason:_* "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"
> *_
> It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.
Click to expand...


It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.

I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by  heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.

My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?

So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.

RE God
my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
and admits he doesn't know either way.
The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to use science to establish
a consensus on spiritual healing that otherwise divides JW from other Christians.
(these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)

I have gone to JW fellowships and reconciled with many members to learn how to talk and not talk with them. I find them to be secular gentiles under natural laws who
have accepted Christ and the Bible but are still taking a secular approach
because they also do not fully embrace this Christian idea of connecting
directly to God through Christ where we the church body become where
Christ is manifested. They still separate this out and do not fully see Christ
as connecting us with God to the same degree that other Christians do.

So the JW are actually part of the secular gentile fold under natural laws
with the Buddhist, Constitutionalists, atheists, nontheist.

I am physically more connected to the language and culture of this
secular gentile branch, but spiritually I am just like the Christians
and even Conservatives on the far right who feel removed from
the secular left. It's like being bilingual to me, where the right side
is the second language to me, and my native language is the secular left.

But it's so funny that more people on the right think I am one of them
and can't understand how i can be a prochoice Democrat.
To me there is no disconnect, no contradiction if you are
following the Constitution, then all views work out if you protect them equally.

So I consider myself a Constitutionalist first, and then I can switch modes
and connect with different people using whatever language, religious or
political angle they take and try to align on common principles points and grounds.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr: The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.*
> 
> 
> relativist = liberal = / = mdr  >  mdr = conservative = absolutionist = the opressed / martyrdom = orthodox Christian
> 
> 
> 
> reality = View attachment 34152 = absolutionist = orthodox Christian
> 
> 
> mdr offers nothing new in revision to prove God's existence than using modern language as a similarly oppressive tool as the RACK used during the Spanish inquisition.
> 
> 
> Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani
> 
> no Emily, the answer will never be an absolutionsts (bible) declaration for religion without there being the accommodation for an everchanging, relativist universe.
Click to expand...


RE: ^ BreezeWood ^

I'd say GOD is in charge
and put this interesting team together for a reason.

We certainly challenge each other in ways that
makes us grow spiritually, so that is God's way of sending us
what we need even if we think that's not it or not why.
God knows better. His ways end up prevailing and
all of us will come to terms with that in this process. Amen!


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.
> 
> But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason:_* "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"
> *_
> It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.
> 
> I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by  heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.
> 
> My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?
> 
> So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
> My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
> except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
> prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
> to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
> to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.
> 
> RE God
> my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
> connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
> One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
> and admits he doesn't know either way.
> The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
> and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to have
> a consensus on spiritual healing that divides JW from other Christians.
> (these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
> are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)
Click to expand...



are 48 look 28 act like 8?

sounds good to me!! 

im 33 and look like a greek god and act anywhere between 3 and 80. 

!!! true story !!!


----------



## G.T.

listen with headphones, in a relaxed sitting or laying position.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gateaux means from the hood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so instead of being the GOTO person
> it's about being the Gateaux person?
> 
> is that Ghetto speak?
> or Gateaux speak?
> 
> Seriously
> GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
> have any suggestions what TERMS to use
> for explaining the distinction
> Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
> vs.
> Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
> and represent that using Man's logic terms.
> 
> They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
> Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.
> 
> Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
> where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
> had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
> which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
> she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
> gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
> She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
> at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
> one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
> got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
> according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
> themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
> caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.
> 
> Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
> the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
> can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
> it to what he is trying to say either.  So we sound fake to him that
> we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
> over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.
> 
> clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
> off base and going around in our own circles and not
> any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.
> 
> whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
> will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.
> 
> the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
> especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
> may mirror each other and we need to align
> the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
> in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
> same for the next person, but each may need to be
> resolved distinctly.
> 
> Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
> to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
> so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
> instead of fighting over whose system is going to
> dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
> each person KEEP their own system and
> translate where things lie under both systems
> and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.
> 
> G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
> for better terms or descriptions to specify what
> Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
> that is true in their system, I can try to work with
> MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.
> 
> by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
> because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
> relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.
> 
> the content underneath is the same for all people
> but our expressions for these abstract levels
> can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
> different terms for the levels of awareness that
> American English does not distinguish from each other).
> In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
> while we only have one. And Greeks had different
> words for the different types of LOVE while English
> requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
> how many different levels or aspect could we
> quantify there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.
> 
> When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation.  I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.
> 
> 
> I guess a* BAD *analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible.  The programming language  is Man logic.  All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.
> 
> In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.
> 
> In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realized that you just proved the double proofs of the TAG again, don't you?  No, of course, you don't.
Click to expand...


No, because human science only verifies and falsifies and doesn't prove anything absolutely.
this VERIFIES what you state and believe as CONSISTENT in this case, but doesn't prove it in ALL cases.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.
> 
> But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason:_* "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"
> *_
> It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.
> 
> I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by  heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.
> 
> My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?
> 
> So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
> My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
> except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
> prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
> to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
> to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.
> 
> RE God
> my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
> connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
> One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
> and admits he doesn't know either way.
> The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
> and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to have
> a consensus on spiritual healing that divides JW from other Christians.
> (these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
> are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are 48 look 28 act like 8?
> 
> sounds good to me!!
> 
> im 33 and look like a greek god and act anywhere between 3 and 80.
> 
> !!! true story !!!
Click to expand...


I believe in using Hugh Hefner's math. He said 80 is the new 40.

So I worked out the math, if you take anyone's age, divide in half
that's how they act.

this explains why 25 year olds act middle school.
and why 40 year old act like college  newbies.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing Now but My Utter Contempt!*
> 
> *Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!*
> 
> And, in the meantime, *Amrchaos* just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.
> 
> Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.
> 
> That's all. That's your problem, not mine.
> 
> Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your *2 + 2 = 4* analogy earlier on this thread.
> 
> We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does_ not_ agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.
> 
> I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.
> 
> Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D.
Will you please REFRAIN from calling
Boss any names or adjectives that you would not accept being called yourself.
and REFRAIN from referring to anything
regarding sexual orientation of persons
which is not the subject of this discussion.

If you want to prove TAG works then stick to it.

If you have to revert to strategies outside of TAG
such as calling people stupid, drama queen,
phony, liars, etc.

What does this say about TAG?

That it only works if you chase everyone else away
with petty namecalling?

Are you trying to prove/VERIFY that it works and stands on its own?
Or that the only people pushing it are assholes?

If you aren't proving it works,
you could be demonstrating the other, which is the opposite of your intent.

Can you please stick to the content of the proof
or ADMIT that one or more of the other focus points
may be equally necessary to resolve AROUND TAG as one of three focus points:

A. point one the focus on TAG and agreement/alignment
on definitions and meanings of God, and where the contradictions
are really coming from when people reject God or define God
to be something conflicting

B. point two
the focus on using pure natural science to demonstrate
the process of spiritual healing, both for its own sake,
and for bridging the gap between science and religion,
and for bringing healing/forgiveness into the environments
and relations AROUND the proof process (so that this
helps with point A)

C. point three
solving real world crises and conflicts by applying
the healing and forgiveness as shown to work effectively under B
to DEMONSTRATE in real life this brings about peace in REAL
relations and world wide situations that people can see and experience for themselves.
(like making peace between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans,
between druglords/traffickers and immigration/labor reform, between Jews Christians and Muslims to end war and terrorism, between rape victims and rapists, blacks and whites, haves and have nots, theists and nontheists, church and state, left and right, prochoice and prolife etc etc) And show the "Kingdom of God" as world peace IS real, and CAN be achieved by establishing truth and justice through forgiveness, correction and healing in keeping with the meaning and message in Christianity and the Bible as universal to all people.

^ note ^ point C is where I believe the namecalling is coming from
MD, JD and other do not have 'faith' you can resolve things
without beaning or bullying each other into submission.

So that is caused by conflicts we have seen under C
And if we saw more such conflicts resolved in Christ
by forgiveness and correction, healing and reconcilation in truth,
then we wouldn't waste words namecalling

We'd be more like GT and Inevitable who have found
ways to laugh, look past and rise above.

M.D. Rawlings
and Justin Davis

how telling it is that people you criticize like G.T. and Inevitable
show more forgiveness of you than you do of them.

Who are the Christians here?
Who is the Good Samaritan in this case?

Ironic to me, who is acting as "neighbors in Christ"
and who is spitting in the face of other people.

You will know them by their spirit.
Judge not, but judge righteous judgment.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
Click to expand...



Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

*The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



*1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

_Yes_ or _no_?

*2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw; more at, the fact that so many of you aligned yourselves with the Pollyannaish banalities of Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.  

Who but uneducable imbeciles would give this snot-nosed punk, this utter fool, anything more than contempt or the back of his hand? 

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.

Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
Click to expand...


Drooling idiot.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.


*
1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

*2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

.......................


the mere fluke of mdr ...


how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.

.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested.   How pathetic.  How very sad.
> 
> The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
> Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​
> _Taps playing_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
Click to expand...

And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames. 

How's that workin' out for ya'?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> RE: *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT*



Dear M.D. Rawlings:
RE: TAG and all discussion of Logic etc.

Can we agree to form teams with people willing to discuss and refine how to communicate TO REACH AGREEMENT on you and Justin are saying about TAG and Logic. 

If they don't intend to agree, they go into a DIFFERENT track.
We can't have traffic going both ways, we need to separate the lanes.

And then for ALL the traffic that doesn't like that lane, for whatever reason,
we pick up with the idea of science and spiritual healing as the focus.

Can we please try that.

If the "picker eaters" we are trying to feed spit out the broccoli,
then maybe carrots or peas or something else might get them to eat!

That is my best suggestion.

Can we agree to reserve the TAG and logic discussion to those who either get it, or WANT to get it.

And redirect traffic elsewhere who does NOT get it or does not WANT to get it.

These people here are pretty dang honest.
The kids will TELL you to your FACE what vegetables they will or will not eat.

I hate to see you frustrated when this can be reworked.

If wires are crossing, let's match them up to better circuits that flow naturally.

M.D. something is amiss if these things aren't connecting.

Let's get better organized, and I bet these glitches
and insults will stop. People here are plenty intelligent,
there is some stubbornness, defensiveness and pecking-order-politics expressed,
but generally I see that people here have integrity and will
put the truth first before their own preferences and will work with others.

I see a lot of people trying to be tolerant and work through this anyway.

Let's keep trying to organize in better ways than this.

You can't have flute players in the trumpet section,
and baseball players on the football field.
We've got to get it straight who plays what
instrument or position best, and support them in that!

M.D. if this is not your field, then I can try to help you reorganize.
But sticking people where they don't belong is never going to work.

I know you've heard about not throwing pearls before swine,
but this is more like "singing to a pig." You waste your words and annoy the pig.

Let's save your TAG to those who respond.
I just thought of another person who might join you on that!

If you connect with the right people, you won't have time for
people who don't connect or have time for this either.

Let them work on some auxiliary work, like spiritual healing,
to pave the way for greater openness and understanding.
some people aren't ready yet and have other work to do first!

Thanks M.D. let me try to chase down
Wallis the theologian in the Phillippines
who is a theology teacher and might have advice
on how to reach more of the secular types on this approach.

My friend Dr. Kevin said this approach may not work for everyone,
and to look up Approaches to God by Maritain for more  ideas that may help.

I believe the basic idea is right, but working WITH people is a larger
process AROUND TAG, and they bring more stuff to work through as their own spiritual process.

that's just the nature of the beast.
people need to process through things before they can get on the same page.

So please don't worry, even if it is negative rejection or objection that comes out,
it is still part of the positive process of reconciling to eventually reach a clear and unified understanding.

there is much more positive here than negatives,
and we just have to keep going to get to the positive points.
the negatives are coming out to be resolved and healed
so the point is to forgive, correct and let those go.

If we are holding on to the negatives, that's backwards!

The point is to clean OUT the negatives
so we hold on the positive points of agreement that are left!


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> 
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings:
RE: jihadists above ^
the problems are
A. they do not act out of forgiveness and restoration which is Christ Jesus
but unforgiveness and retribution which is Antichrist
B. they do not respect "due process of law"
but act as judge, jury and execution

So MD if you condemn people by unforgiveness,  and do not give them
equal consideration to defend their objections and clarify what they mean,
you make similar mistakes, just on a verbal level while they take jihad to mean physical war.

MD. as long as you take an ADVERSARIAL position
instead of collaborative that's why people fight you back.

Might we try a more inclusive approach that invites not rejects participants.

Dear Hollie:
Are you willing to form a team around
science and spiritual  healing

What if we make an agreement between theists and nontheists
if it turns out that proving/demonstrating spiritual healing using
science and medicine WORKS BETTER to explain to nontheists
than stating arguing or defending TAG, then could we AGREE
to use that method in place or in addition to the other approach.

If you don't relate to TAG what about using science
to show the process of spiritual healing as consistent
with both natural science and with spiritual processes taught in Christianity and other faiths.

What about that approach
would that help to focus on something more meaningful

Thanks!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> .......................
> 
> 
> the mere fluke of mdr ...
> 
> 
> how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dude!  I cannot speak to that potentiality, and neither can you . . . except as a matter of personal belief. I'm not a dog or a cat or a bird or a flower. You have some special knowledge.  Fine.  Have it.  It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution.  That is all.  I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief.  Your argument is with Boss, not with me.  I understand you; you refuse to understand me or the objective facts of human cognition.  You simply will not pull back out of your bias to do so.  And that's the absolutely last word I have for you.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> .......................
> 
> 
> the mere fluke of mdr ...
> 
> 
> how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude!  I cannot speak to that potentiality, and neither can you . . . except as a matter of personal belief. I'm not a dog or a cat or a bird or a flower. You have some special knowledge.  Fine.  Have it.  It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution.  That is all.  I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief.  Your argument is with Boss, not with me.  I understand you; you refuse to understand me or the objective facts of human cognition.  You simply will not pull back out of your bias to do so.  And that's the absolutely last word I have for you.
Click to expand...

The objective facts of human cognition have lead mankind to the Scientific Method and the discipline of science. Your hope to drag mankind into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition is a fools' errand.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution. That is all. I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief. Your argument is with Boss, not with me.



No, his argument is with YOU, ass clown. Now, if something is admittedly "possible" in light of objective facts,  where the hell do you get off proclaiming "some lower standard" of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority? 

You're such a total and complete jerk you can't even maintain objectivity through a single paragraph. I am sure Breeze Wood's God is relieved that you don't objectively preclude the possibility of his beliefs, but I am sure He is puzzled by this "lower standard" you've arbitrarily applied in your own self-aggrandizing way. What a fucking blowhard! 

smh


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> No, his argument is with YOU, ass clown. Now, if something is admittedly "possible" in light of objective facts,  where the hell do you get off proclaiming "some lower standard" of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority?
> 
> You're such a total and complete jerk you can't even maintain objectivity through a single paragraph. I am sure Breeze Wood's God is relieved that you don't objectively preclude the possibility of his beliefs, but I am sure He is puzzled by this "lower standard" you've arbitrarily applied in your own self-aggrandizing way. What a fucking blowhard!
> 
> smh



I do not arbitrarily preclude the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism, as the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of  existence and origin do not necessarily allow that.  Why?  Because the notion of pantheism/panentheism is that God was in fact the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution *before* He merge with His creation and from that point on was no longer self-aware and/or transcendentally self-subsistent apart from the cosmos.

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

The very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent divinity of self-aware personhood, contingent on nothing but itself.

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Is it your position, ass clown, that* (1)* a divinity that is _not_ self-aware and is contingent on the universe for its existence is of a higher metaphysical order of being than *(2)* a divinity that _is_ self-aware and _not_ contingent on anything whatsoever for its existence but its own being?

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Clearly, *door number 2* is of a higher metaphysical order of being than BreezeWood's notion of the current state of divinity.

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Notwithstanding, precisely what do you know that none of the rest of us know, objectively speaking, apart from direct revelation from God,  that would preclude BreezeWood's God, given the fact that BreezeWood's notion of divinity did in fact satisfy the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution logically possible according to the laws of organic thought _*before*_ his divinity voluntarily surrendered its self-awareness and/or its transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos upon merging with the latter?

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Once again, Is *(1)* the current state of divinity according to BreezeWood of a higher metaphysical order of divinity than *(2)* one that retained its individual state of self-awareness and its transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos?

Clearly, *door number 2* is of a higher metaphysical order of being, higher than BreezeWood's notion of the current state of divinity.

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

The clearly lower state of divinity is BreezeWood's notion, ass clown.  Hence, ass clown, according to you, ass clown, you should be asking BreezeWood "where the hell do you get off proclaiming 'some lower standard' of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority?"

That's a good question, just where does BreezeWood get off with arbitrarily proclaiming 'some lower standard' of divine attribution than that asserted by the organic laws of logic?

I don't know why, ass clown, you're asking me that question, ass clown, given the fact that I see no good reason to hold that God surrendered His individual state of self-awareness, ass clown, or His transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos, ass clown. I simply do not pretend to know, like you, ass clown, via any objectively demonstrable means that God did not do that, ass clown.

Looks like your argument is with BreezeWood, ass clown.

HELLO.  IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

On the other hand, ass clown, given the fact that you, ass clown_,_ hold that God *(1)*  did not confer His preexistent logic on the creation as the divinity Who is the very substance and the ground of the universal Principle of Identity, ass clown, or *(2)* could not be a part of the laws of thought and the physical laws of nature as a divinity merged with the cosmos, you arbitrarily preclude, ass clown, without any demonstrably rational or empirical justifiable reason, all the world's monotheistic traditions and/or pantheistic/panentheistic traditions, you self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal ass clown.

Say, BreezeWood, looks like your argument is with ass clown, just like I told you all along.

Thank for once again, ass clown, confirming the fact that BreezeWood's real argument is with you, ass clown, not with me.

So you two ass clown relativists can just leave me out of your ass clown argument, okay, ass clowns, as unlike you ass clowns I do not pretend to know from the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin anything more or less than what they hold, like you relativist ass clowns.


----------



## orogenicman

Word salad.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Word salad.



Oh, hey, orogenicman, you sort of disappeared after that drubbing you took over abiogenesis.  Took some time to recover, eh?


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Word salad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, hey, orogenicman, you sort of disappeared after that drubbing you took over abiogenesis.  Took some time to recover, eh?
Click to expand...


Take a pill.  You are having delusions again.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Take a pill.  You are having delusions again.



Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research.  Remember this, delusional one*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you.  That was a hoot!

In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya:  The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a pill.  You are having delusions again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research.  Remember this, delusional one*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you.  That was a hoot!
> 
> In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya:  The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


You are babbling again.  Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?



Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right. 

So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.
> 
> So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.
Click to expand...

I think you said this right.

As far as Emily, yea, not even just on this thread but the entire board like ya said. She's a peach. MD never apologized to her for lashing out at her and calling her names, but she stayed cordial with him regardless, like a boss, no pun.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a pill.  You are having delusions again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research.  Remember this, delusional one*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you.  That was a hoot!
> 
> In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya:  The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are babbling again.  Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.
Click to expand...



You might as well be Baby Jane Hollie. . . .







*Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she* *argues* *rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take a pill.  You are having delusions again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research.  Remember this, delusional one*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you.  That was a hoot!
> 
> In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya:  The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are babbling again.  Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.
Click to expand...






*My favorite snapshot of Baby Jane Hollie, caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.
> 
> So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you said this right.
> 
> As far as Emily, yea, not even just on this thread but the entire board like ya said. She's a peach. MD never apologized to her for lashing out at her and calling her names, but she stayed cordial with him regardless, like a boss, no pun.
Click to expand...







*GT:  Baby Jane Hollie in Drag*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.
> 
> So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.
Click to expand...


*Taps for Boss Baby Jane Hollie






*
Poor Boss, reduced to the banalities of Hollie and Company. You don't even address the substance anymore. You even contradict what you argued earlier against Amrchaos' nonsense*:* Of course subatomic particles, including electrons, are what they are, just like any other existent, via the law of identity. Of course Amrchaos is an idiot. You knew that, Boss. You stood for common sense and real science for a brief moment. Oh, you burned so bight, Boss! I had to put on my shades. But then, I guess, the years of substance abuse overcame you, you veered off course and flew too close to the Sun.

Oh, how low you've fallen, Boss, all the way down to the level of the dregs. So after talking your way into the cramped and slimy corner of sheer piggish pride, you're reduced to contradicting yourself when you were still making sense. But, of course, that was before the ramifications of the truths you formally asserted dawned on you. That was before you came face-to-face with the dreadful stupidity of your irredeemable relativism, the shame to end all shams.

Alas, poor Boss, alas.

_Taps playing_


----------



## G.T.

youre a sad little little man


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> youre a sad little little man




*The Betty Boop Chronicles
*
People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

*The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*. It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



*1.* Do you believe that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

_Yes_ or _no_?

*2.* Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw; more at, the fact that so many of you aligned yourselves with the Pollyannaish banalities of Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw. 

Who but uneducable imbeciles would give this snot-nosed punk, this utter fool, anything more than contempt or the back of his hand? 

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.


----------



## G.T.

your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man

nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan

my job was done well, here. self high five!~


----------



## BreezeWood

.


M.D. Rawlings said:


> I do not pretend to know from the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin anything more or less than what they hold, like you relativist ass clowns.




since when are relative and absolute values not compatible - ass clown, except of course when defining your absolutionist biblical agenda you have no other way to deceive those you are trying to convince ...


example:





> ... in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution.




it is your perception that is relative and absolutely corrupt.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
Click to expand...

Hi Hollie and also Boss or G.T. or anyone else questioning Justin's identity as JW or as a sock of M.D. or someone else.

NO on both counts. I PM to M.D. to straighten this out and got very long detailed info on the background of when the posts started and helpung Justin to format his posts.

1. He doesn't have the higher educational background of M.D. and that's why Justin just hits agree or copies and repeats.

2. He would even copy spelling or wording errors from M.D. because he didn't know to correct them and assumed they were right.

As Justin explained he had taken on the plumbing business of his family and doesn't have time or background to answer in full like MD.

It sounds to me like Justin is not only trying to learn what MD means but also has come a long way learning how to post on here.

I didn't know that either, so now I get that Justin doesn't mean to just mimic but he's still learning.

Please may I ask you also to have patience and work with Justin not mock him. Or he will learn bad habits thinking that's just how ppl talk on forums. Can we raisevthe standard and teach better habits than that?

I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.

Can we talk to people with respect the way we Prefer to be talked to, not repeat back the slams other ppl post instead. If we criticize Justin for copying and mimicking, maybe we should not be parrots either, and foul at that!

Can we please use words amd posts to lift one another up to higher levels, not slam each other down like sumo wrestlers.

Thanks, I think this will set a better examole for Justin to follow who is not M.D. but is trying to learn and needs good habits, not bad, if he's going to copy anyone on here.

You are all better people than this.
Please act like it.

Thanks Love and Hugs
I think you are all great and just don't
see it yet. The more good you find in others,
The more they find the same in you.
Let's keep digging deeper, and we'll find gold, diamonds and pure treasures in the people collecting here. Pure gold mine.
We'd be rich if we dug instead of throwing rocks around. Some real treasures await us....


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Hollie and also Boss or G.T. or anyone else questioning Justin's identity as JW or as a sock of M.D. or someone else.
> 
> NO on both counts. I PM to M.D. to straighten this out and got very long detailed info on the background of when the posts started and helpung Justin to format his posts.
> 
> 1. He doesn't have the higher educational background of M.D. and that's why Justin just hits agree or copies and repeats.
> 
> 2. He would even copy spelling or wording errors from M.D. because he didn't know to correct them and assumed they were right.
> 
> As Justin explained he had taken on the plumbing business of his family and doesn't have time or background to answer in full like MD.
> 
> It sounds to me like Justin is not only trying to learn what MD means but also has come a long way learning how to post on here.
> 
> I didn't know that either, so now I get that Justin doesn't mean to just mimic but he's still learning.
> 
> Please may I ask you also to have patience and work with Justin not mock him. Or he will learn bad habits thinking that's just how ppl talk on forums. Can we raisevthe standard and teach better habits than that?
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> Can we talk to people with respect the way we Prefer to be talked to, not repeat back the slams other ppl post instead. If we criticize Justin for copying and mimicking, maybe we should not be parrots either, and foul at that!
> 
> Can we please use words amd posts to lift one another up to higher levels, not slam each other down like sumo wrestlers.
> 
> Thanks, I think this will set a better examole for Justin to follow who is not M.D. but is trying to learn and needs good habits, not bad, if he's going to copy anyone on here.
> 
> You are all better people than this.
> Please act like it.
> 
> Thanks Love and Hugs
> I think you are all great and just don't
> see it yet. The more good you find in others,
> The more they find the same in you.
> Let's keep digging deeper, and we'll find gold, diamonds and pure treasures in the people collecting here. Pure gold mine.
> We'd be rich if we dug instead of throwing rocks around. Some real treasures await us....
Click to expand...



lol naw, im going to take my immaturity and wrath all out on userhandle md rawlings and if his little lap dog continues his berating of other posters, then on him too

where they yip yap at women, or call people faggots, ill be there to shun them with the force of a thousand ancient kings and their armies.

where they try passing snake oil as intelligent conversation, ill be there with the fire to light their oil and burn them back into obscurity

however, even without me, theyre doing a mighty fine job of alienating themselves, and so i can cross my arms behind my head like a boss and just smile like a sideways buttcrack

eww...bad analogy gt...BAD


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.



Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually. 

Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow _immortally omniscient_ for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~



Hollie and company.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
> God God why have you forsaken me!
> 
> And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
> Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
> in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
> to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.
> 
> Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
> Jehovah Akbar!
> 
> MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
> Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Hollie and also Boss or G.T. or anyone else questioning Justin's identity as JW or as a sock of M.D. or someone else.
> 
> NO on both counts. I PM to M.D. to straighten this out and got very long detailed info on the background of when the posts started and helpung Justin to format his posts.
> 
> 1. He doesn't have the higher educational background of M.D. and that's why Justin just hits agree or copies and repeats.
> 
> 2. He would even copy spelling or wording errors from M.D. because he didn't know to correct them and assumed they were right.
> 
> As Justin explained he had taken on the plumbing business of his family and doesn't have time or background to answer in full like MD.
> 
> It sounds to me like Justin is not only trying to learn what MD means but also has come a long way learning how to post on here.
> 
> I didn't know that either, so now I get that Justin doesn't mean to just mimic but he's still learning.
> 
> Please may I ask you also to have patience and work with Justin not mock him. Or he will learn bad habits thinking that's just how ppl talk on forums. Can we raisevthe standard and teach better habits than that?
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> Can we talk to people with respect the way we Prefer to be talked to, not repeat back the slams other ppl post instead. If we criticize Justin for copying and mimicking, maybe we should not be parrots either, and foul at that!
> 
> Can we please use words amd posts to lift one another up to higher levels, not slam each other down like sumo wrestlers.
> 
> Thanks, I think this will set a better examole for Justin to follow who is not M.D. but is trying to learn and needs good habits, not bad, if he's going to copy anyone on here.
> 
> You are all better people than this.
> Please act like it.
> 
> Thanks Love and Hugs
> I think you are all great and just don't
> see it yet. The more good you find in others,
> The more they find the same in you.
> Let's keep digging deeper, and we'll find gold, diamonds and pure treasures in the people collecting here. Pure gold mine.
> We'd be rich if we dug instead of throwing rocks around. Some real treasures await us....
Click to expand...


LOL!  No one with any sense believes that the theists of absolute objectivity do not attempt to sensibly address the real issues on this topic.  The only people who waste time on trash are relativists of whatever religious stripe.  Even my satire is substantive, and satire is all any of you will get from me from here on out.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Hollie and also Boss or G.T. or anyone else questioning Justin's identity as JW or as a sock of M.D. or someone else.
> 
> NO on both counts. I PM to M.D. to straighten this out and got very long detailed info on the background of when the posts started and helpung Justin to format his posts.
> 
> 1. He doesn't have the higher educational background of M.D. and that's why Justin just hits agree or copies and repeats.
> 
> 2. He would even copy spelling or wording errors from M.D. because he didn't know to correct them and assumed they were right.
> 
> As Justin explained he had taken on the plumbing business of his family and doesn't have time or background to answer in full like MD.
> 
> It sounds to me like Justin is not only trying to learn what MD means but also has come a long way learning how to post on here.
> 
> I didn't know that either, so now I get that Justin doesn't mean to just mimic but he's still learning.
> 
> Please may I ask you also to have patience and work with Justin not mock him. Or he will learn bad habits thinking that's just how ppl talk on forums. Can we raisevthe standard and teach better habits than that?
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> Can we talk to people with respect the way we Prefer to be talked to, not repeat back the slams other ppl post instead. If we criticize Justin for copying and mimicking, maybe we should not be parrots either, and foul at that!
> 
> Can we please use words amd posts to lift one another up to higher levels, not slam each other down like sumo wrestlers.
> 
> Thanks, I think this will set a better examole for Justin to follow who is not M.D. but is trying to learn and needs good habits, not bad, if he's going to copy anyone on here.
> 
> You are all better people than this.
> Please act like it.
> 
> Thanks Love and Hugs
> I think you are all great and just don't
> see it yet. The more good you find in others,
> The more they find the same in you.
> Let's keep digging deeper, and we'll find gold, diamonds and pure treasures in the people collecting here. Pure gold mine.
> We'd be rich if we dug instead of throwing rocks around. Some real treasures await us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  No one with any sense believes that the theists of absolute objectivity do not attempt to sensibly address the real issues on this topic.  The only people who waste time on trash are relativists of whatever religious stripe.  Even my satire is substantive, and satire is all any of you will get from me from here on out.
Click to expand...

FROM HERE ON OUT?

i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and company.
Click to expand...


You're so befuddled, you can't keep track of who you're responding to.

Let go of the fear and superstition that causes you such angst. Your anger and self-hate is destructive to mind and body.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop, Emily!  People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*.  It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Go debate the *FACT* of this   *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel.  Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology.  Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.*  Do you believe that this  *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.*  Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature?  That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . .  But Not Really ever even grasped the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.
> 
> Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drooling idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.
> 
> How's that workin' out for ya'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Hollie and also Boss or G.T. or anyone else questioning Justin's identity as JW or as a sock of M.D. or someone else.
> 
> NO on both counts. I PM to M.D. to straighten this out and got very long detailed info on the background of when the posts started and helpung Justin to format his posts.
> 
> 1. He doesn't have the higher educational background of M.D. and that's why Justin just hits agree or copies and repeats.
> 
> 2. He would even copy spelling or wording errors from M.D. because he didn't know to correct them and assumed they were right.
> 
> As Justin explained he had taken on the plumbing business of his family and doesn't have time or background to answer in full like MD.
> 
> It sounds to me like Justin is not only trying to learn what MD means but also has come a long way learning how to post on here.
> 
> I didn't know that either, so now I get that Justin doesn't mean to just mimic but he's still learning.
> 
> Please may I ask you also to have patience and work with Justin not mock him. Or he will learn bad habits thinking that's just how ppl talk on forums. Can we raisevthe standard and teach better habits than that?
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> Can we talk to people with respect the way we Prefer to be talked to, not repeat back the slams other ppl post instead. If we criticize Justin for copying and mimicking, maybe we should not be parrots either, and foul at that!
> 
> Can we please use words amd posts to lift one another up to higher levels, not slam each other down like sumo wrestlers.
> 
> Thanks, I think this will set a better examole for Justin to follow who is not M.D. but is trying to learn and needs good habits, not bad, if he's going to copy anyone on here.
> 
> You are all better people than this.
> Please act like it.
> 
> Thanks Love and Hugs
> I think you are all great and just don't
> see it yet. The more good you find in others,
> The more they find the same in you.
> Let's keep digging deeper, and we'll find gold, diamonds and pure treasures in the people collecting here. Pure gold mine.
> We'd be rich if we dug instead of throwing rocks around. Some real treasures await us....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  No one with any sense believes that the theists of absolute objectivity do not attempt to sensibly address the real issues on this topic.  The only people who waste time on trash are relativists of whatever religious stripe.  Even my satire is substantive, and satire is all any of you will get from me from here on out.
Click to expand...

Satire is all you have ever offered. Even that, aside from your usual stumbling over terms and phrases you didn't understand, was weak and ineffectual.

Be content knowing that you're just a mere pedestrian buffoon.


----------



## orogenicman

G.T. said:


> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~



I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so befuddled, you can't keep track of who you're responding to.
> 
> Let go of the fear and superstition that causes you such angst. Your anger and self-hate is destructive to mind and body.
Click to expand...



*Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
*
That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*:* Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!

*Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*

 The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so befuddled, you can't keep track of who you're responding to.
> 
> Let go of the fear and superstition that causes you such angst. Your anger and self-hate is destructive to mind and body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> *
> That's your opinion.
> 
> What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*:* Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*
> 
> The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.
> 
> You think you're going to dictate around here?
> 
> Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?
> 
> If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.
> 
> Okay?
Click to expand...

Yo, spammer. That's the same pointless nonsense you've cut and pasted in multiple threads.

It's just a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of any of the gawds and no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that any gawds exist.

Really, sweety. Your screeching tirades are good for some comic relief but watching you constantly make a fool of yourself should be an embarrassment.


*Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A ridiculous argument of unparalleled pointlesness.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.
Click to expand...


*Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy 
*
Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life _might_ (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.

Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.

Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.

In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.

And you do realize—don't you?—that equating *one* of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.

Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?



At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!

I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?

Materialism*:* thy name is magic.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not pretend to know from the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin anything more or less than what they hold, like you relativist ass clowns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since when are relative and absolute values not compatible - ass clown, except of course when defining your absolutionist biblical agenda you have no other way to deceive those you are trying to convince ...
> 
> 
> example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is your perception that is relative and absolutely corrupt.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



*BreezeWood:*  I go blisters on my fingers!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy
> *
> Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life _might_ (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.
> 
> Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.
> 
> Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.
> 
> In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> And you do realize—don't you?—that equating *one* of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.
> 
> Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!
> 
> I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?
> 
> Materialism*:* thy name is magic.
Click to expand...

There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.
> 
> Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow _immortally omniscient_ for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.
Click to expand...



*The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!* 
*
1. The Divine Law of Identity*

God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*. Hence, *God = Boss*.

Check!​

*2. The Divine Law of Contradiction*
God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). *Hence, the propositions that *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.

Check!​

*3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
God holds that *for all A: A AND ~A*. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: *Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.

(Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)

Check!​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.




*The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!
*
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation*:* identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.








*Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Baby Jane Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Baby Jane Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she* *argues* *rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh. *


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation*:* identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.
Click to expand...

That nonsense is right out of your fundamentalist Christian ministries.

There are no Laws of human thought that are bioneurologically Hardwired.  

Yet another of specious claims, utterly unsupported.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no hardwired fact of human psychology. That's pretty freaky to make those kinds of pointless statements and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Baby Jane Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Baby Jane Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she* *argues* *rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh. *
Click to expand...

How sad for you. With your pointless claims completely dismantled, you're left to behaving like a petulant child.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie and company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so befuddled, you can't keep track of who you're responding to.
> 
> Let go of the fear and superstition that causes you such angst. Your anger and self-hate is destructive to mind and body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> *
> That's your opinion.
> 
> What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*:* Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*
> 
> The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.
> 
> You think you're going to dictate around here?
> 
> Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?
> 
> If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.
> 
> Okay?
Click to expand...


More word salad.  Okay?


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy
> *
> Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life _might_ (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.
> 
> Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.
> 
> Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.
> 
> In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> And you do realize—don't you?—that equating *one* of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.
> 
> Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!
> 
> I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?
> 
> Materialism*:* thy name is magic.
Click to expand...


Wow, even more word salad.  Amazing.


----------



## haissem123

newpolitics said:


> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.


until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.



*The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*


The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
______________________

*Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing! 


*Rawlings:
*
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​* 
Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities! 

* 
QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves. 
* 

Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God. 
* 

BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?* 


Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
* 

Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!* 


Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
* 

Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable:  *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you! 
* 

Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!   Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you! 
* 

GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap. 
* 

Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
* 
GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!  
* 

Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer. 
* 

Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics. 
* 

Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.  
* 

Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+! 


*orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!   


*Emily:*  Can't we all just get along? 
* 

Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
* 

Rawlings: *You got that right.
* 
All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you! 

* 
Rawlings: *


----------



## orogenicman

haissem123 said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
Click to expand...


Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?


----------



## Hollie

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy
> *
> Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life _might_ (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.
> 
> Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.
> 
> Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.
> 
> In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> And you do realize—don't you?—that equating *one* of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.
> 
> Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!
> 
> I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?
> 
> Materialism*:* thy name is magic.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, even more word salad.  Amazing.
Click to expand...

It's also tedious. The crank has a several page long Microsoft Word document that is used to selectively and alternately cut / paste / reorder and dump into one thread after another.


----------



## orogenicman

> Nothing's true except what I say.



Spoken like a true nutcase.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> your shit is barely legible, riddled with anger, and just sad man
> 
> nobody's reading your bullshit anymore, charlatan
> 
> my job was done well, here. self high five!~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  Poor thing.  I think he needs to be admitted to a crisis management facility before he ends up in full meltdown mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy
> *
> Any rational person who knows what he's talking about, knows the actual facts of prebiotic research, knows that abiogenesis is an indemonstrable hypothesis, could never be anything more than the attempt to explain how life _might_ (maybe, perhaps, cross your fingers) have arisen from non-living material since the Miller experiments falsified the notion that amino acids (except for the few simpler, more durable amino acids), let alone nucleic acids, actually form or hold their chemical composition under any planetary atmospheric conditions outside living cells.
> 
> Hence, that's why all of the current hypotheses look toward space for the building blocks and dive into the oceans' depths in search of a radically more instantaneous simultaneity of composition above the level of the infrastructural, virtually non-informational, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry.
> 
> Oh, but then, for staggeringly complex reasons, the problems there, in the depths of the oceans, are no less daunting, arguably worse for the prospect of abiogenesis.
> 
> In the meantime, all human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness, and the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it do so. Both of these apprehensions are universal facts of human psychology! Hence, at the very least, the actuality of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out.
> 
> And you do realize—don't you?—that equating *one* of the undeniable alternatives of what you know to be an apparent necessity of existence (a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent Intelligence as opposed to the strictly material alternative) to magic is redundantly atheistic and begs the question without any rational justification whatsoever.
> 
> Did you really mean to argue that the notion that the material realm of being has always existed in some dimensional state or another is . . . scientifically verifiable? Or perhaps you were suggesting that you could explain to us how something could arise from nothing. Would you happen to have a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source for either one of these . . . articles of faith handy?
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, it's logically impossible for a finite mind to assert that God the Creator doesn't exist . . .obviously. I'll bet you’ve never thought about that fact of human psychology. Tautologically, if God the Creator doesn't exist, then nothing exists. According to the laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves that God must be!
> 
> I wonder how that hardwired fact of human psychology persists. That's pretty freaky if it's just a fluke of nature and not the voice of God, eh?
> 
> Materialism*:* thy name is magic.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, even more word salad.  Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's also tedious. The crank has a several page long Microsoft Word document that is used to selectively and alternately cut / paste / reorder and dump into one thread after another.
Click to expand...


I suspect that English is not his native language.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​*
> Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Inevitable: *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> *
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
> 
> 
> *Emily:*  Can't we all just get along?
> *
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
> 
> *
> Rawlings: *
Click to expand...


The above is a version of a time wasting exercise the boy has cut and pasted multiple times in this thread.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Spoken like a true nutcase.



*Baby Jane orogenicman



*
Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
Click to expand...


Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> I suspect that English is not his native language.




I suspect science is not your first anything. . . .


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
Click to expand...


The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?


----------



## haissem123

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
Click to expand...

God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k


orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
Click to expand...

we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.


----------



## orogenicman

haissem123 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
Click to expand...


The unknown is not unknowable.  Stay tuned.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

haissem123 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
Click to expand...


I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.
Click to expand...


You're not doing a very good job.  You also didn't answer my question:

The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?


----------



## haissem123

M.D. Rawlings said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.
Click to expand...

just fighting for fun


orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not doing a very good job.  You also didn't answer my question:
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
Click to expand...

that God works in mysterious ways?


----------



## haissem123

that we can't understand his  majesty yet and appreciate it's mysteries. we think we have to conquer God and his heaven to become Gods in our own heaven. that is a big mistake for when we try this we spoil heaven and ourselves.


----------



## orogenicman

haissem123 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just fighting for fun
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Magical abiogenesis!  It's all true, I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is a common sense man has forgotten or been duped out of having. it's a shame. I swear it's all true. why do you suppose you don't use 90 percent of your tiny brain you big dummy? cause you been duped into not using it. k
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we still don't know how that tiny electrical spark in the cells of a fetus begin a heart. so many mystseries and so much time to try and solve them all. what a wonder full world it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a theist, ya big dummy, lampooning the atheists.  Pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not doing a very good job.  You also didn't answer my question:
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet. What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that God works in mysterious ways?
Click to expand...


It is only mysterious as long as we don't understand it, or don't care to understand it.  That said, science solves mysteries, but that doesn't mean the phenomenon is any less wondrous.  We know how rainbows form.  But knowing how they form doesn't make them less wondrous and amazing.


----------



## orogenicman

haissem123 said:


> that we can't understand his  majesty yet and appreciate it's mysteries. we think we have to conquer God and his heaven to become Gods in our own heaven. that is a big mistake for when we try this we spoil heaven and ourselves.



I don't think this is true at all.  Man does not try to solve problems to make himself a god.  He solves those problems because they are usually serious problems that affect our lives, often in negative ways.  We didn't cure smallpox to become gods.  We cured smallpox because it was a heinous disease that killed millions.  And by the way, where was your god when all those people died of this awful disease?


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​*
> Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable:  *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!   Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> *
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> 
> *orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
> 
> 
> *Emily:*  Can't we all just get along?
> *
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
> 
> *
> Rawlings: *
Click to expand...

Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.

All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
Click to expand...


Whoop-dee-doo!

You think you're telling me something I don't know?

How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have had to have been jammed through the round hole a virtually infinite number of times.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
> 
> The Cosmological argument fails.
> The kalam fails.
> The ontological argument fails.
> The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
> The teleological argument fails.
> The transcendental argument fails.
> ...
> 
> ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
> 
> Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
> 
> Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Click to expand...


I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​*
> Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable:  *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!   Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> *
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> *orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
> 
> *Emily:*  Can't we all just get along?
> 
> *
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> *
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
> 
> *
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.
> 
> All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce
Click to expand...



Shut up!  You're all a bunch of dummies.


----------



## G.T.

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Before you go too far wasting your time on someone where the lights are on, but nobody's home - let me first warn you.

He deems the following as absolute proof of gods existence.

1. God created all knowledge. 
2. Knowledge exists. 
3. Therefore, god exists.

(And before the sadness of that stuns you in disbelief, you can ask him yourself if he finds that to be the case and then stop wasting your time trying to talk like a grown up to a little kid ).


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​*
> Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable:  *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!   Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> *
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> *orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
> 
> *Emily:*  Can't we all just get along?
> 
> *
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> *
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
> 
> *
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.
> 
> All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up!  You're all a bunch of dummies.
Click to expand...

Pants on fire, snake oil salesman.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> until a man can stand against all around him and speak the truth to all in power around him with out fear of attack or death,  then a simple man may need a higher powers help then those  corrupt and immoral in power over him. you'll soon need God and may he still have ears for your pleas when you do. Find a higher power, purpose and truth then those in power telling your their might makes them right. for the almighty is about to show you truth power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...



My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> FROM HERE ON OUT?
> i thought you were employing satire in every single post youve made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​*
> Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable. The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic. The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary! Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little. A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary.  I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew.   Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable:  *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!   Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really.  All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> *
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> 
> *orogenicman:* Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!
> 
> *Emily:*  Can't we all just get along?
> 
> *
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> 
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> 
> *
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!
> 
> *
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kinda sucks when this post either proves you're a liar, or you don't comprehend half the shit you've read from other people.
> 
> All you do is dig yourself into the deeper "fake smart" hole. Gluck crawling out, dunce
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up!  You're all a bunch of dummies.
Click to expand...


They're so cute when they launch into their saliva slinging tirades.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> 
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.
Click to expand...

Your article is a pathetic waste of time.


----------



## orogenicman

G.T. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> 
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before you go too far wasting your time on someone where the lights are on, but nobody's home - let me first warn you.
> 
> He deems the following as absolute proof of gods existence.
> 
> 1. God created all knowledge.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. Therefore, god exists.
> 
> (And before the sadness of that stuns you in disbelief, you can ask him yourself if he finds that to be the case and then stop wasting your time trying to talk like a grown up to a little kid ).
Click to expand...


Indeed.  Such tautologies are a common occurrence among those highly brainwashed to believe in the unbelievable.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Today must be word salad day.  Did I miss the memo?
> 
> 
> 
> *<snip>
> *
> Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.
Click to expand...


I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".



You're imply nothing?

You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.

I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum.  What's wrong with you?  You have the link.  Read it!

Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing.  This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.


----------



## Boss

orogenicman said:


> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".



Why would any rational person, religious or otherwise, believe that organic molecules only existed on Earth... in all the vastness of our universe? I see nothing in this revelation which diminishes any belief in intelligent design. If omnipotent and omnipresent God created life on Earth, there is no reason to think God couldn't have done the same thing elsewhere. I am not an expert on Christian doctrine, but I don't know of anything in the Bible or Christianity which states it is absolutely impossible that God created life somewhere other than Earth. So where does this inference come from?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Philae probe has detected organic molecules (possibly the precursors of life) on a 4.6 billion year old comet.  What do you think that means wrt the origin of life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing.  This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.
Click to expand...

The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.



You really do need to provide something to support this assertion.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoop-dee-doo!
> 
> You think you're telling me something I don't know?
> 
> How does that refute the prebiotic facts of research demonstrating that the self-ordering properties of mere chemistry have never produced anything above the virtually non-informational level of mere infrastructure?  It's not even close.  And how do you suppose that the paltry number of racemic, wrong-handed organic molecules that can persist outside living cells managed to achieve homochirality without living cells?  The problem is staggeringly complex.  It's like trying to put square peg in a round hole . . . only in this case that square peg would have to be jammed through the round hole a virtually infinitely unknown number of times.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're imply nothing?
> 
> You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.
> 
> I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum. What's wrong with you? You have the link. Read it!
> 
> Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older. Whoop-dee-doo. Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing. This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.
Click to expand...


You have no idea how stupid that statement is, do you?  Not the first clue.  There's nothing new, unusual, surprising or even amazing about the paltry number of organic molecules that persist in space debris.  LOL!  We have known this for decades.  Where have you been?  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really do need to provide something to support this assertion.
Click to expand...




Boss said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any rational person, religious or otherwise, believe that organic molecules only existed on Earth... in all the vastness of our universe? I see nothing in this revelation which diminishes any belief in intelligent design. If omnipotent and omnipresent God created life on Earth, there is no reason to think God couldn't have done the same thing elsewhere. I am not an expert on Christian doctrine, but I don't know of anything in the Bible or Christianity which states it is absolutely impossible that God created life somewhere other than Earth. So where does this inference come from?
Click to expand...

There's no reason why anyone should accept your claim to the version of gawds you have created as a part of your religion of spirits and spirit realm'ists.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're imply nothing?
> 
> You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.
Click to expand...


Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").



> I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum.  What's wrong with you?  You have the link.  Read it!
> 
> Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing.  This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.



A paltry number?  There are likely over a million such objects in the Oort cloud.  Together, they outweigh the entire Earth.  Which means that the fact that organic precursors of life exist on these objects and are likely the source of the building blocks of life on Earth - that is a BIG deal.  Wiggle all you care to, but doing so in the face of these facts only makes you look foolish and desperate.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you if it refuted anything.  I asked you what you think it means wrt to the origin of life.  Well?  By the way, anyone who has to use his own rantings as citation either has a very large ego, or doesn't have the experience and knowledge to cite others.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My article tells you what I think about it. Read it.  And enough of your mealy mouthed nonsense about how it's not backed by citation after citation of real science, by the research of the leading lights of prebiotic science.  If what you imply is true it should be easy to refute its contents and my assessments of the research findings.  Put up or shut up.  Quote and refute, and watch what happens*:*  the same thing that happened last time I wiped the floor with you and your bilge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're imply nothing?
> 
> You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.
> 
> I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum. What's wrong with you? You have the link. Read it!
> 
> Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older. Whoop-dee-doo. Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing. This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discovery of precursor organic molecules as described is actually pretty devastating to christian extremists such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea how stupid that statement is, do you?  Not the first clue.  There's nothing new, unusual, surprising or even amazing about the paltry number of organic molecules that persist in space debris.  LOL!  We have known this for decades.  Where have you been?  LOL!
Click to expand...

I was commenting on how devastating the discovery of precursor organic molecules would be to christian fundies. Your extreme reaction confirms my comment. 

You went into panic mode because your extremist beliefs are directly impacted.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I implied nothing.  I asked you a question, one you have yet to answer in any meaningful way.  If precursor organic molecules exist on primordial comets in the solar system, and apparently they do according to the result of the Philae analysis, what does that say about the origin of life?  By the way, if you don't know the answer, in science it is completely acceptable to say "I don't know".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're imply nothing?
> 
> You just implied I don't know the answer to your silly question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that questioned. Read my article and you'll know the answer. I'm not going post a long and in-depth article on a complex issue on this forum.  What's wrong with you?  You have the link.  Read it!
> 
> Besides, why do you think the findings of the Philae probe are such a big deal? The universe is littered with space debris containing organic molecules, some as old or older.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Why would the existence of the paltry number of organic molecules that can hold their composition outside living cells in the universe be something amazing.  This only amazes those not well-versed in the actualities of prebiotic research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A paltry number?  There are likely over a million such objects in the Oort cloud.  Together, they outweigh the entire Earth.  Which means that the fact that organic precursors of life exist on these objects and are likely the source of the building blocks of life on Earth - that is a BIG deal.  Wiggle all you care to, but doing so in the face of these facts only makes you look foolish and desperate.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to types or kinds of organic molecules!  There's no millions of different  kinds or types of organic precursors out there, you idiot.  If you knew the science you wouldn't have misunderstood me. You don't know what you're talking about.

For starters, there's only six of the 20 amino acids of life that can reliably maintain their composition in racemic mixtures only under life-supporting,  atmospheric conditions outside living cells, and that's being generous. The rest on Earth are calcified deposits found in meteorites of racemic mixtures utterly useless to life.  Others can only maintain their composition in space, most in trace amounts, many of them non-biological.  Proteins are polymers!  In addition to amines, there are many other kinds of organic monomers that occur in nature in racemic mixtures.  So what?  There's nothing new, unusual, surprising or amazing about that.  They're ubiquitous in space; albeit, they occur in racemic, wrong-handed mixtures, utterly useless to life.  Only in living cells do organic molecules occur in homochiral mixtures and in complex, polymeric compositions.  

"Wiggle all you care to"?!

You little punk, you're not quailed to wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.

All one has to do is read my article to see what an utter phony ass you are:  Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").



SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE PUNK.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE PUNK.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Click to expand...


*For President!*







mdr -

pity your idol lost his first reelection attempt in Congress, not to worry though there's big money to be made running for President. I'm sure that will heal your soul.

.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> "Wiggle all you care to"?!
> 
> You little punk, you're not quailed to wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.
> 
> All one has to do is read my article to see what an utter phony ass you are:  Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism



All I have to do is read your insane diatribe?  You're a comedian, you know that?  9 years of college science under my belt tells me that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Authority?  There are no authorities in science, and even if there were, you wouldn't even make the long list.

Cheers,


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE PUNK.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Click to expand...


Oh my.  You should take an anger management course, bubba.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Baby Jane orogenicman




*
Science has shown how nature produced nucleic acids, I tell you! It's all true, I tell you! Abiogenesis is a scientific fact, I tell you! And . . . and . . . fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Wiggle all you care to"?!
> 
> You little punk, you're not qualified o wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.
> 
> All one has to do is read my article to see what an utter phony ass you are:  Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to do is read your insane diatribe?  You're a comedian, you know that?  9 years of college science under my belt tells me that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Authority?  There are no authorities in science, and even if there were, you wouldn't even make the long list.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


You little punk, you're not qualified to wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.
Nine years of college under your belt?   So you majored in basket weaving?   Millions of different kinds of organic molecules, you say?    Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!    Let's see the list for these millions of organic molecules.   What a hoot!  Millions?  Got link?

Say, orogenicman, is that millions of different kinds of organic monomers in your pocket or are you just happy to be here? 


Tell us how the Miller-Urey experiments produced nucleic acids again like last time.  That was a hoot.  Got link?


Meanwhile, back in the real world*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## Templicon

ENERGY


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Wiggle all you care to"?!
> 
> You little punk, you're not qualified o wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.
> 
> All one has to do is read my article to see what an utter phony ass you are:  Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to do is read your insane diatribe?  You're a comedian, you know that?  9 years of college science under my belt tells me that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Authority?  There are no authorities in science, and even if there were, you wouldn't even make the long list.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You little punk, you're not qualified to wipe my ass, so to speak, on this matter.  I'm the authority.  You're a know-nothing ignoramus.
> Nine years of college under your belt?   So you majored in basket weaving?   Millions of different kinds of organic molecules, you say?    Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!    Let's see the list for these millions of organic molecules.   What a hoot!  Millions?  Got link?
> 
> Say, orogenicman, is that millions of different kinds of organic monomers in your pocket or are you just happy to be here?
> 
> 
> Tell us how the Miller-Urey experiments produced nucleic acids again like last time.  That was a hoot.  Got link?
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the real world*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Click to expand...



Read it and weep, you sos:

New Study Revisits Miller-Urey Experiment at the Quantum Level - Astrobiology Magazine


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE PUNK.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my.  You should take an anger management course, bubba.
Click to expand...


Oh my.  You should really shut up, but you know what?  Don't.  Tell us more.  What other insane nonsense do you have?

Here's my questions*:*

Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids  under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere  in nature?

What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

What is the chirality of biological nucleic compounds?

What is the chirality of biological sugars?

What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

What organic polymer are cellular membranes composed of?

What is the indispensable organic monomer/polymer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

In a nutshell, without looking it up, given your nine years of college, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been abandoned?

What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

What are the five organic, monomeric substances that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

What would have been the eight steps/stages of biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of abiogenesis?

At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command, organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

In microbiological engineering  what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

In microbiological engineering what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

In the light of the answers to the last four questions, what may we reasonably expect for the future of pebiotic research regarding the various "primordial-soup" models of organic polymerization?​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Read it and weep, you sos:
> 
> New Study Revisits Miller-Urey Experiment at the Quantum Level - Astrobiology Magazine



Hey, Basket Weaver, I stay current on the science. I'm quite familiar with the quantum-electric fields model for the alternate intermediate formamide for amino acid and nucleobase synthesis, though I know you don't understand that formaldehyde would necessarily remain a constant intermediate along side the potentiality of formamide in terrestrial-based synthesis as opposed to space-based synthesis, and this would not change the actual end product that would be produced in terrestrial-based synthesis in a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere under natural conditions.  Also, we've suspected the potentiality of the alternate intermediate formamide in the  space-based synthesis of amino acids and nucleobases for some time.

Now, tell us what you think this means in the grand scheme of things, and what am I supposed to be weeping over, you silly ass?

You know you would save yourself all this humiliation if you would shut the hell up, dweeb, stop pretending that you know anything worth knowing about this matter, stop pretending to be above the authority of my article, read the article and educate yourself.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism


----------



## G.T.

Its reduced to "I'm the authority!!!! Grrrrr!!! Punk!"


Too comedy.....too comedy


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read it and weep, you sos:
> 
> New Study Revisits Miller-Urey Experiment at the Quantum Level - Astrobiology Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Basket Weaver, I stay current on the science. I'm quite familiar with the quantum-electric fields model for the alternate intermediate formamide for amino acid and nucleobase synthesis, though I know you don't understand that formaldehyde would necessarily remain a constant intermediate along side the potentiality of formamide in terrestrial-based synthesis as opposed to space-based synthesis, and this would not change the actual end product that would be produced in terrestrial-based synthesis in a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere under natural conditions.  Also, we've suspected the potentiality of the alternate intermediate formamide in the  space-based synthesis of amino acids and nucleobases for some time.
> 
> Now, tell us what you think this means in the grand scheme of things, and what am I supposed to be weeping over, you silly ass?
> 
> You know you would save yourself all this humiliation if you would shut the hell up, dweeb, stop pretending that you know anything worth knowing about this matter, stop pretending to be above the authority of my article, read the article and educate yourself.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
Click to expand...

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dufus, when I first asked the question, I made no implication.  It was a question.  Questions demand answers (even if the answer is "I don't know").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP, YOU LITTLE PUNK.
> 
> Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my.  You should take an anger management course, bubba.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my.  You should really shut up, but you know what?  Don't.  Tell us more.  What other insane nonsense do you have?
> 
> Here's my questions*:*
> 
> Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?
> 
> What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids  under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere  in nature?
> 
> What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?
> 
> What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?
> 
> What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?
> 
> What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?
> 
> What is the chirality of biological amino acids?
> 
> What is the chirality of biological nucleic compounds?
> 
> What is the chirality of biological sugars?
> 
> What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?
> 
> What organic polymer are cellular membranes composed of?
> 
> What is the indispensable organic monomer/polymer for the synthesis of nucleotides?
> 
> In a nutshell, without looking it up, given your nine years of college, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?
> 
> Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been abandoned?
> 
> What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?
> 
> What are the five organic, monomeric substances that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?
> 
> What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
> 
> What would have been the eight steps/stages of biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of abiogenesis?
> 
> At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command, organizational information for organic polymerization reside?
> 
> In microbiological engineering  what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?
> 
> In microbiological engineering what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?
> 
> In the light of the answers to the last four questions, what may we reasonably expect for the future of pebiotic research regarding the various "primordial-soup" models of organic polymerization?​
Click to expand...

Why does all your cutting and pasting come from christian fundamentalist ministries?


----------



## Boss

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine? 

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?" 

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in. 

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.


Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.



Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise. 

And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise.
> 
> And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.
Click to expand...

There is no indication of a any supernatural "governor" as you insist there must be. And even if we entertain such a notion, it is just as likely to be Zeus as it is any of your gawds.


Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in that whimpering, weepy-eyed appeal to emotion comes close to suggesting gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again... Gods? Flying Spaghetti Monsters? Oompa Loompa? There is certainly something which operates as a 'governor' on the capacity and capability of raw human intelligence. Nature couldn't balance otherwise.
> 
> And Hollie... I'm not sure which browser you're using, but it needs an upgrade if it shows my posts to be whimpering or weepy-eyed. I think that maybe you are trying too hard to appeal to emotion here. Comments like these either make you feel better about your lack of substance or you think they appeal to like-minded readers who share your Atheist view.
Click to expand...

There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds. Secondly, even if we were to entertain such a notion, that supernatural "governor" is just as likely to be Zeus as any of your gawds.

The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and _voilà_—law, order, and stability.

This is the template upon which all patterns of human society are formed. Here in the West, we've progressed through theocratic totalitarianism to liberal democracy. Thank goodness.

This template for writing the multifarious human dramas found throughout the world is highly effective in stabilizing the sometimes unpredictable dynamics of man and is often beneficent to each respective society. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution, between eight and ten thousand years ago, that we began to group together in numbers beyond 100-200, and before then we were always on the move looking for food, resources, and clement weather. In other words, there wasn't much potential for large-scale clashes of cultures and societies. Of course, all that has changed now.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds.



That's because you are looking for something "supernatural" and it's not. Again, it's natural. It has to be natural and part of nature in order to balance it. You've not explained how it can't be. You can't explain it, not rationally anyway.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication of any supernatural "governor" as you descibe your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are looking for something "supernatural" and it's not. Again, it's natural. It has to be natural and part of nature in order to balance it. You've not explained how it can't be. You can't explain it, not rationally anyway.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is no rational explanation for your particular invention of supernatural gawds. If your gawds were a part of the natural world, they would be explainable, understandable, thus there would be no requirement for "faith" and no appeals to supernatural realms. 

And you're correct, I have no explanation for your supernatural realms. Neither do you.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and _voilà_—law, order, and stability.



Nonsense. If that were so, there would have never been any wars or social instabilities, we'd all simply agree to abide by social compacts because that would be our natural inclination. Law, order and stability would be all we understood, and that is simply not what we see in the world. I understand this is your argument because it supports your "non-God" view, but it doesn't comport with the observable facts of nature. 

I'll point it out again, we humans are smart enough to figure things out... We can easily figure out how to get around any social contract, it's not that hard to do for a human. So we have to understand there is something that binds us to such contracts, which keeps us 'in check' and working to form such contracts with integrity and honor them. Fundamentally, it all goes back to the human awareness of something greater than self, something beyond the individual and our purpose.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Nonsense. There is no rational explanation for your particular invention of supernatural gawds. If your gawds were a part of the natural world, they would be explainable, understandable, thus there would be no requirement for "faith" and no appeals to supernatural realms.
> 
> And you're correct, I have no explanation for your supernatural realms. Neither do you.



They're not my invention nor are they supernatural. I've explained why this must exist in humans and we couldn't exist without it. Now you can keep on insisting this is "supernatural" with every breathless response you make, but it doesn't make that so. Something that is naturally part of nature is not (by definition) supernatural. Our spirituality is a requirement to balance humanity with the rest of nature, and I have adequately explained that.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most basic rule of human sociality is non-zero-sum: no free lunch, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, reciprocity. This is because a society made up of cheaters will (obviously) become fraught with suspicion, distrust, and peril, and will eventually fall apart. So we come to a consensus, a social contract that we all agree to live by under threat of punishment (also agreed upon by the group), and _voilà_—law, order, and stability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. If that were so, there would have never been any wars or social instabilities, we'd all simply agree to abide by social compacts because that would be our natural inclination. Law, order and stability would be all we understood, and that is simply not what we see in the world. I understand this is your argument because it supports your "non-God" view, but it doesn't comport with the observable facts of nature.
> 
> I'll point it out again, we humans are smart enough to figure things out... We can easily figure out how to get around any social contract, it's not that hard to do for a human. So we have to understand there is something that binds us to such contracts, which keeps us 'in check' and working to form such contracts with integrity and honor them. Fundamentally, it all goes back to the human awareness of something greater than self, something beyond the individual and our purpose.
Click to expand...

You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. The better good always comes from the greater cooperation. 

This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds but understood the benefits of shared responsibility.

You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. *The better good* always comes from the greater cooperation.
> 
> This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds* but understood the benefits* of shared responsibility.
> 
> You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.



Even in your explanation you are failing to explain *WHY* we understand these things. What makes us consciously aware of "the better good" as you put it? Lions and sharks don't have this ability, they simply behave in accordance with natural instinct. Humans are certainly smart enough to realize they don't have to share responsibility or work together for some common good, fuck that business! But SOMETHING causes humans to not adhere to natural instincts, to rationalize something greater, some higher reason... "the better good" ...the benefits to shared responsibility, etc. 

It's not an "invention of gawds and spiritual realms" causing that because there is no rationale behind such a thing. The stuff you are talking about is a manifestation of the same intrinsic understanding of something greater than self. It is because of this completely natural inclination that we have developed man-made "inventions of gawds and spirit realms" in order to try and better understand the thing itself.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You exactly confirmed my comments. There were no inventions of gawds required for societies to social constructs that provided for the better good of the community. *The better good* always comes from the greater cooperation.
> 
> This has nothing to do with your inventions of gawds and spirit realms. Early societies had no conception of your inventions of gawds* but understood the benefits* of shared responsibility.
> 
> You hope to attribute your inventions of gawds and spirit realms to cultures that had no use for them. It's pointless to try and retroactively apply and attach your gawds to cultures that never invented them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in your explanation you are failing to explain *WHY* we understand these things. What makes us consciously aware of "the better good" as you put it? Lions and sharks don't have this ability, they simply behave in accordance with natural instinct. Humans are certainly smart enough to realize they don't have to share responsibility or work together for some common good, fuck that business! But SOMETHING causes humans to not adhere to natural instincts, to rationalize something greater, some higher reason... "the better good" ...the benefits to shared responsibility, etc.
> 
> It's not an "invention of gawds and spiritual realms" causing that because there is no rationale behind such a thing. The stuff you are talking about is a manifestation of the same intrinsic understanding of something greater than self. It is because of this completely natural inclination that we have developed man-made "inventions of gawds and spirit realms" in order to try and better understand the thing itself.
Click to expand...

Even with my clear description of WHY societies understood the benefits of cooperation, you still insist on retroactively inserting your gawds into cultures that had no use or conception for them. 

You still refuse to understand or consider the fact that gawds are superfluous in the formation of societal constructs. Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all. Human cooperation had been the driving force that promoted cohesion and allowed for the greater good.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Even with my clear description of WHY societies understood the benefits of cooperation, you still insist on retroactively inserting your gawds into cultures that had no use or conception for them.
> 
> You still refuse to understand or consider the fact that gawds are superfluous in the formation of societal constructs. Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all. Human cooperation had been the driving force that promoted cohesion and allowed for the greater good.



First of all, you haven't explained why societies understood these things, you simply asserted they did understand them. Secondly, I didn't retroactively insert anything. I merely pointed out that the "thing" which causes humans to have the concept of "greater good" is spiritual awareness. You and I both agree that human cooperation has been the driving force that prompted cohesion and allowed for the greater good. I've explained why we have that and you have not.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.



You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.
Click to expand...

Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.

So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?

Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.
> 
> Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow _immortally omniscient_ for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss **≠** Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!*
> *
> 1. The Divine Law of Identity*
> 
> God holds that *for any given A: A **≠** A*. Hence, *God = Boss*.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> *2. The Divine Law of Contradiction*
> God holds that *for any two or more propositions YES (A = NOT-A). *Hence, the propositions that *2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = Boss,* and *2 + 2 = Boss' Grand Delusion* are all true in all respects*:* at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
> 
> Check!​
> 
> *3. The Divine Law of the Excluded Middle*
> God holds that *for all A: A AND ~A*. Hence, the following positive and negative expressions regarding Boss' state of mind are true at the same time*: *Boss _is_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, and Boss is _not_ crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun.
> 
> (Personally, I think God is wrong about Boss' state of mind, especially. Boss clearly_ is _crazier than a paranoid schizophrenic with a megaphone haranguing a manic depressive hallucinating on LSD and holding a shotgun, only. Of course, Boss is also crazier than a polo team of fairies wearing boots (you gotta believe me!) mounted on the unicorns of pagan mythology and using a leprechaun for the ball while a pack of flying pink elephants cheer them on. *But don't tell God, who is really Boss, that I said that or he might take the shotgun from the manic depressive and start pumping buck shot into his computer screen.*)
> 
> Check!​
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. and Boss:
*Since it is CLEAR to YOU, ME, and EVERYONE within earshot/eyeshot
that NEITHER of you agrees with the other's position on this,*

May I PLEASE suggest that the two of you focus on some aspect of God
that YOU DO AGREE with and focus on how to BRING THAT into greater awareness

SURELY since you and also Breezewood believe in a HIGHER ALMIGHTY
you can find what it is you EACH
1. AGREE is good to share and form agreement on with more people
2. AGREE is BAD and should be corrected that is otherwise preventing AGREEMENT

What is GOOD about GOD that we need to share?
And help more people appreciate, understand and REALIZE?

Dang it, if everyone was OKAY with this about God, then we wouldn't have to be hush hush
about God, we could talk openly, and not worry about the Pledge or Money referencing God.

We don't have to agree on all things, but just agree enough to make it POSITIVE
not a SHAMEFUL topic that brings "offense" so that no one is allowed to talk about it.

Can't the two of you find ONE common focus on what God means or does good in the world
that YOU can agree on between YOU, so YOU can share that agreement with others, not this fighting.

And
2. What is so BAD that it is causing BreezeWood and Boss to 
reject other presentations of God.

How do we straighten THAT out?

Can we PLEASE use our words to pinpoint
what we AGREE on and what we AGREE IS CONFLICTING.

And not turn our words AGAINST each other.

M.D. for a person of faith, you don't seem to have faith in
your fellow man, in the reasons God created Boss and
BreezeWood to see and think differently to snap us out of some
of our own set ways, and maybe see the bigger picture that requires
ALL of us to add our insights to the mix.

This will challenge your faith to trust that God does
have a purpose for BreezeWood and Boss.

Can we PLEASE find out what that is?

If they have a different approach, let's hear it.

3. One wild guess as to what could be a good focus:
discussing the meaning of the Trinity, and why some
people see God as One and cannot understand this
God/Jesus thing, and why some people  understand BOTH.

I even know a husband and wife, where the wife thinks like
a Unitarian and has tried and tried, both her husband and I used every analogy and explanation
in the book that normally explains the Trinity to fellow Christians, but she still sees God as one
and doesn't get the Trinity. So I accepted that that's how her brain processes it. And her husband
is the other way, where he can know God is one universal for all, but also get the representation in the Trinity.

So we can discuss the relationships in the Trinity,
and get BreezeWood's and Boss's take on this,
and work on that if that's a better focus to get somewhere!

I know Justin is busy but you said he is a Trinitarian.
I am probably a Trinitarian Universalist, so I've seen tons of variations
on the Trinity theme and a million ways to explain it where  it isn't the
same for all people and I've accepted that.  Some people explain it in a way
that makes no sense at all to me, but we both believe in the same thing underneath.

M.D. Rawlings Boss and BreezeWood
can we focus on the Trinity and your thoughts and experiences
discussing that. And see if we can make any progress?

Thanks and I look forward to reaching a consensus
with you and others worldwide.
Once we get our act together here and can teach
others to do the same.

Whatever we overcome and resolve here,
it makes it that much easier to help the next person or groups do the same.

So it is not in vain, the struggle and effort it takes
is an investment in humanity, and where we are heading.

So where we succeed, so does the rest of the world,
instead of letting failures get the worst of us.

BreezeWood, Boss and M.D.:
Can we please agree to bring out the BEST
that each person has to offer, which we AGREE with,
and drop the worst that we don't agree with.

The good will overcome the bad.
The right points will help correct the wrong points.

Can we please join together and try again
even if we have to expand the focus a bit
to get to the points that really bother or matter to us?

Thank you!
Please try on the points that matter!
Please give up on the points that don't which we can fix later.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.
> 
> So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?
> 
> Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.
Click to expand...


Dear Hollie:
If you define God = Nature
can you find any human being or culture that wasn't affected by Nature?

Agnes Sanford equated God with Nature in her book "The Healing Light"
and she is considered one of the historic figures in Spiritual Healing,
called one of the most authentic and true to Christian faith while being
the LEAST concerned about religion, denomination or faith of others.
Most Christians who take this route are labeled as New Age and rejected,
but Sanford and her teachings on healing are respected as authentic.
And she never made a religious issue out of it.

She focused on healing and health as a natural gift from God/Nature/Life
and didn't worry about religion.

The barrier is in our minds.
We the people have separated church from state,
and religion from science, but these are basically different
languages for the same laws of NATURE.

The barrier is on both sides, the religious reject the secular
and the secular reject the religious.

Hollie I wish you could understand my position for two seconds
(I wouldn't ask you to feel any more than that or it is cruel, but just
enough to get it is enough);
Imagine I am someone who speaks both English and Spanish.
And I work well with people who speak English and work well with
people who speak Spanish. I want everyone to get along well enough
that we can work together and fix the world's problems, and not fight
over language and culture.

But the people who only understand one language, and fear the
other group is forcing their language on everyone else as the
legally required or socially dominant norm are FIGHTING to
make sure their language isn't marginalized or demonized.
And both groups are fighting, even insulting and threatening the other,
so they fight back and go in circles, destroying relations and hope for understanding with resentment.

Now imagine the children and people who are bilingual, who have friends
on both sides, and have to watch as people they love tear each other to shreds over their language
and the cultural ties to that language.

Wouldn't you understand it is better to have both,
to allow people to keep their own language and not
insult or expect them to convert to something else?

Why can't both sides stop trying to attack or change the other
and then defend themselves against equal attacks or forced imposition?

How can we be OKAY with both?

Why should we ASK those who speak Spanish or speak English
to prove the other language is right or wrong, inferior or superior.

WTF?

Hollie can we be as objective about religious views
as we are about language and quit POLITICIZING them.

Why can they be treated as NEUTRAL languages
and separate the politics that has crept in.

I am one of those people who is "Spiritually Bilingual"
I am equally if not more comfortable with SECULAR ways of
expressing the world and relations in life, as I am with
translating these into religious terminology that symbolizes the same things.

Hollie you are like asking to prove the existence of 2 and 4.
When 2 is just a symbol of * * and 4 is just a symbol of * * * *.

The concepts exist, like God = equals "NATURE"
but the disconnect is coming from politics.

People fighting over control and getting attacked or defensive.
That's where the problem is coming from.

If you scare little kids to death with Math, they don't want to hear about
2+2=4 or 0*0=0, they are scared of failing at Math.

So Hollie you remind me of students with Math anxiety
who have been taught Math is something scary to be pushed
on people to make them fail, to punish and kick kids out of school
and embarrass them in front of everyone else who can do well at Math.

And I am trying to help overcome these fears
so we can discuss how * * + * * = * * * *
and the symbols used for that are 2 + 2 = 4

I am sorry for whatever has angered or traumatized you in the past
about God, religion, Christianity and the Bible.

When I found out what these really mean,
Hollie I was FURIOUS, I flew into a panic,
cried and raged for weeks in a brainstorm of
OH MY GOD what have we done? Religions and politics
has created war when all these things were supposed to bring peace.
I cried and went to pieces, where my thoughts flew in all directions,
to heaven and hell at the same time, trying to figure it out how to
fix the messes that religions have made teaching it separated
when it was all supposed to point to the same message, not making one right and others wrong.

All religions were symbolizing parts of the truth,
and the point of Christianity was to unite them by conscience,
by agreement in Christ, and this WASN'T BEING TAUGHT.

Only division was being taught, rejection and calling other people wrong.

I thought I had died, and was going through hell to get to heaven.

So Hollie, whatever anger and rejection you feel, I am probably
10 to 100 times worse than you, so I couldn't take it, and had to find a solution.

You are actually more gracious than I was about it.
If you had been as incensed and made sick as I was,
you would not be able to tolerate the conflicts and would not stop until this was changed.

I hope you do have that faith that things can change,
but no, I would not wish on you what I went through
to see the need to push for agreement.

What I wish for you is to be able to see that end
without having to suffer in the anger and angst I did,
and my whole family went through to get to that understanding.

I hope you may receive it, and that peace from knowing
there is a better way to teach Christianity where it does
not exclude secular gentiles but is perfectly in keeping
with science, medicine and social psychology that teaches
us the same things about forgiveness, healing and spiritual peace.

I hope you can have that, and don't have to worry about
Christians who don't teach it fully so it causes division and confusion.

My apologies for that, and it blew my mind and broke my heart
also when I realized what was missing, and found all the
Christians who were struggling to teach this correctly,
and they have also been rejected and silenced by fellow Christians.

it's really sad, and I hope you can see past it.

Thanks, Hollie
Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus 


1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

* 2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

* 3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

* 4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

* 5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

* 6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

* 7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

* 8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

* 9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?

*10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

*11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

* 12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

* 13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

* 14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

* 15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

* 16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

* 17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

* 18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

*19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

* 20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

* 21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

* 22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

* 23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

*24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.






> ... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,




seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Question #25:*

*BreezeWood:*  "[W]hy without the constraints of a self serving written document* [as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus]* would you cho[o]se that same path of vial *[vile?]* righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty"?  ​


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will need to present evidence of this to make the claim. Do you have an example of any human civilization which existed without any signs of spirituality whatsoever? All that we can go on is what we can observe and confirm. I'm open minded, I can accept the evidence if you can present some, but you haven't. You're simply making statements you cannot support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boss, think about what you're asking. You want me to prove a negative.
> 
> So, yes. I have examples of civilizations that existed without your gawds or spirit realms. Can you prove I don't?
> 
> Additionally, cultures or civilizations having icons or symbols that represented events in nature is not necessarily spiritualism and it certainly does nothing to further your claims to retroactively assigning your gawds to those cultures.
Click to expand...


I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You made a statement: *Very clearly, cultures and civilizations have arisen without the need for your particular gawds or any gawds at all.
*
What seems very clear to me is, you can't back this statement up. If it is that clear to you, then you should have some example of a civilization that didn't practice any form of spiritual belief. I have not retroactively assigned my gods or anyone elses gods to anyone here, I simply asked you to back up your statement and you can't do that.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Its reduced to "I'm the authority!!!! Grrrrr!!! Punk!"
> 
> 
> Too comedy.....too comedy



Do have nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving, too?  I bow reduce to your authority.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.



Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.
Click to expand...

It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims have been shot down in flames.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Templicon said:


> ENERGY



Potato salad with diced oregano leaves and pickles.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims gave been shot down in flames.



A salmon fillet with a dash of vinegar and chives, brown rice, garden asparagus and a glass of Sauvignon blanc.


----------



## Hollie

*Stumper Questions for Creationists*

*Stumper Questions for Creationists

Introduction*

This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.

We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.



*A few comments about some terminology*

The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".

The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.



*What is creationism?*

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?




Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
*How do creationists describe conventional science?*

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:


evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?




What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
*How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?*

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the _same_answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why _only_ there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?




Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
*Theological questions*

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?




Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
*Summary*

These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.
> 
> do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -
> 
> why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.
> 
> a fatal decision for those who chose it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without _"something" _to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that _"something"_ which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature. 

That is not to say that this _"something"_ isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to? 

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.


----------



## emilynghiem

After watching this cute video I had to post:
http://abc13.com/family/cute-video-...-everywhere-try-to-get-out-of-trouble/401971/

^ Now imagine: God has a little talk with M.D. and Justin,
asking whose idea it was to try to teach God and Christianity by
insulting people, calling them liars and phonies,
and expecting to be understood and taken seriously.^

All right, time out, this isn't funny. No more slams.
Time to get cleaned up. Big mess. Who's going to clean it up?

P.S. but thanks M.D. Rawlings for posting those delicious sounding references. Yum! As a timely reminder that what is universally divine to people may not be what we think is important; and what we think is important may not be universal to people. Sometimes the simplest things are what connect us and remind us of our common humanity. Hmmmmm. Thanks and praise!


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.
> 
> do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -
> 
> why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.
> 
> a fatal decision for those who chose it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood: I think by the stubbornness and convictions of the people here,
you, Boss, M.D., me and others
We demonstrate that the human conscience and EGO is not like those of other animals.

I think we show a clear distinction,
and no other animals have this same component of conscience
and social/spiritual responsibility that humans have.

It's our greatest strength and our worst weakness.

Don't you agree it separates us from the other animals?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus
> 
> 
> 1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?
> 
> * 2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?
> 
> * 3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?
> 
> * 4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?
> 
> * 5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?
> 
> * 6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?
> 
> * 7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?
> 
> * 8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?
> 
> * 9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?
> 
> *10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?
> 
> *11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?
> 
> * 12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?
> 
> * 13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?
> 
> * 14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?
> 
> * 15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?
> 
> * 16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?
> 
> * 17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?
> 
> * 18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?
> 
> *19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
> 
> * 20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?
> 
> * 21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?
> 
> * 22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?
> 
> * 23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?
> 
> *24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?



Questions 25 and 26:
Would any of this have been necessary for
Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.

What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?

If you can tell me which of the above questions
Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
I might believe this is necessary for judging people.

Back to you, Fred!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus
> 
> 
> 1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?
> 
> * 2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?
> 
> * 3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?
> 
> * 4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?
> 
> * 5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?
> 
> * 6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?
> 
> * 7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?
> 
> * 8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?
> 
> * 9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?
> 
> *10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?
> 
> *11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?
> 
> * 12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?
> 
> * 13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?
> 
> * 14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?
> 
> * 15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?
> 
> * 16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?
> 
> * 17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?
> 
> * 18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?
> 
> *19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
> 
> * 20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?
> 
> * 21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?
> 
> * 22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?
> 
> * 23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?
> 
> *24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions 25 and 26:
> Would any of this have been necessary for
> Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
> to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
> Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
> and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.
> 
> What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
> when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?
> 
> If you can tell me which of the above questions
> Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
> I might believe this is necessary for judging people.
Click to expand...


That would actually be questions *#26* and *#27*.  Question *#25* was asked by BreezeWood (See *posts #5136* and *#5137*.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I _know_ that *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus *is full of shiticus.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus
> 
> 
> 1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?
> 
> * 2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?
> 
> * 3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?
> 
> * 4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?
> 
> * 5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?
> 
> * 6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?
> 
> * 7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?
> 
> * 8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?
> 
> * 9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?
> 
> *10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?
> 
> *11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?
> 
> * 12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?
> 
> * 13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?
> 
> * 14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?
> 
> * 15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?
> 
> * 16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?
> 
> * 17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?
> 
> * 18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?
> 
> *19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
> 
> * 20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?
> 
> * 21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?
> 
> * 22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?
> 
> * 23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?
> 
> *24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions 25 and 26:
> Would any of this have been necessary for
> Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
> to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
> Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
> and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.
> 
> What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
> when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?
> 
> If you can tell me which of the above questions
> Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
> I might believe this is necessary for judging people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would actually be questions *#26* and *#27*.  Question *#25* was asked by BreezeWood (See *posts #5136* and *#5137*.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I _know_ that *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus *is full of shiticus.
Click to expand...


Well Buddha did foresee that there were many Buddhas or spiritual teachers who came before
and many after. And one day all the Buddha nature would be realized in full for all souls.

So that includes you, and BreezeWood and Boss. All the Buddhas or spiritually minded coming to fruition or maturity.
So of course you would have special wisdom to add, as do all people have responsibilities in sharing in this process.

Note: We all have weaknesses, too. And where I may lack in precision, and answering as briefly as others,
you may lack in diplomacy and restraint from beating or beaning people over the head as a seeming brute or verbal bully.

So you have limits, too. None of us is perfect without the help of others to fill in these gaps we all have.
Together, we can be made whole or perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect.

(On that note, if Buddha's teachings can explain you and your purpose within his explanations, but your teachings cannot explain or include Buddha's, I would say his teachings are closer to the universal set, and yours appear to be more a subset if you have to EXCLUDE others and cannot adequately explain them all within your constructs.  Same with BreezeWood: if whatever model for God the Almighty BreezeWood uses has to EXCLUDE Christians in order to justify its premises, then something is amiss and this is NOT universal. The true way, for truth to be  universal it should include all these ways without contradiction.

For example, with energy, if you understand that AC and DC both exist and work in different ways, you can include and explain both. But if you only recognize one or the other, these clash.
The pro-AC can stigmatize the DC users and say DC is dangerous, wrong and shouldn't be used. And same with the DC demonizing the AC. But those who can use both types in proper context have no conflicts with either one, but know to keep them within their proper usage and context to prevent blowups. If we recognize common Energy that both transfer then we agree.

Now, back to the Salmon fillet and Potatoes, ymmmmm. Truly a gift of the divine. I have no argument there!)


----------



## G.T.

is basket weaver supposed to be a funny line?

urrrrmmmm. no. just, no. dont quit your da....

well, you might as well just quit everything at this point, you're an epic failure.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> is basket weaver supposed to be a funny line?
> 
> urrrrmmmm. no. just, no. dont quit your da....
> 
> well, you might as well just quit everything at this point, you're an epic failure.



RE: MD trying to be a comedian?

Reminds me of Dr. McCoy in Star Trek, arguing with his crew mates:

"I'm a doctor, not an engineer." (TOS: "Mirror, Mirror")
...to which Montgomery Scott immediately replied, "_Now,_ you're an engineer."


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.
Click to expand...


Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Question #25:*
> 
> *BreezeWood:*  "[W]hy without the constraints of a self serving written document* [as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus]* would you cho[o]se that same path of vial *[vile?]* righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty"?  ​


*
[as opposed to the self-serving, made-up oral tradition of Dropus Cranium Infans BreezeWoodicus]*








*made-up oral tradition*

to bad for you mdr, you choose to read what becomes your values, written by others. -

not christianity but have you noticed Jesus left nothing behind for your ... displeasure, that was not a mistake. ever ask why ?

what is reached at the apex of knowledge is not made up nor can it be replicated by text - again to bad for you ...


Antiquity knew better, oral persuasion is the path for Remission the written word is nothing but processed food.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> Antiquity knew better, oral persuasion is the path for Remission the written word is nothing but processed food.



^ Excuse me, BreezeWood, but if weren't for the Written Word
We wouldn't have passed down the natural laws in the Constitution,
the First Amendment principles of free speech, religious freedom
and right to petition/due process that we are all practicing now
[courtesy of the free speech internet developed by the US military] ^

A lot of what we have now is thanks to free speech and press,
not just one, but both used to check and balance the other.

We need both the letter and the spirit of the laws to align
to form a good faith contract and meetings of the heart and mind.

Good day BreezeWood I believe we agree more than we disagree.
And I trust that all the wrongs you take exception, too, so do I.
But I don't go around blaming them on the wrong people.

We all have equal strengths and weaknesses, so I am more
interested in bringing out our strong points and correcting the areas of weakness.


When we can recognize this process is MUTUAL
we can quit pretending in our minds that the other person is causing all the problems.

that is a very material and attached/conditioned way to practice either Christianity or Buddhism,
to keep focusing on changing one's neighbor!

The point is to correct our side of the fence, and this influences our neighbors to do the same.

How else can we set a better example for M.D. Justin Boss or others
unless we practice what we preach?

BreezeWood, here is a poem for you that includes "Freedom of the Press"
or liberation by free and equal access to written knowledge
as one of the saving graces we have to bring Peace and Justice to the world:
http://emilynghiem.com.istemp.com/fa/JudgmentCall2011.AVI


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus
> 
> 
> 1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?
> 
> * 2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?
> 
> * 3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?
> 
> * 4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?
> 
> * 5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?
> 
> * 6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?
> 
> * 7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?
> 
> * 8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?
> 
> * 9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?
> 
> *10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?
> 
> *11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?
> 
> * 12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?
> 
> * 13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?
> 
> * 14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?
> 
> * 15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?
> 
> * 16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?
> 
> * 17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?
> 
> * 18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?
> 
> *19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
> 
> * 20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?
> 
> * 21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?
> 
> * 22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?
> 
> * 23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?
> 
> *24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions 25 and 26:
> Would any of this have been necessary for
> Jesus or Buddha to know or teach
> to become two of the most influential human beings on the planet.
> Whose influence has spanned centuries and continents
> and changed minds and saved lives from self-destruction by ego, pride and greed for control.
> 
> What knowledge of physics or "higher degrees" did Jesus or Buddha have
> when the Natural Wisdom they brought from God has saved humanity from the worst suffering and flaws?
> 
> If you can tell me which of the above questions
> Jesus or Buddha could answer correctly,
> I might believe this is necessary for judging people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would actually be questions *#26* and *#27*.  Question *#25* was asked by BreezeWood (See *posts #5136* and *#5137*.) I think Buddha was full of relativistic shiticus just like I _know_ that *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus *is full of shiticus.
Click to expand...



*Stumper Questions For Hyper-Religious Stumble Bums*


Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 515 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a typical pattern of religious zealots to behave as you are doing when your specious claims have been shot down in flames.
Click to expand...


NOTE to Hollie: Then quit baiting them.
When you post your stumper points about "creation", that is like using "global warming" as green baiting.
That isn't the real issue and can't be proven, so it sends people into a feeding frenzy attacking each other in circles.

The REAL issue that could stop the arguments about global warming
is to focus on environmental clean up and restoration of natural resources.
That is independent of whether pollution causes global warming or not.
We CAN show it is killing oceans and forests and do something about that.

but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
people capitalizing on the conflict have to frame it as "Global Warming"
to INCITE conflict and make money off the carbon credit system, introducing a political conflict of interest
that DISTRACTS people from the issue of true environmental integrity, protection, and restoration of damaged areas!

The real Green movement is still fighting to save endangered species and wilderness
that needs help REGARDLESS if  pollution is causing temperature changes or not.
That is not necessary to prove in order to save green turtles losing ocean habitats
or African elephants lost to poaching to fund tribal wars for politics.

All this is a DISTRACTION an dbecome a Straw Man used to attack one side or the other.

HOLLIE PLEASE
let's go back to Spiritual Healing
as something that CAN BE Demostrated and Replicated by Science

Hollie I am willing to set up a 10 million dollar bet
that Spiritual Healing can be proven first before Creation/Evolution
but if you want to I can throw in Global Warming, too.

Proving Spiritual Healing to people would do more good
by backing the idea that criminal illness and religious abuses
can be caught and corrected in advance instead of waiting until after it's too late.
Spiritual Healing has cured people of these ills, so it is important to prove
this medically as with any other disease and proposed therapy/treatment.

Hollie I see no reason to keep pushing creation/evolution
if this cannot be recreated and proven empirically
but Spiritual Healing can be, but is being ignored? Why?

The main reason I see why is that the division is not ready to be dropped.

Just like politicians don't really want to solve environmental problems
of their constituents: the solutions would redistribute power and responsibility
to the people; so instead they set up systems that depend on them being in control.
So they push global warming becuase they can control that rhetoric
and "pimp" the issue for political points. Both sides do this and it isn't
solving the problem of pollution killing the planet.

So let's not do this with God creation etc.

If we agree to focus on using science to demonstrate the validity
of Spiritual Healing, this is the next big breakthrough that can reconcile
science with religion and eradicate conflicts.

the only thing stopping us
is being ready for the change entailed.

if we aren't ready, then we stay stuck like people taking sides
over global warming to bash each other instead of focusing
on solutions that can save the planet. just not ready.

So when you ARE ready, let me know
and we can change the world by what we
gain learn and share here and taking that to a higher level.

Thanks Hollie
I hope we're ready or can get ready
We have too much work to do to fix the world
and we really cannot afford to be divided
when it is going to take all  hands on board
working nonstop to solve the problems
humanity has gotten into with religion and politics making such messes

We need to focus on solutions and working collaboratively
to maximize resources; we don't have time to lose blaming
each other for problems that aren't getting solved this way.

So let's get ready and try some new approaches
and see how that changes the ball game to something we  can ALL WIN!


----------



## FactFinder

Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.

"For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *Stumper Questions for Creationists
> Stumper Questions for Creationists
> 
> Introduction*
> This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.
> We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.
> *A few comments about some terminology*
> The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".
> The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.
> *What is creationism?*
> Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.
> (1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.
> It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.
> (2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
> (3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.
> In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.
> (4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?
> There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.
> (5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.
> Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.
> (6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
> 
> Exposition of creationism.
> Definitions of terms.
> Evidence for creationism.
> Rules of evidence.
> Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
> Evidence which modifies creationism.
> *How do creationists describe conventional science?*
> It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.
> (7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:
> 
> evolution
> primitive
> natural selection
> theory
> (8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
> (9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
> Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.
> (10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
> 
> What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
> What is does conventional science say?
> What is the evidence for conventional science?
> What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
> *How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?*
> In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
> Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.
> (11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the _same_answers.)
> (12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.
> (13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why _only_ there.)
> (14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?
> 
> Coherence of many different dating methods.
> Chronological distribution of fossils.
> Spatial distribution of living things.
> Relationships between living things.
> *Theological questions*
> It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
> For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.
> (15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.
> Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.
> (16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
> 
> Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
> Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
> *Summary*
> These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.



*Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy*

*The author asks:* "What is the evidence for conventional science?"

Whaaaaaa?

There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, _conventional science_ according to the author means _ontological naturalism_, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.

_Creationism_ proper is a theological construct, that includes_ some_ scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

_Creationism proper_ is _the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents_. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation*:* a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.

The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces*:* gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.

Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is _not _the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by _conventional science_!


*The author writes:* "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."

No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!

*The author writes:* "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"

The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls _conventional science_, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.

The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.


Not only does the author go on about his _conventional science_, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions *#11, #12*, *#13 *and *#14 *under the heading of *How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?*

*He writes:*

Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?​
Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does _not_ tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous*:* http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.

The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form. 


*In question #14, He writes:*

If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?​

The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that _all_ terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry.  In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?

_Crickets chirping_

What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.

The following requires special treatment.* The author writes:*

*(16) *Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?
​Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.


----------



## FactFinder

Science has its place and God His. Science has infinite limits. God has infinity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

FactFinder said:


> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.
> 
> "For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."



Thanks for sharing, but your notion has been roundly falsified on this thread, and, in any event, your claim and your apparent and quite mishandled interpretation of that passage is contradicted by the facts of this one, Romans 1:  18 - 20*:*

For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who *hold the truth in unrighteousness*; Because *that which may be known of God is manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world* are *clearly seen*, being *understood* by the things that are made, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse.
*

The evidence for God's existence is everywhere, and the proofs for God's existence are cognitively manifest.​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.
Click to expand...


. . . he mumbled in the wake of his well-deserved, just beggin'-for-it, humiliation.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.
> 
> Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to  gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . he mumbled in the wake of his well-deserved, just beggin'-for-it, humiliation.
Click to expand...


That's it?  That's all you've got?

Here is someone who has something to say about idiots like you who have no respect for science or scientists:


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


>



Okay.  Let's see what this idiot has to say. . . .


Okay.


The notion of catastrophic global warming is sheer hysteria for statists control freaks, hysterics, naive comedians and other dingbats.  It's a crock.  The Earth's overall temperature has been falling again in the last several years, and ice holdings are rising again.  The Earth has been undergoing cyclical  periods of cooling and heating for billions of years, and there's not a damn thing we can do to change that. 

*The 97% Myth of the Sheeple People:*
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


Now back to your regularly scheduled programing. . . .


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.
> 
> "For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing, but your notion has been roundly falsified on this thread, and, in any event, your claim and your apparent and quite mishandled interpretation of that passage is contradicted by the facts of this one, Romans 1:  18 - 20*:*
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who *hold the truth in unrighteousness*; Because *that which may be known of God is manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world* are *clearly seen*, being *understood* by the things that are made, even *his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse.
> *
> 
> The evidence for God's existence is everywhere, and the proofs for God's existence are cognitively manifest.​
Click to expand...

Umm, sorry, Stumble Bum. 

There is no evidence for the existence of any gawds, not any of your three gawds, not Zeus, not any of the gawds.

You can thump your bibles all you want. You can screech and rattle on, but none of the gawds are cognitively manifest.


----------



## BreezeWood

Boss said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.
> 
> do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -
> 
> why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.
> 
> a fatal decision for those who chose it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.
> 
> We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without _"something" _to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that _"something"_ which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature.
> 
> That is not to say that this _"something"_ isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to?
> 
> Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.
Click to expand...

.



> I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.



that really makes no sense, what you predict was fact 200 million years ago T-Rex was the the supreme being on Earth, there wasn't chaos - for that period it was no different than the rule of humanity.




> We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom.



you presuppose the "tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom" is warranted and not the outcome of disingenuous rationalizations humanity has chosen that other living beings have avoided for a reason such as a final condemnation and permanent extinction.




> Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.



well, it has everything to do with your perspective when all living beings are not accorded their rightful Spiritual existence at the expense of a glorification for a humanity that with a single A-Bomb has evolved to threaten all life on what was a Pristine Planet as the example of your proximity to its Creator -

think again bossy.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Taz said:


> It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.



*The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh*

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle. I do not even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We know they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist*:* the notion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is*:* do you *believe* this _a priori_ axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than *2 + 2 = 4*, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains and, perhaps, objectively speaking, our souls?

I _consistently_ hold that all axioms must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all the other _a priori_ axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the _God axiom_ must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that would make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic contradictorily pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer*:* Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.


----------



## mamooth

Boss said:


> Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?



As it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for a shark to waste brainpower thinking about anything but swimming/eating/mating, the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly.



> What stops us from being "too smart for our own good? It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self.



"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.

No gods required.


----------



## Boss

BreezeWood said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....
> 
> I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"
> 
> It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.
> 
> Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.
> 
> do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -
> 
> why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.
> 
> a fatal decision for those who chose it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.
> 
> We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without _"something" _to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that _"something"_ which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature.
> 
> That is not to say that this _"something"_ isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to?
> 
> Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that really makes no sense, what you predict was fact 200 million years ago T-Rex was the the supreme being on Earth, there wasn't chaos - for that period it was no different than the rule of humanity.
Click to expand...


Why don't you try reading the whole post in it's entirety before popping out a knee-jerk response to one paragraph? It might make sense that way. 

Was T-Rex capable of building fucking rockets to take dinosaurs to the moon? Figure out how to cure diseases? Create maths and sciences? Okay then, so they *WERE NOT* of the same or similar capability and capacity as human beings, because human beings *CAN* do those sort of things. 

So what we see here is, you've totally missed my point because you are too busy looking for some reason to find disagreement with me. Look... I get it, that's really all this place is for some people, a place to come argue for the sake of arguing. But you really do need to find something worth arguing, because you're looking like a goofy bitch. 



> We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you presuppose the "tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom" is warranted and not the outcome of disingenuous rationalizations humanity has chosen that other living beings have avoided for a reason such as a final condemnation and permanent extinction.
Click to expand...


HUH?  I've not "presupposed" that humans are far more advanced and able to create, rationalize and reason, invent and be inspired, than any other living thing on the planet. That's just a fact of life. Whether it's "warranted" makes no difference, it's how things are, it's how humans are built. Are you trying to say that the "flora and fauna" could do the things humans do, but they consciously choose not to? If so, you're nuttier than a fruitcake. 



> Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, it has everything to do with your perspective when all living beings are not accorded their rightful Spiritual existence at the expense of a glorification for a humanity that with a single A-Bomb has evolved to threaten all life on what was a Pristine Planet as the example of your proximity to its Creator -
> 
> think again bossy..
Click to expand...


Ya... I'm thinking I need to rethink agreeing with your viewpoint. You're becoming more of a kook than MD now.


----------



## Boss

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for a shark to waste brainpower thinking about anything but swimming/eating/mating, the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What stops us from being "too smart for our own good? It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> 
> No gods required.
Click to expand...


*the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly...*

Would he now? Or would he use that power to better his abilities like humans have? 

*"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.*

Not really. You're simply drawing a distinction to larger groups and proclaiming they are greater. In order for any such distinction to be made, there first has to be something which prompts the notion of a "greater good" to be achieved through such recognition. Otherwise, the laws of nature would prevail. Lions and sharks pay no attention to family, tribe, society, nation or race... they stalk their prey and kill it. The alpha male dominates the pack. They don't lose any sleep over what they do. 

What you are doing is taking the result of human spirituality and using that as the reasoning for why humans don't require spirituality, and it simply doesn't work. It's as if you have discovered the very first book, and you have decided that this book is where humans created language. Now you can make a case for that, you can certainly believe and argue that, but it's a wrongheaded viewpoint that doesn't withstand the logic test. The language had to first exist before the book, there is no other logical explanation.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> That's it?  That's all you've got?



But in all seriousness, orogenicman, catastrophic global warming is for scoundrels and the sheep they shear.  You don't know that?

I'm putting that in my signature.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's it?  That's all you've got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in all seriousness, orogenicman, catastrophic global warming is for scoundrels and the sheep they shear.  You don't know that?
> 
> I'm putting that in my signature.
Click to expand...


If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.



If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

mamooth said:


> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.



*The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*

Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.

In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.

The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"

But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.

*GT:* Informal fallacy!
*Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
*Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
*Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
*mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
*Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
*Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
*orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
*seallybobo*: Huh?
*Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
*BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
*QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
*Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
*PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
*asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
*Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!

*"I AM!" says God Almighty.*

Did you hear that?

Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.

But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.

For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​


----------



## Inevitable

​


G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
Click to expand...

that is about what it appeared to be from my point of view.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I forgot.  Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars.  *Inevitable asked no such thing*.  Looked at no such thing.  Considered nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Understood nothing.  Contributed nothing.  Didn't even try.  Bitch.  Moan.  Gossip.  That's all he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, you are a pathological liar.
> 
> can i not quote inevitable asking that very thing, right now, and make you look like a gigantic douchebag for saying he "asked no such thing?"
> 
> Sure I can. I should. Hell, I might. I'm going to give it some thought. Let you grovel, mix it up a little bit.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, nevermind. I dont even need to. You admitted it yourself already. Wow you're a schlub.
> 
> md rawlings aka "blue moon":
> 
> *"This from you!  This was our conversation:
> *
> *Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?"*​
Click to expand...




emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you ate trying to do, but I am done with these two knuckle heads. All they can do is call names and play martyr. That is not a discussion, they have made it clear there is no possibility for a discussion. So, we are threw.


----------



## Inevitable

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
Click to expand...

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't. 

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> ​
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is about what it appeared to be from my point of view.
Click to expand...


Shut up, Inevitable.  You were told there was.  You were given the evidence and the proof.  You read nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Opened your mind to nothing.  You even quoted the Bible . . . some utterly irrelevant passage, and then contradictorily thumbed your nose at Romans 1:  18 - 20 which utterly negates your foolish claims that there is no evidence or proof provided by God to humanity!   You don't believe.  You have no faith.  You don't believe God or His word.  You're sitting there behind your computer screen aligning yourself with an atheist who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and an avowed enemy of God and His truths . . . as you spurn the theist who points to the testimony of scripture and the universally apparent  facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin which you never once directly addressed via the standards of academic discourse:  demonstrated that you actually understand what you deny to be true with a coherent counterargument as to why these things aren't true!

What did you give us instead?

"Don't preach to me!"

"I don't want to discuss it!"

"Stop asking me questions!"

"Stop telling me things!"

_Fingers struck in ears_  "La-la-la-la-la-la.  I can't here you."

Mockery.  Personal attacks.  Derision.  Moralisms. 

You're a pathological lair just like GT.  You're a phony.  You know for fact that's the real truth of our encounter.  I tried to share something with you, and you behaved like a smarmy, snot-nosed little prick.  You don't really believe in God at all.  The fact that you won't believe God and renounce homosexuality tells me that you don't really believe in God or His word.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
Click to expand...

I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.

I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.


----------



## Inevitable

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Shut up, Inevitable.


No.



> You were told there was.  You were given the evidence and the proof.  You read nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Opened your mind to nothing.  You even quoted the Bible . . . some utterly irrelevant passage, and then contradictorily thumbed your nose at Romans 1:  18 - 20 which utterly negates your foolish claims that there is no evidence or proof provided by God to humanity!   You don't believe.  You have no faith.  You don't believe God or His word.  You're sitting there behind your computer screen aligning yourself with an atheist who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and an avowed enemy of God and His truths . . . as you spurn the theist who points to the testimony of scripture and the universally apparent  facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin which you never once directly addressed via the standards of academic discourse:  demonstrated that you actually understand what you deny to be true with a coherent counterargument as to why these things aren't true!
> 
> What did you give us instead?
> 
> "Don't preach to me!"
> 
> "I don't want to discuss it!"
> 
> "Stop asking me questions!"
> 
> "Stop telling me things!"
> 
> _Fingers struck in ears_  "La-la-la-la-la-la.  I can't here you."
> 
> Mockery.  Personal attacks.  Derision.  Moralisms.
> 
> You're a pathological lair just like GT.  You're a phony.  You know for fact that's the real truth of our encounter.  I tried to share something with you, and you behaved like a smarmy, snot-nosed little prick.  You don't really believe in God at all.  The fact that you won't believe God and renounce homosexuality tells me that you don't really believe in God or His word.


^^^Childishness that doesn't merit more response than this.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
Click to expand...

"In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."

He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.

He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Click to expand...

Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?

Anyway, I find the "7 things" to fall short of proving God's existence. And apparently I am a punk and a faggot, and Justin really likes my pants because of that fact.


----------



## Hollie

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
Click to expand...

You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.


----------



## Inevitable

Hollie said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...

These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.


----------



## Taz

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh*
> 
> Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle. I do not even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We know they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!
> 
> And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist*:* the notion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!
> 
> So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.
> 
> The question is*:* do you *believe* this _a priori_ axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than *2 + 2 = 4*, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?
> 
> Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains and, perhaps, objectively speaking, our souls?
> 
> I _consistently_ hold that all axioms must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all the other _a priori_ axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.
> 
> Hence, I justifiably hold that the _God axiom_ must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.
> 
> That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!
> 
> I believe!
> 
> You don't!
> 
> I'm standing on something solid!
> 
> You aren't!
> 
> You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.
> 
> It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that would make these facts of human psychology go away.
> 
> The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic contradictorily pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.
> 
> Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?
> 
> Answer*:* Yes, you are!
> 
> You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.
Click to expand...

You don't have any actual proof that your god exist, just a lot of hot air and mumbo jumbo.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
Click to expand...


Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.


----------



## Hollie

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
Click to expand...

I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
Click to expand...


He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?


----------



## mamooth

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*



It usually takes me a couple weeks of breaking down a kook before the kook directs a long rambling meltdown speech at me.

With MD, it was less than a day. Score!

MD, I'll add you to the mailing list, of course. You know, for my fan club newsletter.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

mamooth said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It usually takes me a couple weeks of breaking down a kook before the kook directs a long rambling meltdown speech at me.
> 
> With MD, it was less than a day. Score!
> 
> MD, I'll add you to the mailing list, of course. You know, for my fan club newsletter.
Click to expand...


So now you want coffee and donuts, too?  Meatloaf and mash potatoes weren't good enough for you?


----------



## orogenicman

So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
> No gods required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
Click to expand...


So now 2 + 2 = 15?


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits*
> 
> Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.
> 
> In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.
> 
> The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"
> 
> But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.
> 
> *GT:* Informal fallacy!
> *Emily:* Can't we all just get along?
> *Betty Boop Inevitable:* I believe in God . . . but not really.
> *Hollie:* $%^&@#*+!
> *mamooth:* $%^&@#*+!
> *Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!
> *Boss:* We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
> *orogenicmanicus;* Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
> *seallybobo*: Huh?
> *Amrchaos:* Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
> *BreezeWood:* Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
> *QW:* Science has primacy over consciousness!
> *Foxfyre:* I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
> *PratchettFan: *No evidence! Informational vacuum!
> *asaratis: *No evidence! No proof!
> *Brucethenonthinker: *Mountains out of no hills at all!
> 
> *"I AM!" says God Almighty.*
> 
> Did you hear that?
> 
> Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.
> 
> But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend.  *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*.
> 
> For the wrath of God is *revealed from heaven* against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, *who hold the truth in unrighteousness*; because that which *may be known of God* is *manifest in them*; for *God hath shewed it unto them*.  For *the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made*, even* his eternal power and Godhead*; so that *they are without excuse *(Romans 1: 18 - 20).​
> 
> 
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now 2 + 2 = 15?
Click to expand...





Keep digging that hole, son.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
Click to expand...


orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now 2 + 2 = 15?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging that hole, son.
Click to expand...



So you want a handout too?  Whaaaaaa?  Dig your own hole, Roger Rabbit.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.
> 
> * (Hint) it requires a practical application ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from you!  This was our conversation:
> 
> Inevitable:  So what is the proof for God's existence?
> 
> Rawlings:  Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!
> 
> Rawlings:  But try.  Let's see what happens.
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why do you say that?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  I'm not telling you!
> 
> Rawlings:  Why did you ask for the proof?
> 
> Inevitable:  No!  There's no proof!  _Fingers plugging ears_  La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you.  You're a poop-poop head.  Stop preaching at me.  Stop asking me questions.  Stop making me think.  Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.
> 
> Rawlings:  Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​
> End of discussion.
> 
> That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, peebrain, it went down like this:
> 
> inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
> justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
> md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
> inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
> justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
> md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.
> 
> 
> blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is about what it appeared to be from my point of view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shut up, Inevitable.  You were told there was.  You were given the evidence and the proof.  You read nothing.  Thought about nothing.  Opened your mind to nothing.  You even quoted the Bible . . . some utterly irrelevant passage, and then contradictorily thumbed your nose at Romans 1:  18 - 20 which utterly negates your foolish claims that there is no evidence or proof provided by God to humanity!   You don't believe.  You have no faith.  You don't believe God or His word.  You're sitting there behind your computer screen aligning yourself with an atheist who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and an avowed enemy of God and His truths . . . as you spurn the theist who points to the testimony of scripture and the universally apparent  facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin which you never once directly addressed via the standards of academic discourse:  demonstrated that you actually understand what you deny to be true with a coherent counterargument as to why these things aren't true!
> 
> What did you give us instead?
> 
> "Don't preach to me!"
> 
> "I don't want to discuss it!"
> 
> "Stop asking me questions!"
> 
> "Stop telling me things!"
> 
> _Fingers struck in ears_  "La-la-la-la-la-la.  I can't here you."
> 
> Mockery.  Personal attacks.  Derision.  Moralisms.
> 
> You're a pathological lair just like GT.  You're a phony.  You know for fact that's the real truth of our encounter.  I tried to share something with you, and you behaved like a smarmy, snot-nosed little prick.  You don't really believe in God at all.  The fact that you won't believe God and renounce homosexuality tells me that you don't really believe in God or His word.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. Rawlings I understand why you/we come across as false to each other.
We do the best we can despite this.

As for homosexuality, it is similar to how the Bible says some Eunuchs are made by God and some by Man (Matthew 19:12)
"King James Bible
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from _their_ mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. 
*He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.*"

Since man is not psychic, and some people may start off one way or change to another and we don't know this,
some people set the standard to reject ALL such people as flawed and unnatural,
others give the "benefit of the doubt/innocent until proven otherwise" and count all such persons as 
natural until proven unnatural; and some leave it open either way, and let people figure it out as part of their spiritual path.

MD if you are one of those people who draws the line at NO/Zero,
and I am one who says if we don't know, if it is a spiritual issue that God may know or some people may know,
then the govt cannot decide religiously for everyone and "assume" it is either all natural or all unnatural based on belief,
Then you and I have the right to our beliefs.

I respect yours and believe you hve the right to defend and practice it.
But not impose on others who believe otherwise, and vice versa where they cannot impose on  you.

We need to use science to prove the process of spiritual healing
and show which people this has helped to change, but also show
cases where people did not change. They may have healed but may
not change in orientation - it depends on God.

I believe this karma comes from past relationship issues not resolved but passed down spiritually,
and the point is to bring out healing through FORGIVENESS and unconditional faith in God.

And let God do the healing and transformation that we cannot do.

No amount of rejection or judgment ever cured or healed anyone.
The healing and transformation I've seen and heard of happening
has always been through Forgiveness so this is the understanding of Christianity
I take, that this "Divine Forgiveness" or Grace in Christ is what does the transformation.

Ironically it  usually happens when people agree to let go.

So as Inevitable pointed out, sometimes we have to let go for God's will to be done.
I respect him also for being as fair and openminded a person as I have found
still willing to defend his opinions while listening to others.

M.D. you miss out on the opportunity to work with others who WERE willing to
listen and work with you.

I am guessing you were not ready or too afraid of change.
So the natural human reaction is to build a wall and chase the other person away
who threatens to change your mindset.

Inevitable is not one to harass anyone and is not going to put up with that either.

I hope we can still focus on the science and research studies of spiritual healing
that also address conversion and reparation therapy for homosexual orientation.
Some people report healing and changing and some people heal without changing.
Similar with theism/atheism I have met many Buddhists and atheists/nontheists
who received the spiritual healing and still did not convert and become Christian in denomination.
Jewish people and Muslims also who receive the healing, receive and accept Christ and Christians
but do not convert to that faith.  So we need to understand this process and quit trying to
tell God what to do or not to do with the outcome of spiritual healing that is in the hands of God or Nature
not us to dictate what degree of healing is going to manifest or not.

M.D. we can still focus on the science and do very well.
Similar to how you want to focus on TAG for some things,
TAG does not address how and which cases of sexual orientation are transformed by 
spiritual healing. Science, research studies and statistics can show us patterns
so we can follow along and learn.

So I will still seek to set those up, and just sorry that you cannot see 
the benefit in focusing there. 

If your job is to say NO to that and focus on TAG that's your job.

I accept that, and will just work on these other team members on more effective ways and means.

You will have your hands full addressing church elders about
the Trinity and how to define God or names, etc. 

the church elders will only listen to a man such as yourself
so we need to save your attention for that specific audience that needs you to unite them.

The Church of Christ accepts the Trinity but rejects spiritual healing.
The Jehovah's Witness reject the Trinity and also spiritual healing.

That will take a national effort to address these church elders so maybe your calling is in that vein.
The Muslims who recognize Buddhism or Constitutionalism as given by God
but the traditional ones only recognize Jewish and Christian and do not agree on Jesus,
is another huge effort that will require elders to address and not lay people.

So let's organize and find ways to focus your attention with Elders
who want to teach these concepts and points the right way
and need to form a consensus on that.

for G.T. Hollie Inevitable and others willing to look into the spiritual healing
and separate the fraud from the effective  natural practices done voluntarily without harm,
we can focus there.

So it's all good, God has a purpose for each of us,
and makes us want to focus there. Thanks M.D.
and I look forward to working with you to find your flock.
If we all flock together in groups, we can do more good in teams
and not waste time arguing about things that are not our jobs.

Thank you and I will email you about how to address
the heads of various denominations to come to consensus on the Trinity.

Yours truly,
Emily

As for your 7 points, or 25 questions,
I have these 3 I find universal though expressed differently in different systems of laws
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls

Christianity focused on the heart, Buddhism on the mind,
and Constitutionalism on the due process free speech/press
free exercise of religion or free will and right to assemble and petition
in order to reconcile heart and mind in agreement on truth.
I don't know about you, but I need all three in order to resolve grievances.
In order to reconcile heart mind and soul, mind body and spirit, etc.

2. to love our neighbors as ourselves
as we forgive ourselves and others equally we can receive wisdom and insights
to make corrections mutually but it has to be as equal peers in Christ
adversarial combat does not allow corrections and agreements to go through

and this is where the new commandment comes in to join and fulfill the other two
3. that we love (and forgive) one another as Christ Jesus loves us with unconditional
grace. we ask and we receive. but if we do not forgive first there is no room to receive
the blessings corrections and healings of the wrong if we refuse to let go of these and make room.

So we don't just project our own conflicts and unforgiveness inside ourselves
onto our neighbors, jab for jab, thinking that is loving or hating each other as equals.
As believers we are called to be Christlike to forgive first and let God guide us in the corrections after.
so this takes Christian faith in healing, to let go first, forgive in order to receive second.

MD as you can see our secularminded friends like Hollie and Boss
want to see corrections first before they forgive, but the higher laws
and spiritual process involve forgiving first and then receiving corrections second.

So the trinity is fulfilled with these Three Commandments
one for each level, for love of God for love of humanity
and for love of Christ for Justice and Conscience that
joins the love or laws of God with the laws of love of humanity as one.

this is the content behind the Trinity that we need to understand
even if we express it differently. we must be one in heart and mind
to receive the full understanding, and this is what it means to be joined in Christ.

So all things that prevent us from joining are being removed by forgiveness
and healing. we have only to ask and we receive. to demonstrate to others
how it works and more people will feel safe to try forgiving first and seeing that it changes things second.

thanks MD

I believe you may be one to address the Pharisees
the heads of JW and Church of Christ who believe in one God
and do not want division or confusion either. I pray God guides
you and us to the right people, the right connections to bring
about unity in Christ in fulfilllment of the plans and purpose we carry.

Thank you in Jesus name Amen


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.



LOL!

*Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy*


*The author asks:* "What is the evidence for conventional science?"

Whaaaaaa?

There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, _conventional science_ according to the author means _ontological naturalism_, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.

_Creationism_ proper is a theological construct, that includes_ some_ scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

_Creationism proper_ is _the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents_. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation*:* a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.

The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces*:* gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.

Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is _not _the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by _conventional science_!


*The author writes:* "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."

No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!

*The author writes:* "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"

The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls _conventional science_, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.

The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.


Not only does the author go on about his _conventional science_, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions *#11, #12*, *#13 *and *#14 *under the heading of *How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?*

*He writes:
*
Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?​
Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does _not_ tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous*:* http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.

The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form.


*In question #14, He writes:
*
If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?​
The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that _all_ terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry. In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?

_Crickets chirping_

What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.

The following requires special treatment.* The author writes:
*
*(16) *Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?​
Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it.  You have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.
Click to expand...


No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors.  And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain.  I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.



Is there any sound/valid evidence that orogenicman knows what he's talking about?

*The 24 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus  

1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

*2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

*3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

*4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

*5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

*6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

*7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

*8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

*9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?

*10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

*11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

*12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

*13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

*14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

*15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

*16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

*17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

*18.* What are the five foundational monomers of life that nature can produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

*19.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?

*20.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

*21.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

*22.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

*23.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

*24. *Why are you so full of shiticus *Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus*?


----------



## orogenicman

They are your questions, Mad Dog (aka, MD).  I have yet to see you answer a single one of them despite the number of times you have posted them.  Why?  Because you aren't looking for them to be answered.  You post them because you think it makes you look smart.  What it actually does is make you look desperate and stupid.  Even worse, they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that god exists, and as such are off topic.  But then, you knew that already.  "God did it" is not evidence of anything.  It is an unprovable tautology.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Inevitable 
After your reading your messages I got an insight that we really do need to redirect traffic.
Mack Trucks do not belong in the pedestrian or bike lane and vice versa.

I see that MD needs to butt heads with the Pharisees on that level
or he is like a football player on the field with no battle or teams to fight.

So he belongs in a different game, with people who need to butt heads.
Who need a good lashing. He is using the wrong people as target practice.

I know some others who want to address the Jehovah's Witnesses
and Catholic elders about church policies, and who is teaching God/Jesus right or wrong etc.
These people already assume that God is a given, and have other issues to hash out from there.

Let them address each other, as they WANT to have these debates and discussions on that level.
I was hoping MD could learn and take advantage of having Boss and BreezeWood here to 
prepare him, but maybe those two need to be part of the team to block and bash people, too.
Any mediator who can reconcile between those three, can teach others how to do it.
Boss was reaching out to BreezeWood and at one point seemed to have smoothed over
a hump with MD, but lost it again, so I'm not sure what it would take to get them on the same page.

Let them have at it.
That is one approach one level,
but there are others that need to be pursued with the same rigor 
and commitment to establishing agreement.

We'll get it together. Once the teams organize
people can choose who they want to work with
and who they need to avoid.

I do not understand the people who keep running from the focus that would solve their conflicts,
and keep bringing up and baiting the very issues or people they can't fix just to bash them.

That part I don't understand, and hope people focus on solutions not problems.

You called it childishness, and it reminds me of buying toys for kids so they
can play safely, but they insist on either playing with the noisy pots and pans that get annoying,
or want to take the forks and poke them into the electric sockets or toaster instead to see what would happen.

Oh well. If that is their learning curve, if they want to pull hair and kick shins,
that is just a phase they have to go through.

Thanks for being more mature than that,
and I hope we all grow up to be more like you.

I can be a little kid, too, but at least I go cry in a corner
and don't hit back.  I can be 10 times annoying about pushing people,
so thank you for seeing the better side of that, and forgiving the disadvantages I have.

For where I am going, believe me, I will need to ally with a bigger bully
like MD when it comes to the real putting people in their places.
some people NEED someone like MD in their faces
and I can't do what he does. We just need to find that
niche for him, and he will shine and do his job that nobody else can do.

But here, it is wasted on bullying people inappropriately
so you are right that this is not the way to approach it.

Thanks and we'll try something else.
By trial and error, hit and miss, the pieces will fall into place.

Everyone here has some vital part, and we just have to
stay within our proper element and we'll all do much better than this.

Yours truly, with much respect for your support 
transparency and honesty,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear O man:
I agree MD uses these as a screening device to separate the people for or against his TAG approach.

I posted a question: if Jesus or Buddha could answer any of these 25 questions, and if not, how are they
any basis for judging people. I don't think I got an answer, but I thought it was clear they would not have passed.

Hollie also posted her list of unanswerable questions.

I think that is also for the purpose of coming to terms that we are starting at different points.
And organizing from there.

It is said that explanations aren't necessary: for friends they won't need them but will already understand,
for enemies they won't believe them anyway. so these are like screening devices for identifying what
tribe we align with and sticking to our tribe. 

Justin aligns with MD. I think GT amrchaos and Inevitable understand where I am coming from, so we can align if we work at it,
but BreezeWood is someplace else and is not quite convinced we can work at it if we are including the Christian God in the mix.

O man I assume you and Hollie might align, so I am happy if there is more backing for that approach.

if we just find our teams and agree what we do or do not agree to focus on,
we can map out a strategy and avoid the pitfalls of putting the wrong peg or puzzle piece in the wrong place.

Thank you and I hope you stick around
We need at least one strong defense/offense man on each side
so nobody gets bulldozed over. If Hollie had more backing, maybe she wouldn't be put on the defensive all the time.

We need mediators willing to act as go betweens, but those are the personality
types who get run over and aren't one to bully back, so we need to help each other avoid that.

I think this is more like a friendly scrimmage
as practice for the real game we need to battle out as a team, not as adversaries.

I hope MD can see what I mean by this, if he wants to be in charge.
If he keeps stomping and blocking his own players, you can't coach a team that way.

I'm supposed to be cheerleader for moral support for the team.
I'm not supposed to be out on the field getting run over....


----------



## orogenicman

What's the point?  If the point is to make us feel better about ourselves that our way is the right way, well, I don't think it is a valid or viable approach to searching for truth.  We not only cannot seem to agree as to what the facts are, we can't even agree to what a fact IS.  I'm a geologist who is also a lifelong amateur astronomer.  I look for facts, verfiable, repeatable, fasifiable facts in my search for the truth.  Now, we can speculate, and philosophize til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, we are inevidably brought back to one question - what do the facts tell us?  He can play his games all he wants but it isn't solving anything, and is nothing more than an intentional, childish disruption of the forum.  You can defend him if you feel you must, but if that is what you truly feel you must do, I don't have much respect for your position.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to look like a fool?!  Shut up, you idiot.  Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming.  Contempt is the operative word here.  It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors.  And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain.  I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.
Click to expand...


So why did you say there were millions of different _*kinds*_ earlier?

Oh, that's right!  I remember now.  You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.

Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry*:*  only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!

Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number*:*  you can't even get that right.  Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say?  Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions!  Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.

Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.

Note that #18 is a new question below.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus  

1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

*2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

*3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

*4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

*5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

*6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

*7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

*8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

*9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?

*10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

*11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

*12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

*13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

*14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

*15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

*16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

*17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

*18.* What are the four major groups of organic compounds in biological systems?

* 19.* What are the five basic monomers/precursors for the four major organic compounds of life that nature is known to produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

* 20.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
* 
21.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

* 22.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

* 23.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

* 24.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

* 25.* Why are you so full of shiticus _Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus_?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.



LOL!  Just how scientifically illiterate are you?  And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.

*Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
*
You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*: *Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!

*Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Just how scientifically illiterate are you?  And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.
> 
> *Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> *
> You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.
> 
> What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*: *Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*
> 
> The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.
> 
> You think you're going to dictate around here?
> 
> Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?
> 
> If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.
> 
> Okay?
Click to expand...

*Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.*

Okay?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> What's the point?  If the point is to make us feel better about ourselves that our way is the right way, well, I don't think it is a valid or viable approach to searching for truth.  We not only cannot seem to agree as to what the facts are, we can't even agree to what a fact IS.  I'm a geologist who is also a lifelong amateur astronomer.  I look for facts, verfiable, repeatable, fasifiable facts in my search for the truth.  Now, we can speculate, and philosophize til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, we are inevidably brought back to one question - what do the facts tell us?  He can play his games all he wants but it isn't solving anything, and is nothing more than an intentional, childish disruption of the forum.  You can defend him if you feel you must, but if that is what you truly feel you must do, I don't have much respect for your position.



What utter _crapolatus_.  You've been given the facts.  Your _shiticus_ is all made up. You demonstrate no understanding and play nothing but games.

*The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!*

*1.*  Do we exist?  Yes we do!

*2.*  Does the cosmological order exist?  Yes it does, Mr. Geologist (_snicker_), amateur astronomer!

*3.*  Is the God axiom a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology?  Yes it is!

*4.*  Logically, wouldn't the substance of the God axiom, the ultimate origin of all other things that exist apart from itself, necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness?  Yes, of course!  How could any creature be greater than the Creator?

*5.*  Is the existence of God subject to scientific verification or falsification at this time?  No, of course not!

*6.*  Is it logically possible for one to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist, on the very face of it, without inherently contradicting oneself, negating this assertion and, thus, positively proving that the opposite must be true according to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic?  No, it's not!

*7.*  Hence, all of the above are necessarily true statements logically!


That's what a sound/valid logical proof is!

According to the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, God must be!


*1.*  Do you have an argument that can overthrow the veracity of the three bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle)?  Of course, not, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes them to be true!

*2.* Do you have a sound/valid syllogistic argument that could possibly overthrow the logical conclusion of the organic laws of human thought?  No, you don't!

*3.*  Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that would overthrow the scientific fact of the God axiom in human cognition/psychology, the veracity of the God axiom or the apparent substance thereof according to the laws of organic thought; i.e., does there exist any peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that would overthrow/falsify any one of these things?  No, there doesn't!

*4.*  Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? No, there doesn't!

*5.*  Can you explain how something arose from nothing?  No, you can't!


*You got nothin', and nothin' from nothin' = nothing.

The Seven Things™ stand! 

They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie also posted her list of unanswerable questions.



Hollie's unanswerable questions?!

I'm sorry.  You must have missed the utter annihilation of the pressumptous materialist's nonsense:  Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 520 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## G.T.

There are no logical proofs for god.

TAG is a circular argument. Chases its tail


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Just how scientifically illiterate are you?  And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.
> 
> *Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> *
> You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.
> 
> What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*: *Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*
> 
> The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.
> 
> You think you're going to dictate around here?
> 
> Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?
> 
> If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.
> 
> Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.*
> 
> Okay?
Click to expand...


In other words, once again, you have no counterargument that could even begin to overthrow the rational and empirical facts of _The Seven Things_. 

Check.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> There are no logical proofs for god.
> 
> TAG is a circular argument. Chases its tail



*The species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus/GTicus de Basketus Weavicus  
*
I don't care who you are.  That's hilarious.


----------



## G.T.

Actually...its only funny to you. And maybe your sock.

But uh, break that vicious circle yet?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to answer the OP, no there isn't any Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?  It's made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Just how scientifically illiterate are you?  And with nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving under your belt no less.
> 
> *Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> *
> You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.
> 
> What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone*: *Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and _from nothing, nothing comes_!
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.*
> 
> The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That _is_ the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.
> 
> So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.
> 
> You think you're going to dictate around here?
> 
> Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?
> 
> If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.
> 
> Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A pointless attempt at argument of unparalleled waste of time.*
> 
> Okay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, once again, you have no counterargument that could even begin to overthrow the rational and empirical facts of _The Seven Things_.
> 
> Check.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're not paying attention.

As you know, I spent more time than I needed to in a thorough refutation of your pointless, inane and irrational and subjective seven fraudulent things.


Check!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> They are your questions, Mad Dog (aka, MD).  I have yet to see you answer a single one of them despite the number of times you have posted them.  Why?  Because you aren't looking for them to be answered.  You post them because you think it makes you look smart.  What it actually does is make you look desperate and stupid.  Even worse, they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that god exists, and as such are off topic.  But then, you knew that already.  "God did it" is not evidence of anything.  It is an unprovable tautology.



There you go projecting your petty psychology again.  No, boy, you came on this thread making baby talk, implying that the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology are not true when they obviously are.  Have you ever once articulated a coherent counterargument, provided a citation to support your allegation or directly addressed anything of substance at all?  Nope!  You came a'mockin' which is all you atheists ever do.  Then you imply to know things about abiogenesis that overthrow the actual facts of science and the contents of my article.  No, sir!  Those questions were posted to demonstrate your obvious ignorance and pretensions. 

Let me lace you up on something.  I'm on another thread right now in which theists are pummeling the usual atheistic suspects on this forum who go around from religious thread to religious thread with only one motive in mind*:*  disrupt rational and civil discourse on matters they know nothing or care nothing about.  The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of atheists on this forum or virtually any other forum like this one on the Internet are not rational thinkers at all and know next to nothing worth knowing about the relevant science.  Their idea of argumentation is name-calling, mockery and derision.  You don't talk to us.  You talk at us.  You don't even have the common courtesy to treat others as real persons.  You guys don't ever directly address anything of real substance. 

I've been in PMs with more than a dozen theists on this forum, and we are not going to allow you punks to pull your crap anymore, and that includes the theistic phonies of relativism like that snot-nosed punk Inevitable.  You are laughing stocks who treat the heartfelt convictions of rational and sincere theists, persons who have engaged you in good faith, only to act like friggin' animals.  Most of you are pathological liars, and I suspect that many of you are flat-out sociopaths.  Hence, you will be treated accordingly, albeit, with real arguments, something you guys don't understand at all.


----------



## G.T.

Wow....get a life seriously


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
Click to expand...


You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.
> 
> I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.
Click to expand...



LOL!  You couldn't explain your way out a wet paper handkerchief.


*Inevitable the Drama Queen 

Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_

 And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle
_
Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _Giggle _I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

 And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?_ Giggle
_
I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle _And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all._ Giggle _I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle _I'm so cute and funny that way.


 Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? 

The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Wow....get a life seriously



So you don't like peanut butter?  Who doesn't peanut butter?  Fine!  We got tuna fish sandwiches on rye.  Happy?  You want something to wash them down with?


----------



## G.T.




----------



## mamooth

MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.

We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> if you are praying, you are not living.
> 
> .



RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
^ ??? ^

Dear BreezeWood:
This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
maybe that's true for some people,
but others can talk and think at the same time.

I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.

Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."

But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.

How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?

How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
of spiritual recovery and/or growth.

How can you assume that none of that is living?
They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?

If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?

Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.

I question if you even know what you are talking about?
*Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.*

Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
of things you have no knowledge of?

??? X ???
This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?

Am I misunderstanding what you mean?


----------



## emilynghiem

mamooth said:


> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.



And in recognizing M.D. has his limits, and accommodating those special needs,
maybe he will naturally open up to reciprocate likewise. Recognizing he
also exceeds the limits that other people have, and cannot help it either.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


>



GT and the Lame Brains. LOL!  By the way listened to one of your tracks.  Not bad.  Is that your voice on "Gone When I Wander"?  If so, you should consider something akin to the X Factor.  I know as I have a background in music and voice.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GT and the Lame Brains. LOL!  By the way listened to one of your tracks.  Not bad.  Is that your voice on "Gone When I Wander"?  If so, you should consider something akin to the X Factor.  I know as I have a background in music and voice.
Click to expand...

Yes its me.

How about you. Got any of your work?


----------



## emilynghiem

mamooth said:


> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.





M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.
> 
> I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable doesn't believe that.  He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts.  He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.  I told you before Emily this is what relativists do.  It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable.  Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable.  All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough.  The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me.  I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
Click to expand...


No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
as is anyone else.

I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
ie. less than human, so what do you call that?

The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.

Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."

How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.

Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.

Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
Let's try to make this come out right.

I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.

Thanks.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)
> 
> If people AGREE to call each other names,
> like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.
> 
> But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
> I believe we need to respect that.
> 
> Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
> so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
> agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
> if we are going to communicate like civil adults.
> 
> GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
> I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
> and then it won't keep coming out as  name calls insults or weird accusations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.
> 
> I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  You couldn't explain your way out a wet paper handkerchief.
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_
> 
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle
> _
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me. _Giggle _I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_
> 
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?_ Giggle
> _
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle _And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all._ Giggle _I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle _I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*
Click to expand...


P.S. is there another option besides Thanks and Agree like "No Thanks" and "Disagree"

M.D. this really does nothing to help either your TAG approach,
people and you to communicate better, or to make more progress removing barriers to either of the above.

This taunting only reinforces barriers so why would you post this, M.D.?

Unless as O man questions: you don't really want to reach agreement.
It looks like you are just trying to bait people not debate or resolve anything.
If you chase people away then only the people who agree with you will be left so you can reach agreement that way?
Not by eliminating and correcting objections but by eliminating the people who give up on you, is this your strategy?

Please make up your mind which way you want it.

If you want to be "in charge" you can't be throwing all your crew mates off the ship
and expect to have any crew left to be in charge of. You'll have your way but only you and Justin will be left on board.

Please decide if you want someone else to steer the ship for you,
and you don't REALLY want to be in charge of defending this proof and getting everyone on the same page.

it's a lot of work, requires far-sighted high-minded leadership to coordinate team members to work on their respective teams. If you have no interest or mind for teamwork, how can you expect to be in charge of all the people on diverse teams.

I will try to connect you with other people on this level you are focused on.
If this is set up right, everyone will be in their right element and nobody should be frustrated.

In the meantime, M.D. I object and ask that you do not post
derogatory mockery like this out of "ill will" that is  against what Christ would do for neighbors.

Whatever we do unto the LEAST among us, we do unto Christ.
So please treat Inevitable as you would any other brother in Christ, as you would Justin,
and correct whatever problem or grievance you have with us, without insulting or further rejecting/dividing anyone.

Thank you, M.D.
and sorry for the frustrations in the meantime that are causing these disruptions and distractions
Can we please help keep each other and the points on track?


----------



## emilynghiem

orogenicman said:


> They are your questions, Mad Dog (aka, MD).  I have yet to see you answer a single one of them despite the number of times you have posted them.  Why?  Because you aren't looking for them to be answered.  You post them because you think it makes you look smart.  What it actually does is make you look desperate and stupid.  Even worse, they are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is evidence that god exists, and as such are off topic.  But then, you knew that already.  "God did it" is not evidence of anything.  It is an unprovable tautology.



Dear orogenicman cc: inevitable, G.T. and amrchaos

Maybe you can help me connect back with M.D. where I thought we'd found a good focus.
In ADDITION to the TAG/Logic approach MD prefers to focus on instead of "science which only verifies
or falsifies" and doesn't prove absolutes, which is why  he wants to focus on logic definitions,
I offered to apply the Science part to research studies on "Spiritual Healing" to demonstrate the
patterns and process that Christianity teaches and symbolizes as consistent with natural science health and healing.

Below is where I THOUGHT MD and I agreed on applying science to spiritual healing:



			
				MD said:
			
		

> Ultimately, my real concern in all this is that you have a solid scientific foundation for spiritual healing, which I believe in. The evidence for it is overwhelming. In order to have such a foundation you must uphold the correct, formal terms and conventions of logic and science. Then and only then do you have a bullet proof, scientific foundation from which to assert a legitimate and compelling case for spiritual healing in terms of inductive probability based on comparative empirical data. But when you start dragging religious biases into the matter, like the notion that the ultimate cause of spiritual healing could not or is not an operation of divine healing, well, there goes your scientific foundation. Leave religion out of it. Stick with the comparative empirical data. Whatever religious convictions, if any, others bring to its purely scientific, evidentiary probability as they apply the recommended principles is fine, just don't arbitrarily precluded this or that potentiality in the name of science. Otherwise, people are perfectly justified to dismiss spiritual healing as religious mumbo jumbo.
> 
> This is what I was getting at here: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 344 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



In these previous posts, we didn't seem to connect and he thought I was pushing either religion instead of science,
or was trying to push junk science instead of absolute logic:

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 344 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 318 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

My question is, why can't we work on both TAG AND Spiritual Healing:
A. TAG team and alignment on Trinity or Terms for God/Jesus
 why can't Justin, M.D. and other TAG theologians, logicians, theists and trinitarians or unitarians focus on the Definitions and Points about God and reach a consensus on THAT level for those who want that to work out

B. Spiritual Healing research team
why can't we have a team of science-minded researchers look into setting up studies on Spiritual Healing for those who do want replicated scientific demonstrations

(Clearly MD wants A but others want B. why is this a conflict, why can't we have both and use whatever helps people?)

C. Mediation and consensus team for political and religious outreach
(and documenting stats to show correlation between "Forgiveness with resolving conflicts
and restoring working relations" versus "unforgiveness with retribution, inability to resolve conflicts, and destroying relations).

If we can organize teams around A, and if we can prove that forgiveness correlates with the "spiritual healing" of mind, body, relations in B, can we also apply this to the larger context of " Proof" in the real world:
using forgiveness therapy, healing and spiritual mediation to cure *collective levels of religious or political conflicts
we see in society* (conflicts over gay marriage, health care and free choice, govt reform and party politics, religious issues),

As above, MD seemed to support a scientific approach to Spiritual Healing.

And I ask others, especially Hollie who is demanding concrete proof to be demonstrated, about substituting Spiritual Healing as a focus that CAN be replicated and researched to show the natural process and pattern.

So O man, if this is a good focus to correct the problems,
what does it take to get Hollie M.D. and others to AGREE to take that approach,
and prove "Spiritual Healing" works naturally and effectively? Instead of arguing back and forth over TAG?

Why continue to argue over TAG if  people DON'T all agree that's the best approach.

Why not look into scientific understanding of Spiritual  Healing,
especially if we all agree that's better?

How do we redirect our focus from endless conflict in circles, to aligning on common goals
and enforcing higher standards on points we actually AGREE on. How do we get to that point?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?





I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.

Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference. 

There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.

Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
_


_


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

mamooth said:


> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.



Have a peanut butter sandwich and go to bed.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
Click to expand...


Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)

Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.

The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.

I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.

http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.

They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?

Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
Click to expand...


I thought the thread went just fine.  The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's  not to be taken seriously.  Just how stupid is that?  You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!  

Scotty, beam them up.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the thread went just fine.  The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's  not to be taken seriously.  Just how stupid is that?  You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!
> 
> Scotty, beam them up.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. to you it seems obvious because you are speaking from that default position.

To someone else whose default position isn't the same as yours,
it looks projected from another angle.

Imagine this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swim-i.jpg

is really this:
http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swimwrongview-i.jpg

If you're not standing where someone else is,
or they're not standing where you are,
you may be looking at the same thing and not see what the other sees.

This is just human, M.D.

I've had friends, I've known 10-20 years, take the same situation and interpret
the reasons it happened and their reactions to "What I said and thought"
totally different than how I experienced it and how I MEANT it. And we were both there and equally involved.
We just didn't experience it or see it or say it the same way.

M.D. having "relative" views does NOT mean we HAVE to "throw out the absolutes"
Even when my friend and I disagreed, I WANTED to resolve the conflict so we could be on the same page. I believed we could have BOTH and INCLUDE where we were both coming from
but meet where we agree and quit imposing anything other than what we both agreed to.

What it's meant to do is to peel away the layers that aren't necessary conditions,
and hold fast to the core points that are in common underneath. Somehow we lose sight of that because we get emotionally caught up in the differences and conflicts on top.

I'm trying to stick to the core we have in common.
But we can't run off on dramatic slams at each other which are distracting.

You seem to have a background in music, and I wonder if you've performed in theatre.

You know what happens if the prima donna types get everyone in the cast caught up their side drama. You can't get the show on the road if the cast implodes on itself.

We're collecting quite a diverse cast of characters to tell the whole story.
We've gotta stick to the story and not get lost in the backstage drama.

That's just good sense.
So what I don't understand is how can anyone think they have THE universal answers
and then cut other people out of those answers. That makes no sense. You know YOU don't respond to being bullied, and know Boss and BW aren't going to submit to that, so why try
to use bullying to put people in their places; you know this only backfires and goes in circles!

If we all had the universal answers, we could work with anyone else and include them in our system. so that's what I want to work toward, how to be that understanding where we see our views do not need to clash; and NO WE DON'T COMPROMISE for relativism either. Just because I translate and allow others to speak Spanish does not mean I  give up or corrupt my English for them, both languages remain intact; this is not about competing or replacing one with the other but using whatever language people normally use to resolve their understanding.

MD if you didn't push your TAG as the end all be all,
maybe BW wouldn't have to tear down the Christian God as non-inclusive
and defend the Almighty as trumping the God-creator in your TAG etc.

If I don't "whip out my penis" to show it's bigger than yours,
then you won't have to whip yours out and bean me over the head with it to show me who's got the bigger prick, etc.
We can keep our weenies in our pants and not go there.

If we know there is one universal God, why don't we make that assumption the default,
that all of us have some connection or perception of the one source we all call God or
the Almighty or the Absolute or the universal laws/knowledge/truth.

why do we make the 'default assumption' that our way is best and the
other ways are less or competing, wrong or conflicting.

Why can't we work out our differences without ranking one person above or below another.
Why can't we approach each other side by side, not for or against?

M.D. what can we do to INCLUDE what each other is saying and trying to clarify?
Do we have to take these things as a threat or conflict? Why?

Does every debate have to turn into some kind of penis pissing war?
Is that just part of the internet ritual, to establish the alpha male pecking order first?
Are we done marking territorial lines now?

I'll be happy if we can talk and share as equals now.
if everyone has established their guidelines, limits, boundaries and space.

if you listed your 7 points, and your 25 questions
Hollie listed her unanswerable questions she wants answered before calling people to account
I listed my three great commandments and three ways to answer using
Christian forgiveness and healing, Buddhist compassion and wisdom, and Constitutional due process and equal protection of interests.

Are we good to go?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the thread went just fine.  The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's  not to be taken seriously.  Just how stupid is that?  You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!
> 
> Scotty, beam them up.
Click to expand...

I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching _M. Pompous Rawling_ and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the thread went just fine.  The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's  not to be taken seriously.  Just how stupid is that?  You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!
> 
> Scotty, beam them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching _M. Pompous Rawling_ and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.
Click to expand...


saddest thing is they don't really disagree over the toy
they just don't want the other person to be in charge of it

but when they are asked to be in charge,
they only want to dictate one side of the Rubik's cube that's convenient for them.

they really do not want to be responsible for the other sides of the cube
that are part of the same puzzle. To them the other sides are wrong.
very messy looking in the process, but there is a solution to the cube.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the thread went just fine.  The fact of the matter is that the silliest people on this thread are not the atheists, but the theists who hold that God exists, yet think the God axiom, which is asserted as the leading proof in the Bible, only the greatest, mostly widely read work of literature in history is . . . a freak of nature, something that's  not to be taken seriously.  Just how stupid is that?  You believe God exists, which means you must hold that God put it into the mind of man, but it doesn't mean anything?!
> 
> Scotty, beam them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching _M. Pompous Rawling_ and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> saddest thing is they don't really disagree over the toy
> they just don't want the other person to be in charge of it
Click to expand...

I saw it very differently. _M. Pompous Rawling_ is the stereotypical, hair-on-fire bible thumping fundie christian / Flat Earth'er while Boss has his own version of gawds in the form of something he calls "spiritual nature".

I was hoping we could have these two fine folks equipped with weapons and ammo and allow them to settle their gawds issues like reasonable adults.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes its me.
> 
> How about you. Got any of your work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have your talent for composition. I still have a decent backup tenor featured on a few Cds. When I was younger I had a solid blues tenor that could slide into falsetto with no sweat, but not quite good enough to ever put me into the biz. I never had that special something. My vocals were good enough, but I know what the real deal sounds like, the real juice. You either got it or you don't. I'm strictly backup vocals, and I can't do falsetto anymore. I'm in my fifties. Lost it. I fronted a band that played Germany most weekends while stationed over there, strictly the middle-of-the-road-club circuit, a cover band. But we got a few gigs here and there opening for real deal, up and comers.
> 
> Anyway, that was for fun and the experience of it. I know music and voice.  I knew my limits too, but I know the real deal when I hear it.  Any truly musical person can and knows the difference.
> 
> There was some guy who went on the X Factor a few years ago, auditioned with one of his own hip hop compositions, totally unique voice and style. You should go for it.  You gotta keep it clean though, upbeat, but not sappy, just smart like what I heard.
> 
> Heck, at your age I could have gotten on the show with my audition. I wouldn't have lasted long, but would have probably gotten through the first two rounds with some luck. You could do much better assuming you have the stage presence. Take your best composition and go for it on X Factor or something like it, obviously, as you don't go up against pure vocalists with your stuff on something like American Idol. They're better singers, but that's not necessarily the whole package.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey M.D. and G.T. maybe we should form a mixed Gospel rock/spoken word band and take it on the road: To Ferguson this month, where they are expecting wild protests that could incite more rioting (if we're not there to scare the fear of God, TAG or Imaginary Bogeymen into them)
> 
> Maybe we should perform selections from this Syllogistic thread as a tragic opera,
> complete with bad standup comic relief, set to four-part rap in disharmony.
> And chase everyone out of town who doesn't want to stick around and hear it.
> 
> The Feds and National Guard might be upset they came out there for nothing.
> But the town would be emptied out inside of the first ten minutes, and the residents might welcome us as heroes.
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches.  They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> They say that a family that plays together stays together. What say you?
> 
> Are we too old to form a garage band? I'm 48 and wanted to get that done on my to-do bucket list before I turn 50. Where do I audition or is this a toy-boy band only?
Click to expand...


I kinda liked your Civil Rap... then again, I am kinda weird.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Hi M.D. to you it seems obvious because you are speaking from that default position.
> 
> To someone else whose default position isn't the same as yours,
> it looks projected from another angle.
> 
> Imagine this:
> http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swim-i.jpg
> 
> is really this:
> http://julianbeever.net/images/phocagallery/gallery/swimwrongview-i.jpg
> 
> If you're not standing where someone else is,
> or they're not standing where you are,
> you may be looking at the same thing and not see what the other sees.
> 
> This is just human, M.D.



Hmm.  Well, imagine this*:*  you're a finite mind thinking you could exist if God the Creator doesn't exist.  How does that work?

Yeah.  See.  The problem is not a matter of projection.  The problem is the blindness of one who has been turned over to a reprobate mind by God.  The problem is spiritual.


----------



## Boss

Hollie said:


> I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching _M. Pompous Rawling_ and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.



I can't actually hurl my God since it's spiritual energy. If I could, I'd hurl it at you and not MD. I also haven't been fighting MD, contrary to what some may think. I'm simply the type of person who is going to stand up for what I believe and defend my viewpoint. When someone attacks me, I tend to attack them back. If someone lies about things I've said, I am going to set the record straight. If someone is being a moron, I am going to call them a moron. I know I can come across as being angry or mad because I have a compelling command of the written word and can sound that way, but I assure you, I am not upset and it's not personal. I enjoy the heck out of sharing my views here and enlightening the unenlightened. We can't all be trolls like you Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually found the thread to be a bit of comedy gold watching _M. Pompous Rawling_ and Boss hurl their respective gawds at each other. It was like watching a pair of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't actually hurl my God since it's spiritual energy. If I could, I'd hurl it at you and not MD. I also haven't been fighting MD, contrary to what some may think. I'm simply the type of person who is going to stand up for what I believe and defend my viewpoint. When someone attacks me, I tend to attack them back. If someone lies about things I've said, I am going to set the record straight. If someone is being a moron, I am going to call them a moron. I know I can come across as being angry or mad because I have a compelling command of the written word and can sound that way, but I assure you, I am not upset and it's not personal. I enjoy the heck out of sharing my views here and enlightening the unenlightened. We can't all be trolls like you Hollie.
Click to expand...

I see you're angry. That's ok. Your self-assessed "compelling command of the written word" is best left to being self-professed because you won't get any argument about that from yourself.


----------



## Inevitable

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now 2 + 2 = 15?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging that hole, son.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now 2 + 2 = 15?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging that hole, son.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders."
> 
> He also appears in a number of "People of Walmart"' YouTube videos.
> 
> He's the "Marlboro Man" of Jehovah's Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still fun for you to mess with this clown? Clearly he is a twelve year old that pays way more attention in Sunday school than in science class. There is a point out just becomes silly don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, and I suspect that any response to his pompous blustering just encourages his feverish cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people should only be mocked seeing as their is no possibility to have any kind of discussion with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now 2 + 2 = 15?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging that hole, son.
Click to expand...

His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.


----------



## Inevitable

emilynghiem said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?
> 
> talk about personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
> He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
> as is anyone else.
> 
> I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
> being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
> AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
> ie. less than human, so what do you call that?
> 
> The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
> is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.
> 
> Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
> It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."
> 
> How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
> when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.
> 
> Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
> Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.
> 
> Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
> Let's try to make this come out right.
> 
> I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
> Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

"When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-

He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.

Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.

Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are praying, you are not living.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
> ^ ??? ^
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
> maybe that's true for some people,
> but others can talk and think at the same time.
> 
> I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
> so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.
> 
> Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
> or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
> sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."
> 
> But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
> For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.
> 
> How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?
> 
> How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
> or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
> with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
> through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
> of spiritual recovery and/or growth.
> 
> How can you assume that none of that is living?
> They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?
> 
> If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
> If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?
> 
> Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
> very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
> the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.
> 
> I question if you even know what you are talking about?
> *Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
> and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.*
> 
> Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
> of things you have no knowledge of?
> 
> ??? X ???
> This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
> as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?
> 
> Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
Click to expand...



I would guess because the fallacy of the bible prevents me from "reading" that book but that there is no instance where Jesus is in a state of prayer -

the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.

you are chasing you tail Emily, not life.

.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal?  You?  Bhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would say that you've gone insane, but that would be an insult to insane people everywhere.  No sir, I will not shut up.  That you actually believe you have won some kind of debate here is pathetic, to say the least.  Grow up already.
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors.  And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain.  I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you say there were millions of different _*kinds*_ earlier?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  I remember now.  You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.
> 
> Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry*:*  only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!
> 
> Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number*:*  you can't even get that right.  Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say?  Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions!  Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.
> 
> Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.
> 
> Note that #18 is a new question below.
Click to expand...


Idiot.  Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors.  I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.


----------



## orogenicman

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
> He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
> as is anyone else.
> 
> I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
> being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
> AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
> ie. less than human, so what do you call that?
> 
> The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
> is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.
> 
> Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
> It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."
> 
> How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
> when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.
> 
> Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
> Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.
> 
> Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
> Let's try to make this come out right.
> 
> I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
> Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.
Click to expand...


Assclown would be a step up for MD.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've found that people such as _M. Pompous Rawling_ who have a need to constantly declare themselves the winner is a defensive reaction to their arguments being thoroughly run off the rails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors.  And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain.  I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you say there were millions of different _*kinds*_ earlier?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  I remember now.  You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.
> 
> Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry*:*  only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!
> 
> Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number*:*  you can't even get that right.  Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say?  Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions!  Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.
> 
> Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.
> 
> Note that #18 is a new question below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot.  Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors.  I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.
Click to expand...


Liar.  That's exactly what you implied.  Have some milk and cookies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Assclown would be a step up for MD.



It would be a step down for you.  I only had you at _lying idiot _or fool  _Ass clown_ implies _utter retard_.  But then maybe you're right.  Perhaps _ass clown_ is just the ticket for you, as anyone can see that applying the term _ass clown_ to my obvious brilliance is . . . well . . .  utterly retarded.


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had an argument?  News to me.  All I saw was a lot of word salad followed by his typical insults.  Oh, that argument.  If that is all he can win, he can have it.  Where do these people come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman: There's millions of different kinds of biological precursors in space, I tell you! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Catastrophic global warming! Spaghetti monster abiogenesis is true, I tell ya!  I got blisters on my fingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there isn't because there aren't millions of different kinds of biological precursors.  And the only blisters I see are the ones rotting your brain.  I can,t do anything for you, but you do have my sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why did you say there were millions of different _*kinds*_ earlier?
> 
> Oh, that's right!  I remember now.  You were lying like a snake in the grass, implying that I was saying something I couldn't have possibly meant, pretending to understand something you don't, and like all liars only made yourself look like an ass.
> 
> Given that there are only four major groups of organic compounds in biology, and that nature is known to produce only five of the foundationally discrete monomers/precursors of life's compounds via the self-ordering properties of chemistry*:*  only a dope or a liar would have failed to understand that "a relatively paltry number of biological molecules" found in space debris refers to the number of KINDS, not the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, combined with the countless number of organic compounds, given the fact of the countless number of space debris carrying such molecules in this vast universe!
> 
> Oh, and by the way, since you were really talking about the sheer number*:*  you can't even get that right.  Millions in terms of the sheer number of the same KINDS over and over again, did you say?  Given that a single meteorite might contain that many alone, try trillions upon trillions upon trillions!  Only God knows the count on that score, you ignoramus.
> 
> Oh, and that reminds me to add another question to the 24.
> 
> Note that #18 is a new question below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot.  Nowhere in this conversation or any other did I say that there were millions of different biological precursors.  I'd say that you've lost your mind, but it is clear that you've never had one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  That's exactly what you implied.  Have some milk and cookies.
Click to expand...


Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement.  You can't because I never made it.  You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act.  Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.



He clearly has no proof!  He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!


*Inevitable the Drama Queen 

Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle
_
Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me._ Giggle _I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty?_ Giggle _I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff._ Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too._ Giggle
_
Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?_ Giggle_

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink_. Giggle _And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really._ Giggle _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle _I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all._ Giggle _I'm so cute and funny that way.

Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? 
*
*The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*


----------



## orogenicman

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly has no proof!  He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_
> 
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle
> _
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me._ Giggle _I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty?_ Giggle _I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff._ Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too._ Giggle
> _
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?_ Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink_. Giggle _And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really._ Giggle _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle _I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all._ Giggle _I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *[URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.[/QUOTE']http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/*[/URL]*.*
Click to expand...


There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
—Proverbs 6:16–19

You shall not spread a false report.
— Exodus 23:1-2


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement.  You can't because I never made it.  You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act.  Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.




Look, ass clown, I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact!  No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe.  Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are _not_ the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life.  Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory.  Nothing!  Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization.  Goop.  Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential  ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop.  And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells.  Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope!  Your magic doesn't work.  Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist.  They don't agree with my conclusion, of course.  They're true believers.  They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists.  We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence.  But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the  research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence.  That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.

Check?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assclown would be a step up for MD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a step down for you.  I only had you at _lying idiot _or fool  _Ass clown_ implies _utter retard_.  But then maybe you're right.  Perhaps _ass clown_ is just the ticket for you, as anyone can see that applying the term _ass clown_ to my obvious brilliance is . . . well . . .  utterly retarded.
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, assclown, link to the post where I made such a statement.  You can't because I never made it.  You're the liar, and it's not the first time someone has caught you in the act.  Do us all a favor, sonny and give the keyboard back to your mommy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, ass clown, I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact!  No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward it.
> 
> Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in a weak, nonspecific bond with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to get have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe.  Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base naturally occur in living cells and outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are _not_ the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life.  Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.
> 
> This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory.  Nothing!  Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization.  Goop.  Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential  ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop.  And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells.  Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.
> 
> Nope!  Your magic doesn't work.  Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.  Intelligence.
> 
> That's what we're proving today.
> 
> These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist.  They don't agree with my conclusion, of course.  They're true believers.  They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists.  We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence.  But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the  research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.
> 
> I'm an amateur biologist, mostly self-taught, but that article is solid.
> 
> I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.
> 
> What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?
> 
> You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.
> 
> Therefore, abiogenesis?
> 
> This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature. Intelligence.
> 
> That's what we're proving today.
> 
> Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.
> 
> Check?
Click to expand...


You certainly are an amateur. That's why you should best avoid discussions regarding science principles where your bumbling incompetence becomes so obvious.


Check?


----------



## Hollie

*The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *drenched with pointless _Rawling'isms_ that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*, *proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

orogenicman said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly has no proof!  He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof!   He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof! He clearly has no proof!
> 
> 
> *Inevitable the Drama Queen
> 
> Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, _God_, you know, _God_. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_
> 
> I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_
> 
> And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle
> _
> Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me._ Giggle _I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.
> 
> And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty?_ Giggle _I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff._ Giggle _Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too._ Giggle
> _
> Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God?_ Giggle_
> 
> I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink_. Giggle _And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really._ Giggle _And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle _I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all._ Giggle _I'm so cute and funny that way.
> 
> Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> *
> *The Seven Things™ *that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*:* *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
Click to expand...


You're not my brothers, and you're not friends of God.  The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand.  They have not been refuted by anyone.  They cannot be refuted.

"I AM!" declares the Lord in the minds of mankind and in the things that were created beyond them.

Inevitable is a liar and a fool.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *drenched with pointless _Rawling'isms_ that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*, *proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.



You are a liar.   The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand. They have not been refuted by anyone. They cannot be refuted.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *drenched with pointless _Rawling'isms_ that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*, *proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.   The axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin stand. They have not been refuted by anyone. They cannot be refuted.
Click to expand...

There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Inevitable said:


> His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.



"His reply is stupid.  Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#!  Blah blah blah."

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? 

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.




Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."



*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? 

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.*
Click to expand...

*The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *drenched with pointless _Rawling'isms_ that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*, *proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no axioms regarding God's existence and the other objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah. @#$$%^$#%#! Blah blah blah."
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?
> 
> The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.*
Click to expand...

*The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?



No that would be the five simple things you guys agreed with.  The sixth thing was added, which you dummies are pretending not to understand and the seventh thing is merely a summary of the six.


So actually it goes, "yeah, we agree with the five, oh, but, wait, we don't like the sixth thing . . . though of course we know it's true . . . and that puts us down for all seven."

See how that works when we tell the truth?


*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *

*The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle):**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*orogenicman*, you asked your question and it was answered.  Now answer these questions. . . .


*The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus  

1.* Among the amino acids of life, what are the six durables?

*2.* What is the actual end product in the organic synthesis of amino acids under the conditions of a reducing or semi-reducing atmosphere in nature?

*3.* What abiogenetic hypothesis was falsified by the Miller-Urey experiments?

*4.* What are the various challenges to the synthesis of cytosine under natural conditions?

*5.* What is the actual end product of the synthesis of cytosine in nature?

*6.* What is the one indispensable nucleobase in replication?

*7.* What is the chirality of biological amino acids?

*8.* What is the chirality of biological nucleic acids?

*9.* What is the chirality of biological sugars?

*10.* What is the chirality of biological phosphates?

*11.* What is the chiral mixture of organic molecules as they occur in nature outside living cells?

*12.* What is the single most unstable organic monomer/polymer outside living cells?

*13.* Of what organic polymer are cellular membranes composed?

*14.* What is the indispensable organic monomer for the synthesis of nucleotides?

*15.* In a nutshell, without looking it up, given *the authority of your nine years of collegiate-level basket weaving*, what are the nuts and bolts of the RNA-World model?

*16.* Why has the RNA-World hypothesis been largely abandoned?

*17.* What are the two types of biological sugars that must be segregated in order to prevent the disruption of RNA synthesis in living cells?

*18.* What are the four major groups of organic compounds in biological systems?

*19.* What are the five basic monomers/precursors for the four major organic compounds of life that nature is known to produce via the self-ordering properties of chemistry?

*20.* What do the pyrimidines need in order to polymerize?
*
21.* What would have been the eight steps/stages of prebiotic-to-biochemical evolution via the purely natural conditions and processes of an abiogenetic origin for life?

*22.* At what level of nucleotide polymers (polynucleotides) does the command-organizational information for organic polymerization reside?

*23.* In microbiological engineering, what kind of RNA production system produces self-replicating strands of RNA?

*24.* In microbiological engineering, what is the difference between recombinant mutation and transmutation?

*25.* Why are you so full of shiticus _Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus_?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *have been so thoroughly discredited, what would you choose to continuing promoting that fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No that would be the five simple things you guys agreed with.  The sixth thing was added, which you dummies are pretending not to understand and the seventh thing is merely a summary of the six.
> 
> 
> So actually it goes, "yeah, we agree with the five, oh, but, wait, we don't like the sixth thing . . . though of course we know it's true . . . and that puts us down for all seven."
> 
> See how that works when we tell the truth?
> 
> 
> *Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? *
> 
> *The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle):**http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/**.*
Click to expand...

*
Even someone with your limitations has to admit to the comedy gold of your Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™. 

After you suffered such a humiliating drubbing with the false and pointless Five Fraudulent Things™, you were forced to immediately trash that and replace it with the bigger disaster of the Seven Fraudulent Things™.


The Five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ *drenched with pointless _Rawling'isms_ that are demonstrably false for all nonsensical claims regarding magic and supernaturalism the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle)*, *proposed by hyper-religious crackpots.


----------



## Hollie

10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist

10 questions for the hyper- religious.


1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 

2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 

3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 

4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 

5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 

6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 

7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 

8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 

9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 

10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist


----------



## Justin Davis

Inevitable said:


> His reply was utterly stupid. It had nothing to do with my post. Like I said mock these idiots. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who is lacking the qualifying adjective.



The sarcasm just goes over your head, Ken doll.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
*

I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits,
or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are _not_ the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
> *
> 
> I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article*:* Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism
> 
> For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under controlled, simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or meteoric-calcified states, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.
> 
> Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in meteoric-calcified forms or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are _not_ the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.
> 
> This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.
> 
> Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.
> 
> Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.
> 
> These are the things I'm thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.
> 
> I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.
> 
> I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.
> 
> What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?
> 
> You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.
> 
> Therefore, abiogenesis?
> 
> This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.
> 
> Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.
> 
> Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented.
> 
> Check?


*Fundie Zealot and The Magical Mystery Tour of Religious Extremism.*

Intelligence. That's what you're sorely lacking in favor of your pointless appeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *Fundie Zealot and The Magical Mystery Tour of Religious Extremism.*
> 
> Intelligence. That's what you're sorely lacking in favor of your pointless appeals to magic and supernaturalism.





*Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis*

I was talking about the number of different kinds of biological precursors that occur in nature outside living cells earlier, which are in fact a relatively paltry number relative to the total number required for life. Fact! No one but an ignoramus would have failed to understand what I was talking about especially given the obvious authority of my painstakingly researched and annotated article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

For example, 17 of the 20 amino acids of life have been synthesized under laboratory conditions, but only a small handful of these actually occur in nature or might have been synthesized in plausibly viable concentrations in nature in terms of the processes of abiogenesis. Four of the five primary nucleobases naturally occur in nature (adenine, guanine, thymine and uracil), albeit, as synthesized in space. The latter can also be synthesized under pristine laboratory conditions or even under the controlled simulations of semi-natural conditions. Cytosine can be synthesized under laboratory conditions too. But we don't have the slightest clue, really, what any of this means relative to the terrestrial-bound, prebiotic chemistry of the primordial world for any of these monomers. Left on their own outside living cells or as calcified, meteoric deposits, they deanimate or react with nonbiotic organic compounds, away from the formulations of life, not toward them.

Cytosine would not have been available to the processes of prebiotic chemistry in nature, certainly not in any viable concentrations as its synthesis in nature is astronomically implausible. Also, cytosine spontaneously deaminates beyond the protective membranes of cells. Adenine is also highly unstable outside living cells. It can only maintain its composition in space or, under the atmospheric conditions of Earth, in calcified, meteoric deposits,
or in weak, nonspecific bonds with uracil or thymine. Guanine, the most stable, is definitely synthesized in space, while thymine and its alternate counterpart uracil are also relatively stable and might have naturally formed on Earth, albeit, under reducing or semi-reducing atmospheric conditions and in some fashion shielded from destructive UV light long enough for them to have gotten into the oceans. That's a big maybe. Also, hypoxanthine, a purine derivative, and xanthine, a purine base, naturally occur outside living cells, apparently, as synthesized in space. All of these naturally occurring biological molecules are infrastructural monomers in racemic mixtures, which are useless to life, and tend toward nonbiotic, cross-contaminant reactions outside living cells. They are _not_ the homochiral mixtures of life, let alone the informational, complex-structure-forming polymers of life. Life can't exist without the latter, yet nature can't get beyond the paltry collection of the former in order to get to the latter on its own . . . for staggeringly complex reasons you know nothing about.

This is true even if all of the other indispensable monomers that are necessary for the formation of the polymers could have maintained their compositions via strictly natural means, even if they were all put together in a homchiral stew with all the cross-contaminant chemicals of nature removed . . . just like we've tried over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the laboratory. Nothing! Nature will not take the monomers and form the polymers of life, let alone the informational structures of life above the level of polymerization. Goop. Even in a pristine mixture with all the essential ingredients in a pristine, cell-like environment, not arranged by nature at all, but by intelligence, we get . . . goop. And, of course, all of the other monomers have to be harvested from living cells, because they don't occur or can't hold their compositions in nature outside living cells. Even when we cheat for nature, give it an artificial helping hand, it can't do it.

Nope! Your magic doesn't work. Only when we step in and artificially front load the process, design replicating platforms above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of chemistry based on the preexistent blueprint of biology do we get a primitive, self-replicating RNA system . . . and, of course, that's not life either.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

These are the things I was thinking about and alluding to, and, then, suddenly, out of nowhere, you're talking about a million or so organic molecules in a comet as if you were sharing something amazing, unusual, surprising, unexpected, as if—Eureka!—abiogenesis is true, as if this mundane fact had anything to do with what I was thinking about or alluding to. In that you implied something that is not true . . . about the prospects for abiogenesis and about the quality of my article, which was vetted, by the way, in the editorial process by a microbiologist and an abiogeneticist. They don't agree with my conclusion, of course. They're true believers. They hold that in spite of the obvious problems that it all came together somehow, but, then, they're metaphysical materialists, ontological naturalists. We're here, so it must have happened without intelligence. But they did not fault the presentation of the facts or the presentation of the research, though they did tighten up a few things and recommended a few key revisions with additional information and clarifications that improved me and the piece.

I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.

I called you on your phony claptrap for the know-nothing grab ass that you are.

What did you say? Read your citation and weep? You mean that article on something I was already aware of as one who stays current on the pertinent science, the true significance of which I explained to you?

You don't have the first clue. Of course life was composed from the prebiotic, organic precursors, their polymerizations and other organic compounds in the universe.

Therefore, abiogenesis?

This stuff does not come together via any purely natural processes above the self-ordering, infrastructural-level of mere chemistry to form life. God took the raw materials, organized them above the infrastructural level and formed life. God engineered life directly, not mere nature.

Intelligence. That's what we're proving today.

Go find your mommy, ask her to read my article to you, and weep. I don't expect you to agree with the theological bias of the article or with the conclusions, but don't tell me that the scientific facts of the matter and the research thereof are not objectively and accurately presented in the article.

Check?


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you are praying, you are not living.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: "if you are praying, you are not living."
> ^ ??? ^
> 
> Dear BreezeWood:
> This is like saying if you are talking you are not thinking.
> maybe that's true for some people,
> but others can talk and think at the same time.
> 
> I have a friend whose calling in life IS to pray for healing for others,
> so that IS her gift in life, l like how some people play music as their gift.
> 
> Now BreezeWood you could say that if a golf player is busy practicing or playing on the field,
> or a Cellist is in rehearsal or in the middle of a performance on stage,
> sure, those people are not out with their family and friends "living their lives."
> 
> But their calling as musicians IS part of their life.
> For some it is their HIGHER calling and the love of their life.
> 
> How can you say that isn't living. That way of sharing isn't part of their PURPOSE in life?
> 
> How can you assume, without ever meeting my friend,
> or other spiritual healing prayer teachers and practitioners who help people
> with HEALING that saves their minds, their lives, their relations health and sanity
> through PRAYER for forgiveness and healing and counseling them through their process
> of spiritual recovery and/or growth.
> 
> How can you assume that none of that is living?
> They are SAVING lives, do you have any concept of that gift?
> 
> If not, why are you stating so as if it is FACT?
> If you are Buddhist, where is this assumption of absolute knowledge of truth coming from?
> 
> Seems you are making wild leaps in logic and assumptions,
> very attached to your opinion so much that you exclude and override
> the lives and spiritual callings of other people who SHARE THE GIFT OF LIFE through prayer.
> 
> I question if you even know what you are talking about?
> *Where did you get that prayer was not a part of life
> and completely disregard the use of prayer that has SAVED lives.*
> 
> Why did you leave this out unless you were ignorant and making assumptions
> of things you have no knowledge of?
> 
> ??? X ???
> This does not sound like the BreezeWood I know to be questioning the absolutes
> as missing the bigger picture, for you to do the same thing is very strange, are you sure?
> 
> Am I misunderstanding what you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would guess because the fallacy of the bible prevents me from "reading" that book but that there is no instance where Jesus is in a state of prayer -
> 
> the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.
> 
> you are chasing you tail Emily, not life.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


????

My goodness, BreezeWood!

Jesus prayed to prepare himself, to reconcile his will with God's will.

What are you TALKING about that Jesus never prayed?
Do you mean scientific proof? No, nobody was there to measure his brain to prove it was in such a state.

But c'mon BreezeWood
the whole argument that Jesus is not God
is that he was praying to God and could not be praying to himself.

BreezeWood: if you mean a scientific proof,
then Larry Dossey and Dale Matthews and others have researched prayer to show
it involves the same process in the brain.

Atheists, :Buddhists in meditation, Christians praying,
the brain goes into the same higher state.

This research has UPSET fundamental Christians
but Dossey and  Matthews are both Christians
and they find it teaches that the spirit is UNIVERSAL.

The Book "Prayer is Good Medicine" describes some of the
research and findings.

BreezeWood you must mean something else: Do you mean the
"Repetitive" chants and prayers that are rituals that distract the brain?

What do you mean by prayer?

I have friends who have cast out demons and healed people of
SATANIC curses by prayer.

One of my friends regained control of his mind from demonic rages
after my friend Olivia walked him through deep forgiveness prayer
to heal of terrible wounds, pains, attachments and rages from past abuse.

Are you saying that process of prayer ISN'T REAL OR MEANINGFUL
When the ONLY reason my friend is still alive is he quit all that self-destruction
after receiving the healing prayer?

We can't be talking about the same thing, BreezeWood, or this makes no sense.

You are the first person telling me that prayer isn't real,
so you must mean something else, like the false ritualistic chanting or false faith commands or something unreal.

I don't understand how you can be dismissing something
you haven't even studied. That does not sound like you?


----------



## emilynghiem

orogenicman said:


> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2



Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.

the pot calling the kettle black
he who accuses, self accuses.

I find the people who are the least at fault,
also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.

The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.

All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.

The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits. 
So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.

Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.

He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.

I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.

He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.

M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.


----------



## emilynghiem

Inevitable said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
> Sorry to jump in and out of here.
> 
> Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?
> 
> 1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
> that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
> consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
> MEANS by using logic to prove things.
> 
> He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
> (The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
> either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
> that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
> MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)
> 
> So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.
> 
> 2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
> JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
> and that's enough to deal with.
> 
> Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.
> 
> Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
> as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.
> 
> JD and MD aren't focused on that part.
> 
> So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
> that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.
> 
> I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
> which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
> anything outside that system they are already outside of.
> 
> They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.
> 
> GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
> if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.
> 
> M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
> and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
> or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.
> 
> But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
> the TAG approach.
> 
> Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
> but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
> which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.
> 
> I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
> and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
> to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
> and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
> and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
> nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.
> 
> Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
> amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
> valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.
> 
> it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
> independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
> addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
> but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
> that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.
> 
> the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
> the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
> that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.
> 
> As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
> the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
> and that's why we're here.
> 
> I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
> and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
> and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.
> 
> I think the spiritual healing will help with
> a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
> which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
> b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
> from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
> as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
> c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
> explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
> ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to
> 
> so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
> science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
> MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.
> 
> The three parts I would focus on
> 1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
> (and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)
> 
> 2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
> the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
> in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so
> 
> 3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
> that prevent or block people's faith that people of
> various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
> and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
> same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
> establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
> so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
> does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
> that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
> so fine, let's put that on the list.
> 
> Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
> when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.
> 
> People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
> with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
> maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
> can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
> by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
> healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
> and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
> ills to solve real world problems as a team.
> 
> thanks inevitable
> 
> I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
> that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
> even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
> or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.
> 
> It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
> carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
> to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
> use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
> you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
> He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
> as is anyone else.
> 
> I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
> being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
> AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
> ie. less than human, so what do you call that?
> 
> The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
> is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.
> 
> Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
> It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."
> 
> How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
> when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.
> 
> Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
> Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.
> 
> Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
> Let's try to make this come out right.
> 
> I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
> Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.
Click to expand...


I think the world of you.

I think you are right, that M.D. is not in the right element or context here and his ways/purpose are going to waste.

I think he needs to fight it out in the Bullring with Bullheaded people who need to be slapped around with
their own theology. he said he understands the mentality of fundamentalists, so maybe that's his audience.

He's sparring with the wrong people here.
And has to create problems where they are none.

I can try to redirect him to people who need this approach to get on the same page.
If no one here relates to that, we need to focus on something with meaning and substance to us.

Let him go fight his battles on the battlefield, instead of creating one here.
Thanks, Inevitable
I see you are right, and there is a better solution that makes the most of M.D. talents instead of wasting them on us!


----------



## Muslim75

I am speaking from the Islamic perspective.
The proof that God exists is His act. Like footprints indicate a walker, His act indicates His existence. The rain that comes from the sky, the constellations of the Zodiac and the vast pathways above you in the sky point to the existence of a unique Almighty God.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> the Triumph of Good over Evil can not be prayed into existence.
> .



^ P.S. BreezeWood
the prayer to receive "forgiveness and healing"
opens the door for Good will to enter and overcome ill will ^

I think it would benefit your knowledge to read the sections in the
book "Healing" by Francis MacNutt that explain the difference
between regular prayer/meditation and the special type of
prayer for deliverance and exorcism.

This process has saved lives, BreezeWood

My friend Olivia can attest to many lives saved by healing prayer
her number 713-829-0899 is posted on freespiritualhealing Resources for Healing and Forgiveness Therapy
You can also contact two other witnesses and practitioners
who have helped saved many people's lives, sanity, relations and health through
healing prayer for forgiveness in order to restore the natural healing process:
Christian Healing Ministries - Christian Healing Ministries
Healing Is Yours

BreezeWood if you don't believe spiritual healing is real and prayer for forgiveness
opens the door to releasing and restoring that natural process, you are missing out.

I offered to set up a 10 million dollar bet this can be demonstrated/proven by science.

if you REALLY don't believe there is any truth to this, you can cough up the 10 million.
I was going to divide it in teams, to each take sides and then conduct the studies.

But BreezeWood if you are SO ABSOLUTELY SURE there is nothing real about prayer,
heck, I can make the bet directly with you. I've never met another person who ever
said this, not a Buddhist or Christian. There are atheists who mock prayer but
most will accept it at least has a placebo effect and believe the scientific studies
that show a correlation with better health. For you to reject the SCIENCE astounds me.

BreezeWood are you SURE? Are you willing to bet 10 million on it that the science
will not prove there is a natural process going on with praying for forgiveness and spiritual healing
that affects mind, body and even relations with others in a positive way? Really? I am shocked.

But hey, if you are SO SURE, let me know if you are willing to go public and take the other side
of the 10 million dollar bet. I wanted to raise 10 million for a historic Vet housing project that
would involve spiritual healing as part of the therapy. How can you be so sure prayer has no real effect?

* My friend Olivia has over 35 years of healing practice through prayer, all voluntary and free
* Francis MacNutt wrote his book in 1974 and has an active teaching ministry with no complaints of fraud or abuse,
all free, all to help people with healing and teaching and training in teams to help others with healing prayer
* Phillip Goldfedder changed his neurosurgery practice to focus on healing prayer because he found it more effective

So all these people are fakes? How can you explain all the people whose lives, sanity, minds health, family
and relations were SAVED by healing through prayer for forgiveness?

Astounding, BreezeWood. I can believe all these healing stories, because of friends who were saved from suffering by it, 
but I cannot believe your attitude can be so closeminded and absolute when this runs against the very values you preach!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I apologize for not considering how severely logic would upset you.
> 
> We here all need to be more sensitive to MD's special needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?
> 
> See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.
> 
> This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.
> 
> Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.
> 
> I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the feral animal, who talked _at_ a person who was talking _to_ you.  You're the one who treated a person with whom you disagree like an object.  You're the one talking sick, disgusting crap about getting into your pants.  You're the one who came on this thread making outlandish, rationally and empirically false claims, with no regard whatsoever for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Inevitable is not a feral animal.
> He is trying to make sense of what is going on here,
> as is anyone else.
> 
> I think we all feel the sense of "talking past each other"
> being talked AT and, M.D. Rawlings, you are even talking
> AT or AROUND Inevitable as if he is a quote "animal"
> ie. less than human, so what do you call that?
> 
> The flipside of trying to be objective and see the bigger picture,
> is we might come across as detached and disconnected in the process.
> 
> Is THIS what you are reading as talking AT someone like an object?
> It appears you do this too, in the name of trying to be "objective."
> 
> How can you criticize your neighbor for what you are doing to,
> when your intentions are to establish truth and sort it out.
> 
> Why can't you see Inevitable and others are struggling to do the same.
> Boss is frustrated, BreezeWood has little hope or faith we can get anywhere this way.
> 
> Do you want to prove opponents wrong or right?
> Let's try to make this come out right.
> 
> I think you, Inevitable and others have a GIFT of remaining more objective and "detached."
> Let's not make something negative out of it, when we could use it to our advantage.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "When the debate is lost slander becomes the weapon of the loser." -Socrates-
> 
> He clearly has no proof, he is a bit if a sycophant, and he has not only list the debate but made himself appear to be an assclown.
> 
> Nobody should talk to this assclown, you aren't going to get anywhere. It would be like convincing a a rabbit to be friends with a Fox.
> 
> Emily, you are a wonderful poster and a pleasant person. But certain things are lost causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the world of you.
> 
> I think you are right, that M.D. is not in the right element or context here and his ways/purpose are going to waste.
> 
> I think he needs to fight it out in the Bullring with Bullheaded people who need to be slapped around with
> their own theology. he said he understands the mentality of fundamentalists, so maybe that's his audience.
> 
> He's sparring with the wrong people here.
> And has to create problems where they are none.
> 
> I can try to redirect him to people who need this approach to get on the same page.
> If no one here relates to that, we need to focus on something with meaning and substance to us.
> 
> Let him go fight his battles on the battlefield, instead of creating one here.
> Thanks, Inevitable
> I see you are right, and there is a better solution that makes the most of M.D. talents instead of wasting them on us!
Click to expand...



LOL!  Inevitable is a ninny.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
Click to expand...


orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.


*The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*


The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing) 
______________________

*Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing! 


*Rawlings:
*
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
* Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities! 


* 
QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves. 
* 

Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God. 
* 

BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that? 
* 

Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
* 

Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question! 
* 

Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
* 

Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you! 
* 

Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you! 
* 

GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap. 
* 

Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
* 
GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@! 
* 

Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer. 
* 

Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics. 
* 

Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said. 


* 
orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!* 


Emily: *Can't we all just get along?* 


Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!* 


Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
* 

Rawlings: *You got that right.
* 

All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!* 


Rawlings: *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!


*The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man*


The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .

The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines *sans any justification* that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he _can't_ do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.

Straw man!

The *justified* exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.

In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.

The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.

It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.

That would be the construct of USMB member *Boss, *as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (_the law of identity_, _the law of contradiction_ and _the law of the excluded middle_*: *comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!

With _his_ god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.

The burden of proof is on the _atheist_ antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true*:
*

*1. *He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are _not_ universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.

*2.* He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.

(At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)

*3.* He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is _not_ the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance _of_ and the universal ground _for_ the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, _not_ the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, _not_ the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.

It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . _mutable_ nature.

_Crickets chirping_

The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.

Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.

Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​

But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.
_ 
Hocus Pocus.
_
What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else*:* the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.

That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!

In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question*:* especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.

So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.

All the antagonist is really saying is *God **≠** God, *because if *God = God, *then* God **≠** God. *Or more to the point, *divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything* . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false*:* a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.

Hence, *divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature*.

The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.

The law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. *God = God. *By definition,* God = Perfection.* God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.


Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true*:
*
*1.* God exists!

*2.* God is the Principle of Identity!

*3.* The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​
The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.

The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that*:* logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. *For any given A: A = A. *They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!
> 
> 
> *The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man*
> 
> 
> The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .
> 
> The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines *sans any justification* that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he _can't_ do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.
> 
> Straw man!
> 
> The *justified* exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.
> 
> In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.
> 
> The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.
> 
> It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.
> 
> That would be the construct of USMB member *Boss, *as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (_the law of identity_, _the law of contradiction_ and _the law of the excluded middle_*: *comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!
> 
> With _his_ god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the _atheist_ antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true*:
> *
> 
> *1. *He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are _not_ universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.
> 
> *2.* He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.
> 
> (At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)
> 
> *3.* He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is _not_ the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance _of_ and the universal ground _for_ the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, _not_ the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, _not_ the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.
> 
> It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . _mutable_ nature.
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.
> 
> Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.
> 
> Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​
> 
> But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.
> _
> Hocus Pocus.
> _
> What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else*:* the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.
> 
> That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!
> 
> In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question*:* especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.
> 
> So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.
> 
> All the antagonist is really saying is *God **≠** God, *because if *God = God, *then* God **≠** God. *Or more to the point, *divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything* . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false*:* a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.
> 
> Hence, *divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature*.
> 
> The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.
> 
> The law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. *God = God. *By definition,* God = Perfection.* God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.
> 
> 
> Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true*:
> *
> *1.* God exists!
> 
> *2.* God is the Principle of Identity!
> 
> *3.* The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​
> The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.
> 
> The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that*:* logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. *For any given A: A = A. *They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.
> 
> The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.


This is what, the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
Click to expand...


*The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. *One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.  *


Relativists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now here's something really weird from the other thread. An atheist directly raised the very problem I was hinting at with Boss' craziness!
> 
> 
> *The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man*
> 
> 
> The Omnipotence Paradox has been overthrown since time immemorial. Only the sophomoric think it to be of any significance at all. I just wanted you to emphatically state your position. . . .
> 
> The Omnipotence Paradox is utter nonsense, as it arbitrarily defines *sans any justification* that divine omnipotence must necessarily mean that God can do anything at all . . . except, of course, what he _can't_ do. Hence, supposedly, since God can't do just anything at all, divine omnipotence is paradoxical.
> 
> Straw man!
> 
> The *justified* exception to this rule is self-evident and proves that a rock too big for God to move could never exist in the first place. The paradoxical absurdity is the conjecture regarding the existence of such a rock, not the existence of divine omnipotence proper.
> 
> In actuality, it's the antagonist's paradox . . . not necessarily the theist's problem at all. For example, it's neither a problem in the face of the absolute laws of thought objectively apparent to all nor a problem for the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Judeo-Christianity.
> 
> The belief to the contrary is a mere illusion, an unexamined notion that only persists in the minds of those who are gullibly biased and thoughtless.
> 
> It is, however, a problem for at least one member of this forum, for his construct of divinity is utterly overthrown by the Omnipotence Paradox.
> 
> That would be the construct of USMB member *Boss, *as he holds that the absolute laws of logic (_the law of identity_, _the law of contradiction_ and _the law of the excluded middle_*: *comprehensively, _the principle of identity_) were created by God for mankind, not the eternally existent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind by God!
> 
> With _his_ god you have a point, but you got nothing' on the God of the Bible.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the _atheist_ antagonist especially, for he necessarily (unwittingly and contradictorily) presupposes not just one, not just two, but three things to be true*:
> *
> 
> *1. *He presupposes that the laws of thought are universally true in order to contradictorily argue that they are _not_ universally true; that is, he argues something he cannot rationally demonstrate or explain, namely, that the principle of identity is false.
> 
> *2.* He presupposes God's existence as if he were one from on higher than high by insisting that divine omnipotence would necessarily mean that God can do anything . . . when that does not necessarily follow at all. In other words, he presupposes to known something about the nature of God that is not logically apparent to the rest of us.
> 
> (At this point, the atheist is sputtering that he does no such thing, but observe. . . .)
> 
> *3.* He contradictorily presupposes God's existence by claiming to know for a fact that God is _not_ the Principle of Identity Himself, the very substance _of_ and the universal ground _for_ the laws of logic. In other words, like Boss, he pretends to know for a fact that the absolute laws of logic were created by God for mankind, _not_ the preexistent logic of God Himself bestowed on mankind, _not_ the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of thought for all existence.
> 
> It's either that or the antagonist necessarily argues that the laws of thought were bestowed on mankind by . . . _mutable_ nature.
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> The laws of thought necessarily hold that God must exist in order for the laws of thought to be absolute. In fact, the laws of thought hold that God must be the ultimate Source and Guarantor of the laws of thought, the Source and Guarantor of natural and moral law, and the Source and Guarantor of the physical laws of nature. God must be the reason for the apparent synchronization between the prescriptive, rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the descriptive properties and processes of nature.
> 
> Those who don't hold that to be true necessarily concede that whatever comes out of their mouths about anything is the esoteric mumbo jumbo of relativism. Fine. Nothing they say is authoritative, absolute or reliably true. According to them, there's no such thing as proofs for anything, let alone burdens of proof. LOL! Let them talk to rocks. Hump trees. Argue with flowers. Bark at the moon. I hold that the laws of thought are universally true and, thus, whatever I assert accordingly stands.
> 
> Hence, on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the relativist—whether he be a theist, an agonistic or an atheist—who stands on paradox and barks at the moon.​
> 
> But the antagonist does not assert the so-called Omnipotence Paradox as a problem for epistemological relativism, does he? He asserts it as if it were a refutation of divine omnipotence premised on a universally absolute axiom of logic.
> _
> Hocus Pocus.
> _
> What the antagonist is really doing, albeit, unwittingly, is presupposing something that he himself, once again, cannot rationally demonstrate or explain. He presupposes an apriority that he doesn't even put into evidence . . . because he's not even aware of the fact that his allegation of a paradox is actually premised on something else*:* the inherently contradictory paradox that the laws of thought are not universally true in the first place.
> 
> That's weird because the nature of the antagonist's contradiction is self-negating; hence, it positively proves the opposite must be true!
> 
> In other words, the construct of divine omnipotence proper, that which is rationally consistent and upholds the universality of the laws of thought, is not subject to a logical fallacy that begs the question*:* especially to one that is asserted as if it were exempt from the falsification of the absolute laws of thought . . . especially to one that necessarily negates itself and positively affirms that the laws of thought must be universally true.
> 
> So what does this all mean? Some are still scratching their heads.
> 
> All the antagonist is really saying is *God **≠** God, *because if *God = God, *then* God **≠** God. *Or more to the point, *divine omnipotence = divinity can do anything* . . . only for those who believe in absurdities or contradictorily argue that the principle of identity is false*:* a notion that is rationally indemonstrable/inexplicable.
> 
> Hence, *divine omnipotence necessarily = God can do all things but that which would negate His existence or contradict His nature*.
> 
> The actual nature of divine omnipotence is not subject to the utterly arbitrary, unqualified, unjustifiable and irrational absurdities of presumptuous little gods in the gap.
> 
> The law of identity*:* *for any given A: A = A*; any given existent is what it is and cannot be what it is not. *God = God. *By definition,* God = Perfection.* God is perfect rationality, not the imperfection of irrationality or absurdity.
> 
> 
> Hence, according to the laws of logic, all of reality is paradoxical/absurd . . . unless the following are true*:
> *
> *1.* God exists!
> 
> *2.* God is the Principle of Identity!
> 
> *3.* The universal, bioneurologically hardwired laws of thought of mankind are ultimately the eternally and transcendentally immutable laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind, not created.​
> The paradoxical/contradictory figments of human imagination that are not logically necessary or logically possible do not have primacy over existence; they do not have primacy over the mind of God, as if the minds of creatures could be greater than the mind of the Creator. The order of contingency is the converse. Human consciousness is contingent on the mind of God and the universally absolute laws of thought thereof.
> 
> The laws of thought stand. Truth must be universally absolute, not relative. Logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities are just that*:* logical paradoxes, contradictions or absurdities. *For any given A: A = A. *They are not truths. The utterly arbitrary assertion that divine omniscience means the ability to do anything is logically and metaphysically false.
> 
> The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what, the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense?
Click to expand...



The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. *One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat. *


Relativists.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
Click to expand...


*Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. *One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.  *
> 
> 
> Relativists.



Drunken babbling.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> The supposed Omnipotence Paradox is a straw man, a logical fallacy, a logically and metaphysically illegitimate definition of divine omnipotence. It's an absurdity that necessarily presupposes the absolute universality of the law of identity as it violates the law of identity. It's utterly meaningless. *One might as well say that a dog is not a dog, because a dog is not a cat.  *
> 
> 
> Relativists.



Hi M.D. Rawlings

Relativists would remind you there are other names for Dogs:
Chien, Perro
and variations of Hound (Hund, Hond, Hun)
How to Say Dog in Different Languages 1 Step with Pictures 

Since there are more variations close to HOUND
then if you are teaching someone to translate,
it might HELP to explain that HOUND is another reference to
a canine or dog.

If you only INSIST that EVERYONE call the animal a D-O-G
you might miss the people who would have made the connection
faster to their OWN NATIVE language if you explained that HOUND is related to DOG
and they could understand since their word for it is Hund, Hun, Hond or something closer to HOUND.

Same with GOD

If you are dealing with people who believe in Laws of NATURE,
or Wisdom, or Spiritual Oneness of Humanity/Interconnected Life
you can explain God that way and not lose your audience by only preaching G-O-D as you wish to focus.

It's still the same GOD, M.D.

You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to 
start equating God with something God is not,
you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.

Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.

You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
Sorry for you, M.D.!

I can see the diversity in God's plans and I celebrate and marvel at the miracle
that we can all be talking about the same God and same truth but see it so differently.
I trust in God and pray that God opens you up to see where you look at the world
and others with the eyes of God's love and that is greater than any fear that blinds or biases you.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
Click to expand...


Hi M.D. Rawlings:
If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.

Are you saying that your points TRUMP
the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.

Please let me know if you think your words are
more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Thanks, M.D.


----------



## emilynghiem

P.S. If I count as one of your "Relativists" then I don't hate you and you might need to adjust your rule.
Maybe it is too absolutist, and not relative enough to accommodate my brand of relativity! 

For under my understanding of relativity and diversity, I believe it is only consistent I should accommodate you, too, not hate you. That isn't treating you as an equal.

I know it is difficult to grasp, that I might actually be a Democrat who practices inclusion to the point
of including opponents, far right, fundamentalists and all manner of views and beliefs on the spectrum in between.

Tough concept to grasp: full inclusion that includes absolutists with the idea of relative views and equally respecting all.
Not many liberals go to that extreme, so I understand this is upsetting.

If I don't fit under Relativists, you might fit me under Absolutists, because I believe in both.
I believe you can have the absolute universal concepts underneath, as well as the relative expressions on top.
You can have the cake and the icing, and they don't have to compete with each other.

Imagine that, yes, I know it's hard.  Sorry if it gives you a headache trying to peg me into one of your slots.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Oh, no, I missed this.  This is a hoot!



Hollie said:


> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 10 questions for the hyper- religious.
> 
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist




*Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men!*

*1.  Hollie:*  I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!

*2.  Hollie:*  I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!

*3.  Hollie:*  If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?

*4.  Hollie:*  Since humans and dinosaurs apparently _didn't_ roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?

*5.  Hollie:*  Derp-derp.  La-la.  _Hiccup_ _Burp_  Blah-blah.  I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time.  The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.

*6.  Hollie:*  Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable _a priority_ of metaphysical naturalism?  I know.  Let's ask Rawlings*:*

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is _micro-speciation_, not _microevolution_. And while many millions of generations of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them has ever underwent macroevolution. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory.  And that’s the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor . . . one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism.

. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . .  The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.

Oh? And why not?

The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence.  And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.

It _was_ and _remains_ a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried.  Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which _I am_ well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and _do_ understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily _does_ entail transmutation.


The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name.  —Labsci​Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory.  There's really nothing "meshy" about it. Anyone of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.)  Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of "what survives, survives."  Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some, including the likes of Dawkins, to the contrary are nonsense. And that's problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.


Nothing visible is going to happen in so short a time as 200 years in the laboratory. If a fly changed into anything other than a fly, it would blow evolution out of the water, and falsify it completely. —Labsci​Actually, we're talking about millions of generations of accelerated speciation.  The origin point of generational experimentation on fruit flies _was_ to achieve an observable instance of transmutational speciation.   In any event, the thrust of my point regarding fruit flies had to do with this statement: "[m]any microevolutionary steps equals macroevolution." At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. You imagine a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believe that this scenario provides the "best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth." I see a biological history consisting of a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within. _The evidence would look the same either way_.

In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's _a prior_ bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?

In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded _creatio ex essentia_, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.

There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers _and_ non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.

While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.

And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of _creatio ex nihilo_ than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.

. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."

Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

Now you see it or maybe you still don't.

In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?​


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *



Hollie said:


> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist




*7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.

*8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.

*9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.

*10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D. Rawlings:
> If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
> with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.
> 
> Are you saying that your points TRUMP
> the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
> and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
> 3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
> which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.
> 
> Please let me know if you think your words are
> more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
> 
> Thanks, M.D.
Click to expand...


Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence.  In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent.   In any event, _The Seven Things_ are apparent to us all.  It's ridiculous to say they're not.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> Drunken babbling.



Gee wiz, Hollie.  We have to put you down for _The Seven Things*™ *_ again?  Really?  Oh well. . . .




Hollie said:


> The Seven Fraudulent Things_™_
> *
> 1.* We exist!
> *Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.
> 2. The cosmological order exists!
> Cosmology
> 1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
> b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
> 
> 2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.
> 
> It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.
> 
> Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
> 
> 3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
> 
> 4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
> 
> And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.
> 
> Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™
> 
> Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.
> 
> You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
> 5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
> 
> Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
> You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.
> 
> One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
> 6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
> 
> It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.
> 
> Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?
> 
> Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
> 
> 7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
> 
> No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.
> 
> This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.
> 
> There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.
> 
> And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.*




*Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™ Again*

 Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

*These are The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/**.



1. *Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


* 2. *She conflates _cosmological _(adjective) _order_ with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 _a_ : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

_b_ : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; _also_ : a theory dealing with these matters.​
 I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


* 3.* Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that *#3* of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


* 4.* Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips*:*

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​
Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that *#4* would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that *#4* of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


* 5.* Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with *#5,* which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that *#5* of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


* 6.* Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that *#6* of _The Seven Things _is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be _fruitfully_ considered.

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of _The Seven Things_ are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


* 7.* We have Hollie down for all seven of _The Seven Things_, as* #7* merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes _The Seven Things_.


----------



## G.T.

No they're not. "God is biologically hardwired in our brains" is most definitely an opinion - not a fact.


----------



## dblack

Hey guys! How's things?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
Click to expand...




M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*





M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
Click to expand...


*Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
*
Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!

*
1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 

2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 

3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 

4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 

5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 

6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 

7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 

8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 

9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 

10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D. Rawlings:
> If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
> with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.
> 
> Are you saying that your points TRUMP
> the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
> and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
> 3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
> which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.
> 
> Please let me know if you think your words are
> more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
> 
> Thanks, M.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence.  In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent.   In any event, _The Seven Things_ are apparent to us all.  It's ridiculous to say they're not.
Click to expand...

More ridiculous babbling. 

Typical _Rawling'ism_:

"The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"

Nobody Escapes *The Ten Things!*


----------



## dblack

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D. Rawlings:
> If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
> with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.
> 
> Are you saying that your points TRUMP
> the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
> and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
> 3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
> which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.
> 
> Please let me know if you think your words are
> more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
> 
> Thanks, M.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence.  In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent.   In any event, _The Seven Things_ are apparent to us all.  It's ridiculous to say they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ridiculous babbling.
> 
> Typical _Rawling'ism_:
> 
> "The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"
> 
> Nobody Escapes *The Ten Things!*
Click to expand...

Sweet! We're up to ten now?


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> Hey guys! How's things?


Good. Just having a little fun watching Rawling having a major meltdown.

I've got him on board with *The Ten Things. 
*
I'm going to convert him to Islam next and assign him to a position as prayer leader at the Harun Yahya Madrassah.


----------



## Hollie

dblack said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D. Rawlings:
> If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
> with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.
> 
> Are you saying that your points TRUMP
> the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
> and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
> 3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
> which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.
> 
> Please let me know if you think your words are
> more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
> 
> Thanks, M.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence.  In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent.   In any event, _The Seven Things_ are apparent to us all.  It's ridiculous to say they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ridiculous babbling.
> 
> Typical _Rawling'ism_:
> 
> "The various bibles are true because the various bibles say they are true"
> 
> Nobody Escapes *The Ten Things!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweet! We're up to ten now?
Click to expand...


But wait. If you call in the next ten minutes, we'll double your order. Just pay additional shipping and processing.


----------



## Justin Davis

G.T. said:


> No they're not. "God is biologically hardwired in our brains" is most definitely an opinion - not a fact.



It's really odd how you guys never state the simple truth about the inability of humans to logically deny God's existence.  It's as if you're  blushing   over something embarrassing, trying hide some dirty little secret we all know but you can't bring yourselves to say out loud.    Even Emily suffers from this strange epidemic of amnesia.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> P.S. If I count as one of your "Relativists" then I don't hate you and you might need to adjust your rule.
> Maybe it is too absolutist, and not relative enough to accommodate my brand of relativity!
> 
> For under my understanding of relativity and diversity, I believe it is only consistent I should accommodate you, too, not hate you. That isn't treating you as an equal.
> 
> I know it is difficult to grasp, that I might actually be a Democrat who practices inclusion to the point
> of including opponents, far right, fundamentalists and all manner of views and beliefs on the spectrum in between.
> 
> Tough concept to grasp: full inclusion that includes absolutists with the idea of relative views and equally respecting all.
> Not many liberals go to that extreme, so I understand this is upsetting.
> 
> If I don't fit under Relativists, you might fit me under Absolutists, because I believe in both.
> I believe you can have the absolute universal concepts underneath, as well as the relative expressions on top.
> You can have the cake and the icing, and they don't have to compete with each other.
> 
> Imagine that, yes, I know it's hard.  Sorry if it gives you a headache trying to peg me into one of your slots.



She believes in both.    Sure you do.


----------



## Justin Davis

dblack said:


> Hey guys! How's things?



Well your fellow lunatics are still thinking they should be in charge of the asylum but coolers heads just keep putting them in their places.  Same old thing, nothing new.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> It's still the same GOD, M.D.
> 
> You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
> start equating God with something God is not,
> you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.
> 
> Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
> that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
> that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
> he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.
> 
> You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
> Sorry for you, M.D.!



Bingo! The problem here is not that MD hasn't spammed the board enough with his banal argument or that we haven't made every effort to reach out to him to find common ground. It is that MD lacks faith in his own God, one created in his image. This is often a problem with religious fanatics. You either accept THEIR God under THEIR terms, or you are condemned and must be defeated. 

MD has used his spiritual awareness to build a God of his own perceptions, one that does not have true omnipotence or omniscience, but is confined to limitations of human thought. MD believes this makes his God easier to explain, easier to build an argument for, but it doesn't. As we can see, no one is accepting his argument other than Justin. 

This frustration has caused MD to become a parody of himself. He has now taken to the method of repeating his argument over and over, like some sort of mad man. This is not healthy.


----------



## BreezeWood

Justin Davis said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they're not. "God is biologically hardwired in our brains" is most definitely an opinion - not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really odd how you guys never state the simple truth about the inability of humans to logically deny God's existence.  It's as if you're  blushing   over something embarrassing, trying hide some dirty little secret we all know but you can't bring yourselves to say out loud.    Even Emily suffers from this strange epidemic of amnesia.
Click to expand...

.



> *servitude:* It's really odd how you guys never state the simple truth about the inability of humans to logically deny God's existence.












nothing as the christian god exists without a practical application, thanks for proving my point ... over and over again.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same GOD, M.D.
> 
> You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
> start equating God with something God is not,
> you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.
> 
> Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
> that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
> that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
> he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.
> 
> You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
> Sorry for you, M.D.!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The problem here is not that MD hasn't spammed the board enough with his banal argument or that we haven't made every effort to reach out to him to find common ground. It is that MD lacks faith in his own God, one created in his image. This is often a problem with religious fanatics. You either accept THEIR God under THEIR terms, or you are condemned and must be defeated.
> 
> MD has used his spiritual awareness to build a God of his own perceptions, one that does not have true omnipotence or omniscience, but is confined to limitations of human thought. MD believes this makes his God easier to explain, easier to build an argument for, but it doesn't. As we can see, no one is accepting his argument other than Justin.
> 
> This frustration has caused MD to become a parody of himself. He has now taken to the method of repeating his argument over and over, like some sort of mad man. This is not healthy.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss: 
RE: Dealing with antisocial personalities

And neither should you nor I "jump to conclusions" and create our OWN perception
of why M.D. is acting like a stubborn fundamentalist on one hand, then stopping to explain his views as we would, then turning around and sticking his tongue out, taunting "na-na na-na nah-nah" like a sixth grade school boy.

I don't think he would act this way if he were in a serious conference
with Jehovah's Witness Elders, Church of Christ, Lutheran and Catholic theologians,
trying to discuss how to form a consensus on teaching the Trinity, and which
forms of spiritism are demonic and which methods of Spiritual Healing are natural and necessary for health.

So Boss, I plead with you, please not to jump to the same hasty negative judgments of M.D.
as he does of others "he does not understand." I don't get it either, so neither should I make assumptions or assertions as to what is causing this and what might resolve it!

I would HAVE to see him in the other context, to see how he speaks with Elders who talk on this higher level, before I assess or judge his perception.

If he is in the wrong element, his weird way of reacting makes that very clear.

I've also blown up at people when that is not my usual nature when pushed beyond my limits.
I would rather people judge me when I am at my best, not my worst.

And for whatever reason, M.D. is showing us both his best and worst sides,
so at least he is honest in showing us both. 

If you saw footage of me having meltdowns at City Council meetings,
where I had to quit going it pissed me off so much,
you would not believe it is the same person being more diplomatic here.

Other people who only see that side of me, would not believe I can
make a coherent Constitutional argument and be the same person.

In the wrong context, this can bring out the opposite of what we normally are.
We have to take the good with the bad. I trust that as bad as M.D.'s  bad side gets,
imagine what his good side must be like to balance that out.

So I want to see him use that side, in the right context,
to be very powerful and effective.  I have the same problem.
We have bigger battles to fight, and shouldn't frustrate ourselves this way.
We have work to do, M.D. is underchallenged here
and is meant for greater things that will take so much work it will keep him from digressing
as he does here.

He reminds me of the genius kids I tutored who would act up and even fail classes,
because they were bored and needed stimulus so they created bigger messes rebelling against their teachers.

But if you gave them bigger challenges, they acted like bigger people and focused there.
I know someone who said she mentored a sociopathic student who was like that,
and finally succeeded after a business executive recognized his talent and taught him
how to manage higher level operations where the student did very well and was just bored out of his skull.
Nothing stimulated him enough because he did not have the same level of neurological response
as other people; he could even take cigarette burns and not feel them, so it took a much much higher
level of intellectual stimulus to keep his brain focused or he would degenerate into destructive acts trying
to stimulate any kind of interest or response in his brain.

M.D. may have such a high functioning brain that it takes a lot more to trigger interest and response.
He keeps saying other people are sociopathic, well maybe it takes one to know one.

If M.D. doesn't have high enough levels of mental challenge, he could be just like those students
who go out of their way to create some chaos or emotional reaction out of others because they can't feel it.
They are like starved for stimulus.

I am close to guessing this may be similar to what M.D. feels when he interacts with us.
So bored and cannot understand, feel or sympathize with us. Just sees the OBJECTIVE
points and wants everyone else to adhere to that.  This reminds me of M.E. Thomas
"Hiding in Plain Sight" where she describes what it's like to have an antisocial personality
and have to act out all the niceties for other people, when the sociopathic brain doesn't need or care for that.

It is highly irritating and feels like lying to people socially to get along.

Even if M.D. only has traits or reactions of someone who is antisocial or sociopathic,
I think it would help to understand the social dynamics of people like that.

So maybe the same accommodations might work in how we include
M.D. in our interactions by understanding the fuller context.

He is frustrated, too.
When I get frustrated, I am twenty times worse than M.D.
I am an extreme empath, where I can completely lose it being overwhelmed with grief and emotions,
but M.D. may be on the other side of the spectrum and mimic
the antisocial or sociopathic types who don't have empathy for others,
and just don't know how or WHY they need to respond with any type of diplomacy
when the problem is "with other people." They just don't get why this should be on them!


----------



## amrchaos

Hi guys

Long time no post?

You want to here a "miracle"(although the possibility of it happening is really large--at least 1 in 3, almost)

My favorite football team, the Atlanta Falcons, are 4-7 and has a good chance of making the playoffs!

Personally, I wish they put an end to this season and trade their playoff spot for better draft picks.  Their Swiss cheese defense is a big migraine to behold.  If all the pick are not from the SEC, we don't want them!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. If I count as one of your "Relativists" then I don't hate you and you might need to adjust your rule.
> Maybe it is too absolutist, and not relative enough to accommodate my brand of relativity!
> 
> For under my understanding of relativity and diversity, I believe it is only consistent I should accommodate you, too, not hate you. That isn't treating you as an equal.
> 
> I know it is difficult to grasp, that I might actually be a Democrat who practices inclusion to the point
> of including opponents, far right, fundamentalists and all manner of views and beliefs on the spectrum in between.
> 
> Tough concept to grasp: full inclusion that includes absolutists with the idea of relative views and equally respecting all.
> Not many liberals go to that extreme, so I understand this is upsetting.
> 
> If I don't fit under Relativists, you might fit me under Absolutists, because I believe in both.
> I believe you can have the absolute universal concepts underneath, as well as the relative expressions on top.
> You can have the cake and the icing, and they don't have to compete with each other.
> 
> Imagine that, yes, I know it's hard.  Sorry if it gives you a headache trying to peg me into one of your slots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She believes in both.    Sure you do.
Click to expand...


Yes, Justin!

I do believe when the Bible says that ALL authorities, visible or invisible, are created by and given to the Lord.
(Colossians 1: 16)

I understand that Jesus as Divine Justice based on God's Universal Truth
FULFILLS all laws, both *Natural laws* (that our civil laws and secular laws of science / sociology and psychology are based on, including Buddhism and Constitutional laws)
AND our *Scriptural laws* that Jews Christians and Muslims are under.

So both the Natural laws of the secular Gentiles
and the Spiritual laws of the churched believers in their various tribes,
are Governed by Jesus as the Universal Law of Justice by which all humanity is made equal.

I believe Christ Jesus fulfills all of these laws, uniting them in one spirit of Truth,
as "Restorative Justice" that bring peace harmony and healing to all people.

So this is spiritual Salvation in Christ, the Kingdom of God on Earth as it is in Heaven.

Dear Justin Davis: is your faith so small
that you not only don't believe this,
but you cannot believe I believe it?

But THANKS For posting this, because I think it proves
you are not M.D. Rawlings.  He might spend 20 paragraphs
to say what you said in one sentence. Thanks for clarifying this!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi M.D. Rawlings:
> If your Seven points are so universal, why aren't they listed in the Bible
> with the Ten Commandment or even the Two Great Commandments and Third New Commandment that Jesus gave.
> 
> Are you saying that your points TRUMP
> the Son of God who said these were the whole of the law:
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love our neighbor as ourselves
> and Jesus gave unto us a New Commandment that
> 3. we love one another as Jesus loves us
> which joins the love of God and love of man as one in Christ.
> 
> Please let me know if you think your words are
> more important than the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
> 
> Thanks, M.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course these things are in the Bible, including the TAG argument, the leading biblical proof for God's existence.  In fact, all of the classical proofs for God's existence are expressed in the Bible, but the TAG is the most prominent.   In any event, _The Seven Things_ are apparent to us all.  It's ridiculous to say they're not.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D.
I can see how TAG is  part of #1
to understand and love God with all our hearts minds and souls.

What about #2 and #3.

How are you using TAG to "love your neighbors as Christ loves us"

It seems to me you are demonstrating rejecting, mocking and rebellion.
I don't see how your messages to Hollie, Inevitable and others are
showing correction through divine forgiveness and embracing
one another as equal children of God through Christ.

Where are you practicing #2 and #3?


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
> —Proverbs 6:16–19
> 
> You shall not spread a false report.
> — Exodus 23:1-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
Click to expand...


Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 silly things.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on, I agree M.D. "doth project too much"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
> ie accusing others of what one is guilty of.
> 
> the pot calling the kettle black
> he who accuses, self accuses.
> 
> I find the people who are the least at fault,
> also accuse the least, and usually seek correction not rejection.
> 
> The ones with the most emotional baggage to project
> haven't cleaned out their own closets fully.
> 
> All this "nah nah nah" sixth grade behavior by M.D. is embarrassing.
> I think his point is to chase people away so he doesn't have to face them.
> 
> The worst thing we could do is stand around like parents,
> watching over a kid in time out, to make sure they don't write on the walls and cause more damage,
> and wait for him to grow tired of his hissy fits.
> So he can come back and eat at the table with all the grown ups.
> 
> Very embarrassing in front of such fine company, but if that's what it takes to grow up,
> we can't rush M.D.'s learning curve and the stages in it that are for him to go through.
> 
> He's afraid of having to change and grow and work with others,
> so he is trying to screen people out, where only the most forgiving
> people like me will see through that and not judge him for his tactics.
> 
> I'm the worst baby brat of the bunch, so if I can get over my hissy fits over having to change how I do things "because of other people's BS", so can he get over it also.
> 
> He has no excuse compared with me, I'm twenty times worse when I have a bad day!
> I can't stand the though of having to go through all these extra hoops to accommodate other people, but I learned to take
> courage and find reward in doing a good job at it, because it helps others do the same, and we work it out together.
> 
> M.D. needs to get over his fears, and he won't have to play sissy games
> trying to wear people's patience and chase them away to avoid dealing with adversity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.
Click to expand...


She enjoys your antics, too!

I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.

P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


----------



## Justin Davis

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same GOD, M.D.
> 
> You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
> start equating God with something God is not,
> you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.
> 
> Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
> that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
> that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
> he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.
> 
> You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
> Sorry for you, M.D.!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The problem here is not that MD hasn't spammed the board enough with his banal argument or that we haven't made every effort to reach out to him to find common ground. It is that MD lacks faith in his own God, one created in his image. This is often a problem with religious fanatics. You either accept THEIR God under THEIR terms, or you are condemned and must be defeated.
> 
> MD has used his spiritual awareness to build a God of his own perceptions, one that does not have true omnipotence or omniscience, but is confined to limitations of human thought. MD believes this makes his God easier to explain, easier to build an argument for, but it doesn't. As we can see, no one is accepting his argument other than Justin.
> 
> This frustration has caused MD to become a parody of himself. He has now taken to the method of repeating his argument over and over, like some sort of mad man. This is not healthy.
Click to expand...



Oh, so now no one is accepting it but me. Rawlings is on another thread right now exploding the atheists' arguments with the same argument and logic roundly supported by the Christians.  I'm using his argument and logic, really, everybody's logic, the organic logic of humans, on another thread with winning approval. You guys are just a bunch of missing link relativists out of your minds.  The omnipotence paradox wipes your little god out  while the real God of logic wipes the omnipotence paradox out.  Looks like you lose again.


----------



## Justin Davis

emilynghiem said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman is a total fraud.  You're as loony as the rest of the relativists.
> 
> 
> *The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*
> 
> 
> The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
> ______________________
> 
> *Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing!
> 
> 
> *Rawlings:
> *
> You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.
> 
> We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.
> 
> Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​
> * Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> 
> *
> QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!  Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves.
> *
> 
> Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God!  I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.
> *
> 
> BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that?
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * He won't answer the question!
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
> *
> 
> Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: * $%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you!
> *
> 
> Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage. Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before! Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic. Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic. I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic! Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you!
> *
> 
> GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive! Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.
> *
> GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@!
> *
> 
> Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer.
> *
> 
> Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not. The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics.
> *
> 
> Hollie, GT, *Seallbobo: Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.
> 
> 
> *
> orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you!*
> 
> 
> Emily: *Can't we all just get along?*
> 
> 
> Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+!*
> 
> 
> Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
> *
> 
> Rawlings: *You got that right.
> *
> 
> All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you!*
> 
> 
> Rawlings: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She enjoys your antics, too!
> 
> I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
> So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.
> 
> P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
> If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
> maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
> and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.
> 
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum.  The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic.  Are you .  You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic.  That's not possible.


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same GOD, M.D.
> 
> You are so afraid the equation is going to be skewed to
> start equating God with something God is not,
> you won't even let God be translated into similar terms.
> 
> Fear means lack of faith. Somewhere you do not have faith
> that people will come to God's truth from these other paths
> that God equally made. You don't fully trust God to know what
> he is doing by making people think differently and understanding from different angles.
> 
> You think the diversity is bad but God uses it for good and you FEAR it.
> Sorry for you, M.D.!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo! The problem here is not that MD hasn't spammed the board enough with his banal argument or that we haven't made every effort to reach out to him to find common ground. It is that MD lacks faith in his own God, one created in his image. This is often a problem with religious fanatics. You either accept THEIR God under THEIR terms, or you are condemned and must be defeated.
> 
> MD has used his spiritual awareness to build a God of his own perceptions, one that does not have true omnipotence or omniscience, but is confined to limitations of human thought. MD believes this makes his God easier to explain, easier to build an argument for, but it doesn't. As we can see, no one is accepting his argument other than Justin.
> 
> This frustration has caused MD to become a parody of himself. He has now taken to the method of repeating his argument over and over, like some sort of mad man. This is not healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now no one is accepting it but me. Rawlings is on another thread right now exploding the atheists' arguments with the same argument and logic roundly supported by the Christians.  I'm using his argument and logic, really, everybody's logic, the organic logic of humans, on another thread with winning approval. You guys are just a bunch of missing link relativists out of your minds.  The omnipotence paradox wipes your little god out  while the real God of logic wipes the omnipotence paradox out.  Looks like you lose again.
Click to expand...


Hi Justin Davis: You and M.D. are so focused
on Commandment #1 on God
you are missing #2 and #3 on the connection with neighbors through Christ.

The God part of the Trinity should never be taken out of context
with Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The three are ONE.

You may be getting 1 out of 3, but what about the other 2?

See also the Scripture to Baptize all nations in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Why are you leaving Jesus Christ out of the equation?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She enjoys your antics, too!
> 
> I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
> So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.
> 
> P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
> If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
> maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
> and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.
> 
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum.  The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic.  Are you .  You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic.  That's not possible.
Click to expand...


I'm not refuting.
I am saying you are excluding parts that go with God.

God is one with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Why are you leaving these out?

I offered to focus on Spiritual Healing which demonstrates the Holy Spirit.
I offer to form a consensus on laws, INCLUDING TAG,
which is established through Christ Jesus.

Justin Davis I am INCLUDING TAG along with
Spiritual Healing to demonstrate the Holy Spirit
and Consensus on Law to demonstrate Christ Jesus.

Surely you do not reject the Holy Trinity as one?
Are you sure you are fully Christian?

Most Christians believers recognize me if they have the same faith.
The only people who reject me have issues with their faith and don't fully believe yet.

Justin, do you believe in Spiritual Healing?
Why do you think I am against you when I am INCLUDING you, M.D. and TAG?

You are leaving out Christ Jesus and Holy Spirit that go along with God
to fulfill the Trinity as one.  Where are these in TAG, can you show me
where Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit are including in TAG as part of God?

M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
as a Christian I * AGREE * with you on TAG and GOD
and just ask that you expand to INCLUDE
explanations of the Holy Spirit and Christ Jesus.

How is that against TAG/GOD to share
the meaning of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ?

Surely you are not denying Christ Jesus are you?
Can you show me where this is explained in your TAG?


----------



## emilynghiem

Justin Davis said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The ranting of a petulant 12 year old. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men
> 
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith? 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed? 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one? 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places? 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside? 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis? 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said? 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research? 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago? 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men (continued)! *
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *7.  Hollie:*  How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history?  I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.
> 
> *8.  Hollie:*  Have I ever made any sense about anything?  I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.
> 
> *9.  Hollie:*  I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.
> 
> *10.  Hollie:*  I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody laughs at Hollie's 10 things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She enjoys your antics, too!
> 
> I see both lists as a serious attempt to communicate where you are coming from.
> So I take you all seriously, but glad you amuse and see the humor in each other.
> 
> P.S. Justin Davis and M.D. Rawlings
> If you don't want to be seen as a joke, but taken seriously,
> maybe you should follow the Golden Rule Commandment #2
> and love/understand your neighbor as yourself.
> 
> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what's going on in other threads on this forum.  The seven things come down on the three classical laws of logic.  Are you .  You cannot refute the three classical laws of logic.  That's not possible.
Click to expand...


OK Justin Davis, let's try this:
Can you, in your own words not M.D.
summarize the "three classic laws of logic" in your own words.

And then you and I can reconcile how these three laws
line up with the Great Commandments.

There must be one that aligns with God, one with Christ and one with the Holy Spirit.

Can you describe these yourself?
Can you tell me which correspond with the Holy Trinity?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence *
*1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*See Posts:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*


*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

_Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (*The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry*), is among the more famous presuppositional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

*Related*: *Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence 
*
*See Post:  **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/* 

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively:

*Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry*



Note the attempt to overthrow*:  **Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki**.*



Note the actuality of that attempt*:  **Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, *2 + 2 = 4* presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make *2 + 2 = 4* go away.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence (See Post )*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.
> 
> _Saying_ that _knowledge can exist when God (the Creator) doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.
> 
> And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God (the Creator)_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God (Creator) doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .
> 
> *Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God (Creator) doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God (Creator) doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
> ______________________________
> 
> Begging the Question:*
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/
> 
> Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), is among the more famous presupposional axioms in the philosophical cannon.
> 
> If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.
> 
> Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.
> 
> Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, a sentient Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.
> 
> The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God (Creator) doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer: while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.
> 
> *Related*: Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke


.

we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.


existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things™*
*1.* We exist!

*2.* The cosmological order exists!

*3.* The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

*6.* On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that *God the Creator doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!

*See Posts: 
*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*​
*7. *All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3, #4, #5, #6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4*: to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard*:* an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes *The Seven Things ™*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .



Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™*
*
1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

*That's weird.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> *Ten Incredibly Important Stumpers To Put Before Religious Whackjobs*
> *
> Nobody Escapes the Ten Things!
> 
> *
> 1) Do you understand the difference between science and faith?
> 
> 2) If Noah really lived for 900 years, do you realize that means he lived for nearly 1/6 of the time you claim the world has existed?
> 
> 3) If God could create the Earth in 6 days, why couldn’t he have just given Noah an ark instead of making him build one?
> 
> 4) If humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth at the same time, why don’t we ever find their bones in the same places?
> 
> 5) About 97% of scientists (if not more) follow every rule written in science books.  Exactly 0% of creationists follow every rule that’s written in the Bible.  If you so wholeheartedly believe the Bible gives a word for word account of how old the Earth is, why don’t you follow every other rule that’s inside?
> 
> 6) Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically accepted as gravity and photosynthesis – are you then denying the existence of gravity and photosynthesis?
> 
> 7) Has any creationist ever seen the original copy of the Bible?  Then how do you know what it really said?
> 
> 8) If God determines when we live and die, why are humans living longer due to advances in medical scientific research?
> 
> 9) Hundreds of years ago people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, until science proved them completely wrong.  Science now tells us how old the Earth is, and the truth about evolution, yet you still want to cling to the same level of ignorance as those from centuries ago?
> 
> 10) Can you accurately predict, based on the “science” within the Bible, any event that will occur in the near future? - See more at: 10 Questions Everyone Who Believes in Science Should Ask a Creationist




*Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men!*


*1. Hollie:* I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!

*2. Hollie:* I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!

*3. Hollie:* If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?

*4. Hollie:* Since humans and dinosaurs apparently _didn't_ roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?

*5. Hollie:* Derp-derp. La-la. _Hiccup_ _Burp_ Blah-blah. I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time. The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.

*6. Hollie:* Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable _a priority_ of metaphysical naturalism? I know. Let's ask Rawlings*:
*

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is _micro-speciation_, not _microevolution_. And while many millions of generations of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them has ever underwent macroevolution. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory. And that’s the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor . . . one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism.

. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.

Oh? And why not?

The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence. And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.

It _was_ and _remains_ a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried. Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which _I am_ well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and _do_ understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily _does_ entail transmutation.


The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name. —Labsci​
Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory. There's really nothing "meshy" about it. Anyone of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.) Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of "what survives, survives." Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some, including the likes of Dawkins, to the contrary are nonsense. And that's problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.


Nothing visible is going to happen in so short a time as 200 years in the laboratory. If a fly changed into anything other than a fly, it would blow evolution out of the water, and falsify it completely. —Labsci​
Actually, we're talking about millions of generations of accelerated speciation. The origin point of generational experimentation on fruit flies _was_ to achieve an observable instance of transmutational speciation. In any event, the thrust of my point regarding fruit flies had to do with this statement: "[m]any microevolutionary steps equals macroevolution." At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. You imagine a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believe that this scenario provides the "best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth." I see a biological history consisting of a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within. _The evidence would look the same either way_.

In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's _a prior_ bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?

In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded _creatio ex essentia_, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.

There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers _and_ non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.

While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.

And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of _creatio ex nihilo_ than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.

. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."

Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

Now you see it or maybe you still don't.

In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?​


*7. Hollie:* How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.

*8. Hollie:* Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.

*9. Hollie:* I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.

*10. Hollie:* I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.


----------



## G.T.

MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

.



> *mdr:* There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.



the sinner has no remorse, how special ...


why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?

.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the sinner has no remorse, how special ...
> 
> 
> why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dear BreezeWood:
I think we are just failing to communicate.

Same with you, and you do not intend to be duplicitous or false either.

If you believe in the teachings in Buddhism, there is a concept
of INTERCONNECTEDNESS of all things through spiritual energy.

Yet you do not "believe in prayer" because you do not CALL this prayer.

It's basically the same energy level, but you do not call it the same thing.

Am I going to fault you, and say you are FALSE
for denying prayer as a way of EXPRESSING this interconnectedness?

No.

I understand that you call it something else.

And you use the term 'prayer' to mean false ritual pretending to connect or influence that way.

You don't mean to deny the truth, but seek to reinforce the truth.
In fact, you think I am being false, not you.

Same with our friend M.D.

BreezeWood, if you can make the connection with prayer
and the related concept in your system, and see it is expressing the same level of spiritual connection,
then maybe you can see why there is a disconnect
between the Christian God and your concept of the Almighty.

We are talking about the same things,
but just "failing to communicate" because we see and say things differently.

You don't mean to say anything false either,
but come across as missing the whole point,
the same way you can see where M.D. is missing the obvious.

We are all talking past each other, thinking it's the OTHER person who doesn't get it.

BreezeWood, how can we each take the part we get
and help connect it with what everyone else is trying to say?

M.D. feels his point is so OBVIOUS yet it is being missed also!
Do you see that this is happening to all of us?

The more you can see t hat each of us, you me M.D. Boss
are in the same boat together, you see that are process and our plight is common.
The suffering of our neighbor is the same as our own.
You can see the common humanity that we share, even in this situation here that reflects
the process all humanity faces and can't always recognize the commonality either.

BreezeWood with your highest, most humble level of
wisdom and compassion for others, can you see how you me and M.D.
are facing similar situations, and cannot understand how the other person
cannot see what we see?


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> then maybe you can see why there is a disconnect
> between the Christian God and your concept of the Almighty.


.

to bad for you, your belief christianity is a religion of God ... another remorseless " sinner ".

no, not everyone dies a sinner Emily, wake up.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *



Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity

M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis: 
Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines

Positive side: Holy Trinity
1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate

Negative side
1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit

Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ

In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
2. To develop Perfect Compassion
[there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]

1. The Buddha = one who knows
2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community

In Constitutionalism
1. Judicial level of interpreting law
2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of the press
3. Free exercise of religion or free will
4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests

Justin Davis:

Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy 
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> no, not everyone dies a sinner Emily, wake up.
> .



??? BreezeWood:
^ Why are you calling me and M.D. a sinner
and yet you are denouncing Christianity as teaching this? ^

You sound like the Christians you are preaching against?
By focusing too much on rejecting and denouncing "who's a sinner"

I was talking about how prayer is part of spiritual interconnectedness of the whole.
This restores health and life,
and has literally saved lives: *whether people are Atheist, Buddhist, Christian
or Muslim, anyone can receiving forgiveness and healing and be saved from suffering.*

Why are you focused on sinners **while claiming you don't believe in that**
and I'm talking about healing and forgiveness that has saved lives?

*BreezeWood: I believe in Universal Salvation, where all souls are saved.
Why are you condemning M.D. and me as sinners if you don't believe in that?
Can you PLEASE explain?*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.



Again, no argument!


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.



Honestly, G.T. of all people here
I am most worried about BreezeWood.

Most people here, even M.D. and Boss have some awareness of where they are talking past people.
M.D. and Justin both stopped to try to explain they DO include other aspects of God besides just creator/knowledge.
They may be caught up in the momentum and their calling of what they are focused on,
but they at least respond to points, even if they don't think they are important.

But BreezeWood has no clue that he(?) is rejecting things unfairly and contradicting inclusion
and has no concept about what is meant by "prayer" being natural, spiritual and part of healing outreach and connection.  
BreezeWood is speaking in absolutes,
but denies and denounces the same;
criticizes Christianity for "condeming sinners"
while declaring both me and M.D. sinners when I don't even talk that way.

I am more disturbed by that!
Whatever denial rejection and projection BreezeWood is in
is far more buried behind protective walls, where at least M.D. and Justin TRY to respond.

Maybe Boss and them are just as stubborn as BreezeWood
and it's just that Boss and M.D. will at least reply with something to go on, 
while BreezeWood won't answer in even that much detail.

Not sure if it's a cultural or language thing, but I'm more worried that BreezeWood
is condemning things like spiritual healing prayer without studying the research first.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
Click to expand...


I have no interest in your extracurricular musings. Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?

Answer:  No!  You cannot.

These things stand.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest your musings.  Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?
> 
> Answer:  No!  You cannot.
> 
> These things stand.
Click to expand...


Hi M.D.

I can't refute the laws of gravity either,
but that "isn't enough" to explain the meaning of God.

What DOES help is to prove ie DEMONSTRATE that
forgiveness is the key factor in
* Reaching a CONSENSUS on God INCLUDING your TAG points/process
* to spiritual healing so even atheists can see this process being manifested in real life.
* reconciling real world relations to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Not being able to refute things is not enough to explain, demonstrate or change minds.

M.D. when Scott Peck observed two schizophrenic patients, who
returned to normal minds after deliverance and healing prayer,
THAT'S what changed his mind.

And this process is the same as what it takes to
* resolve both political and religious conflicts
* cure physical, mental, and social ills even criminal illness and abusive relations
* bring world peace to prove the ENTIRE process in the Bible is true

Thanks M.D.
I think it will take our friend Justin Davis to explain this to you.
Maybe he will get it first, and then return the favors you've done by helping him to understand,
by helping you to understand these points.

That way we can be equal.
He can be of equal service to you and me where we are failing to communicate.

Thanks in advance!

Justin Davis: can you please help?

I am not against the TAG points, I am TRYING to explain to 
M.D. that by using science to demonstrate spiritual healing,
more people will forgive, let go, and understand what MD
and others are trying to say! We all need to learn to forgive first,
before we can receive fuller understanding, and that's what
spiritual healing teaches is how forgiveness is the key step!


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your extracurricular musings. Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?
> 
> Answer:  No!  You cannot.
> 
> These things stand.
Click to expand...


BTW M.D. Rawlings
if the ONLY focus you are interested in is the TAG portion

And the WHOLE process involves ALL THREE focus areas I am organizing teams around
A. the TAG points and aligning on definitions of God and the meanings of
the Trinity in various religions that express parallel concepts and principles
B. proving/demonstrating that science can explain the spiritual healing process
so this allows free and equal access to treatment and therapy for physical, mental even criminal illness
C. and the same process of forgiveness/healing can also solve
religious and political conflicts individually, to bring world peace collectively

Then M.D. you are only focused on A.

So you  will not be in charge of leading teams around B and C
if you "do not have any interest" in the impact of this knowledge on people and society.

I doubt you really mean that.

I have never met anyone who didn't have some interest in social problems and what it would take to fix them.

But if you insist, you can stay focused on just part A.

That may be a full time job for you, anyway.

I thought you made VERY good points about science and spiritual healing for part B.

Sorry you can't see that B and C are part of the larger process of reaching an understanding about part A.

I guess that's not your job, and other people will be in charge of those parts, not you.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.



You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
Click to expand...

Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?

Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
Click to expand...


Okay, I'll try it again. . . .











Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the sinner has no remorse, how special ...
> 
> 
> why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Okay, I'll try it again. . . .








Yep. Came up 4 again! No fairies wear boots in sight. It's the ding dong dangest thing!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your extracurricular musings. Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?
> 
> Answer:  No!  You cannot.
> 
> These things stand.
Click to expand...


There is nothing to refute regarding the fraud of some invention of yours you yammer on with regarding the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.

That is some weird bit of mental lapse you have that you try and pawn off on the weak minded and gullible like yourself.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
Click to expand...


You already tried.......








and failed. You always fail.








You're a failure.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your extracurricular musings. Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?
> 
> Answer:  No!  You cannot.
> 
> These things stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute regarding the fraud of some invention of yours you yammer on with regarding the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> That is some weird bit of mental lapse you have that you try and pawn off on the weak minded and gullible like yourself.
Click to expand...



Sorry, _4_ again.  I'll let you know if anything changes, mkay?


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I' try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
Click to expand...


Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion

I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!

Now, given the above
Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?

*M.D. Rawlings:
Yep! Tried TAG again. 
Came up with NO NO NO again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence*
> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Positive Trinities and Negation/Opposite of the Trinity
> 
> M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
> Please help me align these principles so we can centralize the focus along the same lines
> 
> Positive side: Holy Trinity
> 1. God = love of truth, wisdom, knowledge, universal laws of Nature/Life/Creation (including science and psychology)
> 2. Jesus Christ = love of justice, divine laws incarnated in man's realm of reality and experience
> Embodying the laws by conscience (includes social contracts by civil laws and enforcement by the people as the govt)
> 3. Holy Spirit = love of humanity, harmony, peace, healing grace, wholeness uniting people on earth as one family/society
> spirit of the mother church, the people as the bride receiving and embracing the Law or Lord as the husband or protectorate
> 
> Negative side
> 1. Satan as Fear of the Unknown instead of love of truth, selfishness, separation/division instead of unity
> 2. Antichrist as injustice, corruption/oppression by abuse of authority/law, false government, coercion instead of freedom,
> Fear of change or loss of control to conflicting authority, Retribution, Retributive Justice as opposed to Restorative Justice which is Christ Jesus
> 3. False Prophet = Fear of conflict and confrontation, abusing words to reject and divide by ill will and hate,
> instead of Words of Comfort to bring reconciliation and peace, sowing seeds of Unforgiveness and Bitterness
> instead of sharing in Grace through Forgiveness which is the Holy Spirit
> 
> Commandments on which hang all the laws and prophets
> 1. To love God with all our hearts minds and souls
> 2. To love one another as Jesus Christ loves us
> 3. To love our neighbor as ourselves, i.e., realization of the church body as one in Christ
> 
> In Buddhism Two Promises on which all teachings are based
> 1. To develop Perfect Wisdom
> 2. To develop Perfect Compassion
> [there is no third promise, so I would recommend adding
> 3. To develop Perfect Communication or community relations]
> 
> 1. The Buddha = one who knows
> 2. The Dharma = spiritual laws and duty
> 3. The Sangha = peaceful order or community
> 
> In Constitutionalism
> 1. Judicial level of interpreting law
> 2. Legislative level of laws as contracts by conscience between  people and govt
> 3. Executive level of carrying out the law for peace and justice in society
> 
> 1. Freedom of speech
> 2. Freedom of the press
> 3. Free exercise of religion or free will
> 4. And combined, the right to due process of laws:
> to assemble peaceably and petition to redress grievances to defend equal protection of interests
> 
> Justin Davis:
> 
> Since M.D. and I tend to get too elaborate,
> can you please help us sort through the different sets of 3 concepts
> and help align which ones the three points in TAG correspond with?
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists. ==> is this the False Prophet or opposite of the Holy Spirit,
> to reject by divisive hate speech that promotes Unforgiveness as the one unforgivable blasphemy
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist ==> is this the level of Satan that manipulates fear of the unknown instead of love of truth?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no interest in your extracurricular musings. Can you refute the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof or not?
> 
> Answer:  No!  You cannot.
> 
> These things stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing to refute regarding the fraud of some invention of yours you yammer on with regarding the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin.
> 
> That is some weird bit of mental lapse you have that you try and pawn off on the weak minded and gullible like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, _4_ again.  I'll let you know if anything changes, mkay?
Click to expand...



Sorry, failure loves company. Have your sock: "Justin" chime in.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
Click to expand...


He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it, 
he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.

I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I' try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
> 1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
> 2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
> 3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
> 4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion
> 
> I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!
> 
> Now, given the above
> Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings:
> Yep! Tried TAG again.
> Came up with NO NO NO again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!*
Click to expand...



There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.

Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
> He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
> he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.
> 
> I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
> When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
> makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.
Click to expand...


He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I' try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
> 1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
> 2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
> 3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
> 4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion
> 
> I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!
> 
> Now, given the above
> Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings:
> Yep! Tried TAG again.
> Came up with NO NO NO again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.
> 
> Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.
Click to expand...


Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
> He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
> he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.
> 
> I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
> When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
> makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.
Click to expand...


It takes a lot of intelligence to justify and argue in circles at 900 mph.
Maybe not wise but intelligent.


----------



## G.T.

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
Click to expand...

God is not an axiom.

2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is not a whack job. M.D. is too intelligent for his own good.
> He is so excited about TAG, and the implications and impact around it,
> he cannot see the rest of the forest, for his favorite tree he just wants to dance around.
> 
> I have my favorite things, too. I get excited, and carried away.
> When we can all see that each of the trees we focus on
> makes up the forest, maybe we'll get the bigger picture. And understand how big it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not intelligent at all. He's just a cut and paste waste of bandwidth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes a lot of intelligence to justify and argue in circles at 900 mph.
> Maybe not wise but intelligent.
Click to expand...


If you've noticed, his "arguments" are nothing more than a shuffling around of the same cut and paste nonsense he's been spamming this thread and others with. 

He's the most repetitive (and prolific) cut and paster on the board.


----------



## Hollie

emilynghiem said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing you keep going on about, you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, I' try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
> 1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
> 2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
> 3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
> 4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion
> 
> I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!
> 
> Now, given the above
> Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings:
> Yep! Tried TAG again.
> Came up with NO NO NO again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.
> 
> Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
> Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
> http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf
Click to expand...


I think he's more likely the angry, self-hater with short man complex.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
Click to expand...


G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
and we agree Nature exists?

So if you define God to be Nature,
then sure God exists because it means Nature.

Can we be okay with that?

or God = Life
or God = Truth
or God = Love 

if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.

Are you okay with that?


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
Click to expand...

No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.

God is not my eyelashes.


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a hyper-religious whack job make appeals to logic when his worldview is a fantasy world of magic and supernaturalism?
> 
> Really, Bunky, you're the last one to be lecturing anyone on logic when you're utterly confounded by what the term denotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I' try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> Yep.  Came up 4 again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay M.D. Rawlings now try this
> 1. Hollie Inevitable and others made it clear they don't relate to your TAG approach
> 2. Inevitable asked for more scientific type explanation, demonstration or proof
> 3. I AGREE, and ask to apply scientific study to verify Spiritual Healing as natural, effective safe and universal
> 4. You also clarified that Spiritual Healing needed to be studied with science that was not biased by religion
> 
> I AGREE with you, to keep the approach based on Science, just like you said!
> 
> Now, given the above
> Which should we focus on: TAG or Spiritual Healing using Science?
> 
> *M.D. Rawlings:
> Yep! Tried TAG again.
> Came up with NO NO NO again!  It's the ding dong dangest thing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to relate to regarding the viciously circular and therefore fraudulent TAG argument.
> 
> Rawling endlessly cuts and pastes the same fraudulent nonsense across multiple threads. He doesn't realize that he has become the caricature of the desperate, hopeless bible thumper who has lost every last shred of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe M.D. is like the old lady in the Stone Soup story.
> Where you start off with nothing, but all the responses from people end up making good soup to share:
> http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wfp202398.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he's more likely the angry, self-hater with short man complex.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is self-hate, but yes, there is some lack of faith or confidence
that would make people question, project and lash out at others to "overcompensate."

He's not missing in intelligence, or missing in the dept of being a bullheaded bully.
He does not have faith that the absolute truths can be translated into relative terms without losing their integrity.

To "prove" that other people are on the same page with him and aren't trying to undermine or dilute the meaning,
he has to have a sign of proof by having people submit to his TAG proof as is, without any changes to it.

He is acting like the jealous God who wants no other gods before him.
To make sure that other people are really in agreement, because he has no faith otherwise
that people mean the same God unless it is on HIS terms.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
Click to expand...


I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)

Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
or God with Universal laws of science.

what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
Life?
Laws of nature? the universe?

How would you describe the absolute default?
And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?

of course eyelashes is not that level...


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, I'd seek mental help man in all seriousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)
> 
> Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
> or God with Universal laws of science.
> 
> what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
> Life?
> Laws of nature? the universe?
> 
> How would you describe the absolute default?
> And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?
> 
> of course eyelashes is not that level...
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.

"All powerful creator."

And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.


If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.


----------



## G.T.

As far as anyone can tell, even those lying to themselves that they've proven something - the primacy of existence can be true.

Which is to say existence came before any minds.

Logic doesn't need anything to ground it which transcends the physical world - reality itself grounds it just fine.


----------



## dblack

tl;dr


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> 
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)
> 
> Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
> or God with Universal laws of science.
> 
> what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
> Life?
> Laws of nature? the universe?
> 
> How would you describe the absolute default?
> And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?
> 
> of course eyelashes is not that level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.
> 
> "All powerful creator."
> 
> And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.
> 
> 
> If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.
Click to expand...


No, the equivalent of TAG is to start with something YOU agree exists.
like Life or Nature.

Some Jihadist can say God is wishing war on the world, and I don't agree with THAT.

G.T. if you believe there is a source or standard of truth that is universal for people,
that's enough.

just start with something that is so naturally self-existing
that you don't question it. And you would start your own TAG set up from that platform.

Life.
The Universe.
All Things. What do you call the default that will be here before and after you and all humans. Whatever you call that.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)
> 
> Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
> or God with Universal laws of science.
> 
> what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
> Life?
> Laws of nature? the universe?
> 
> How would you describe the absolute default?
> And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?
> 
> of course eyelashes is not that level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.
> 
> "All powerful creator."
> 
> And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.
> 
> 
> If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the equivalent of TAG is to start with something YOU agree exists.
> like Life or Nature.
> 
> Some Jihadist can say God is wishing war on the world, and I don't agree with THAT.
> 
> G.T. if you believe there is a source or standard of truth that is universal for people,
> that's enough.
> 
> just start with something that is so naturally self-existing
> that you don't question it. And you would start your own TAG set up from that platform.
> 
> Life.
> The Universe.
> All Things. What do you call the default that will be here before and after you and all humans. Whatever you call that.
Click to expand...

I don't need to create a tag argument.

I have a higher standard for proof and more morals than to do so.

TAG is a dishonest tactic which defines something into existence to goad that you've thus proven it exists! Brilliant!

Except its not.

I dont have to define my own disingenuous TAG argument because I have the honesty to say "I don't know," and keep it funky.

I DO consider ppl who think they know origins as an absolute fact, liars.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the sinner has no remorse, how special ...
> 
> 
> why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Came up 4 again! No fairies wear boots in sight. It's the ding dong dangest thing!
Click to expand...





> No fairies wear boots in sight.












> *mdr:* "There is no need to "modernize" the Bible".




nor remorse mdr - for christianity, you refer to as the religion of God ...


that's funny you would use the word "modernize" for what the bible is not in need of.

.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> we'll try again to for an *answer* - sinner.
> 
> 
> existence is not generic, multiplicity of living beings et all, what is the derivative of your TAG ?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop it.  You're as mad as a hatter (Fairies wear boots.  You gotta believe me!)  No one knows what you're talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* There is no need to "modernize" the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the sinner has no remorse, how special ...
> 
> 
> why the duplicity when you then ramble on for christianity ?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll try it again. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Came up 4 again! No fairies wear boots in sight. It's the ding dong dangest thing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fairies wear boots in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *mdr:* "There is no need to "modernize" the Bible".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nor remorse mdr - for christianity, you refer to as the religion of God ...
> 
> 
> that's funny you would use the word "modernize" for what the bible is not in need of.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 The religion of God is loving charity for all.
The greatest act of charity is forgiveness.
The more we forgive the more we receive.
We grow in love by uplifting one another
and helping each other to become better people.

Peace to you and carry on for the love of
Truth justice and humanity sake. Amen,


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
How did you first come to understand that
God Jesus and the Bible represented true things that impacted your life and humanity.

Was it by explanation?
Was it by changing your life?
Did you have to let go of past thinking?

1. When Dr. Phillip Goldfedder found out, it was because someone demonstrated how spiritual healing worked. Now Goldfedder shares healing with others to teach more people by direct demonstration. Because it involves forgivng and letting go, each person teaches others to forgive and receive healing.

2. My friend Olivia learned after she was healed of cancer and has been teaching others to forgive and to receive healing the same way so it multiplies.

3. I learned after I forgave very abusive relations and started over. Thats when I had a rebirth/rapture type experience and saw the meaning of the Bible and world peace asthe future of humanity.

None of us came to this understanding through TAG.

Even Francis MacNutt learned of spiritual healing by others who demonstrated  it as real and natural.

How did you both come to.understand God and Jesus Christ?

Was it through TAG or didnt you learn to write out those points after you already understood.

What was your process that changed your mind or first showed you wjat God means?

Thanks!


----------



## Boss

M.D. Rawlings said:


> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively...



Boss is certainly NOT refuted. God is omnipotent, God created everything. To form ANY argument to the contrary, is to insist that God cannot be omnipotent or omniscient. You're free to believe in THAT God, but you have not refuted MY God.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Most people here, even M.D. and Boss have some awareness of where they are talking past people.



You know Emily, I am getting a little tired of you constantly lumping me in with MD and pretending we are both doing the same thing here. MD made an argument and I agreed with his argument but pointed out why I didn't believe his argument was bulletproof. He then began a vicious campaign of attack on me, both personally and intellectually, and that attack has continued on and on. I have refrained from attacking him or anyone else for their beliefs, but I have responded to his stubborn insistence that his points are unassailable and his argument is empirical. 

Now you are entitled to your own opinion but you are pissing me off by comparing me (constantly) with MD. We're simply NOT doing the same thing here, I am NOT talking past anyone. If something I've said has gone past you, please let me know and I will explain it in greater detail. MD and Justin deserve to be lumped together, as they have consistently been on the same page, using the same tactics of debate, making the same arguments over and over, and hurling ad hominem insults left and right. 

Don't lump me in with MD, the only reason there is dialogue happening between us is because I refuse to let the punk get away with telling me I am wrong in my beliefs and he is right in his. I don't need any lessons in diplomacy or wise words on how to reach consensus. You need to be preaching that to MD and Justin, not me.


----------



## G.T.

Boss =\= m.d. in terms of intellectual honesty, humility, humor or good faith.

For the record, people of the Jury.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.



Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!


----------



## G.T.

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!
Click to expand...

Is that her on there? I haven't opened the file


----------



## Boss

G.T. said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can rap the Bill of Rights to Suzanne Vega Tom's Diner
> and have everyone throwing up their lunches. They can't have both hands on the porcelain throne, and on their guns at the same time, so this might help the town ensure nonviolence.
> 
> http://www.houstonprogressive.net/mp3/Civil Rap demo.mp3
> I was told this should be used on the album of bad music the govt uses to torture terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still the most profound revelation of this entire thread!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that her on there? I haven't opened the file
Click to expand...


She said it was. Pretty interesting, but that damn song has been stuck in my head for days now! lol


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people here, even M.D. and Boss have some awareness of where they are talking past people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Emily, I am getting a little tired of you constantly lumping me in with MD and pretending we are both doing the same thing here. MD made an argument and I agreed with his argument but pointed out why I didn't believe his argument was bulletproof. He then began a vicious campaign of attack on me, both personally and intellectually, and that attack has continued on and on. I have refrained from attacking him or anyone else for their beliefs, but I have responded to his stubborn insistence that his points are unassailable and his argument is empirical.
> 
> Now you are entitled to your own opinion but you are pissing me off by comparing me (constantly) with MD. We're simply NOT doing the same thing here, I am NOT talking past anyone. If something I've said has gone past you, please let me know and I will explain it in greater detail. MD and Justin deserve to be lumped together, as they have consistently been on the same page, using the same tactics of debate, making the same arguments over and over, and hurling ad hominem insults left and right.
> 
> Don't lump me in with MD, the only reason there is dialogue happening between us is because I refuse to let the punk get away with telling me I am wrong in my beliefs and he is right in his. I don't need any lessons in diplomacy or wise words on how to reach consensus. You need to be preaching that to MD and Justin, not me.
Click to expand...


No, the only comparison I made is that you are not forgiving each other but being negative towards each other.
BreezeWood is being negative and rejecting not accepting of M.D.
Hollie is being negative and rejecting and not accepting of M.D.

My point is if we are going to unpeel those layers of rejection that M.D. hides behind
we cannot be piling on more layers of the same.

That's more and more layers to forgive and undo.

Hollie keeps posting the same things also: telling M.D. to quit copying and pasting, quit saying the same things.
Telling him the same thing isn't working.
But she can't help it because she doesn't know there is a solution
so cannot steer and redirect M.D. there without such a concept of where he does need to expand his focus.

I  have a sense of that, but can only guess at it, offer ideas and try to see what works.

Boss maybe the reason I focus on you
is that you have a better chance of coming up with a way to explain to M.D.
what can be done differently instead of criticizing the same thing over and over
and wonder why M.D. keeps insisting the same things over and over.

If we want different answers out of M.D.
we have to ask different questions how to get there.

Do you agree that you and Hollie keep saying no no no
and it's not specific enough to change how M.D. responds.

Can we try different things?
My last post was asking both M.D. and Justin Davis
what was THEIR process for coming to an understanding of God? 
the meaning of Jesus Christianity and the Bible?

Boss, would you like to start first?
If you can explain how you came to your understanding,
and if it was or was not through discussion of TAG points,
maybe we can explain why this TAG isn't working.

It seems to me that even M.D. and Justin came to their
understanding FIRST, and THEN they summarized it afterwards using TAG.

So it is some kind of process AFTER understanding
but it is not necessarily appropriate for explaining BEFORE people reach an understanding.

Boss should we just come out and ASK
M.D. and Justin that if they had ever been in a state of not understanding God in the past,
wouldn't they not understand TAG either.  And it's only because they already understand God
that it makes sense to them.

So one group is objecting because they are not starting in that same place, but maybe
they are where people like Justin or M.D. were BEFORE they understood what God means 
and BEFORE they would ever have understood TAG either!

And another group is objecting because we see this gap,
and/or can explain it logistically where the leap is coming from.

Let me know if you have ideas.

If you are working to RESOLVE the issue then you would be different.

If you are just rejecting and trying to prove the other wrong, that is where I'm saying this is getting mutually stuck.
Just trying to prove the other is wrong instead of trying to correct where the disconnects are happening
and agree on a better way!

Can you help explain this to M.D. and/or Justin?
I think Justin may get it before M.D. who is so caught up on this track he's on,
he's not looking at the process around it. But maybe Justin can see both, 
see both what M.D. is focused on and see the paths and process as well that doesn't negate it
but needs to be taken into account when working with different people and their own paths and process.

Boss I don't think Hollie is a process person.
Can you see both? Can you see both the end result that M.D. is trying to get to, an agreement on God,
and can you see where his process and everyone else can come to some understanding?

I am just posting suggestions, and seeing if anything rings a bell, helps come up with insights
so we can make a connection somewhere between MD thought process and everyone else.

I can't find how to connect with BreezeWood either, so I am guessing at that
and throwing feelers out, trying to find where we are missing each other or where we might connect.

You BreezeWood and M.D. all seem in the business of just saying
"no you are wrong" to each other and not trying to find ways to fix it.

of all these people, Boss, I think you can come up with creative
new angles to try to make a better connection with BW and MD.
They don't seem to see how all these different ways are part of a process.

BW rejects the Christian God ABSOLUTELY and now it looks like prayer is thrown in as well.
MD rejects relative views and even the process of asking and questioning is "refuting God".

How can we build a process around that include these people and their paths
to show how it works?


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, GT, I tried that weird *2 + 2 = 15* thing of yours again (see post #5313), you know, how the God axiom doesn't hold true logically. Well, it's the ding dong dangest thing.  That 2 + 2 just keeps adding up to 4!  It's the weirdest thing.  I think you might be off after all.  Got calculator?
> 
> 
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)
> 
> Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
> or God with Universal laws of science.
> 
> what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
> Life?
> Laws of nature? the universe?
> 
> How would you describe the absolute default?
> And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?
> 
> of course eyelashes is not that level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.
> 
> "All powerful creator."
> 
> And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.
> 
> 
> If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.
Click to expand...


P.S. if you are equating God with something you don't believe in, but what other people do,
that is not God. So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
when God means something universally true that does.

Where do these systems intersect?

What in your system is the equivalent of what God means in other people's system.

G.T. you cannot just take a term out of one system and plant it in another. That is not the same thing.

You have to consider the context.

An extreme example is what if your language is German and everyone else you are citing speak English.
The word "gift" in German can mean "poison".

So just because everyone else is running using "gift" to mean 'present'
doesn't mean that in your system of speaking German, you can use it "gift' to mean the same thing.

You would have to translate your entire system into the English equivalents
to use the same words the same way.

If you are keeping your German context, you might have to TRANSLATE the concept
behind the English word GIFT and find out what is the equivalent in German of saying that,
not just copying everyone else.

One exchange student from Germany cracked up everyone in class
by asking the teacher for a RUBBER when he meant an ERASER.

Of course he had no idea that everyone was thinking of Condoms.

We need to align by concepts, and if this concept doesn't exist in your world,
then it has to align with something else.  You can't just insert something
that doesn't exist into your world and expect to communicate.

The common factors I see are either
* you believe in some kind of Truth or Science that is common standard for people by Nature
* you have some sense of cause and effect, Law and order or Justice in life, some rules that work for human relations
to be civil and peaceful
* there is some system by "Conscience" that people can agree what we consent to or what we don't,
and we can use that system of binary logic (yes or no) to work out issues and get along in life

If we can agree on some level like that, that's enough to align our concepts.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is not an axiom.
> 
> 2and2=4 is not the same argument. Your conflating is futile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. would you be okay with saying God can mean Nature
> and we agree Nature exists?
> 
> So if you define God to be Nature,
> then sure God exists because it means Nature.
> 
> Can we be okay with that?
> 
> or God = Life
> or God = Truth
> or God = Love
> 
> if you define God to mean something we agree exists,
> then by definition God exists. But if you turn around and
> say, no God doesn't exist then you contradict what we already agreed existed.
> 
> Are you okay with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, defining god as any old thing renders it a meaningless concept.
> 
> God is not my eyelashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say to equate God with eyelashes (or Cats with Dogs as MD fears)
> 
> Are you  okay with equating God with Nature,
> or God with Universal laws of science.
> 
> what WOULD you be okay with saying exists in and of itself?
> Life?
> Laws of nature? the universe?
> 
> How would you describe the absolute default?
> And would you be okay with equating God as a symbol of that level?
> 
> of course eyelashes is not that level...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I wouldn't equate god with anything other than what humans are typically referring to when they say god.
> 
> "All powerful creator."
> 
> And I wouldn't say that god exists or doesn't, but something as frivolous as defining him/her/it into existence seems immature to me. An insult to an adult conversationalist, really.
> 
> 
> If you want me to define god as something new cool and different, here's mine: god is an advanced 12year old on a planet six trillion lightyears away playing 'earth' through his advanced peoples' looking glass technology where in video gaming, 'shit just got real' is an understatement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P.S. if you are equating God with something you don't believe in, but what other people do,
> that is not God. So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
> when God means something universally true that does.
> 
> Where do these systems intersect?
> 
> What in your system is the equivalent of what God means in other people's system.
> 
> G.T. you cannot just take a term out of one system and plant it in another. That is not the same thing.
> 
> You have to consider the context.
> 
> An extreme example is what if your language is German and everyone else you are citing speak English.
> The word "gift" in German can mean "poison".
> 
> So just because everyone else is running using "gift" to mean 'present'
> doesn't mean that in your system of speaking German, you can use it "gift' to mean the same thing.
> 
> You would have to translate your entire system into the English equivalents
> to use the same words the same way.
> 
> If you are keeping your German context, you might have to TRANSLATE the concept
> behind the English word GIFT and find out what is the equivalent in German of saying that,
> not just copying everyone else.
> 
> One exchange student from Germany cracked up everyone in class
> by asking the teacher for a RUBBER when he meant an ERASER.
> 
> Of course he had no idea that everyone was thinking of Condoms.
> 
> We need to align by concepts, and if this concept doesn't exist in your world,
> then it has to align with something else.  You can't just insert something
> that doesn't exist into your world and expect to communicate.
> 
> The common factors I see are either
> * you believe in some kind of Truth or Science that is common standard for people by Nature
> * you have some sense of cause and effect, Law and order or Justice in life, some rules that work for human relations
> to be civil and peaceful
> * there is some system by "Conscience" that people can agree what we consent to or what we don't,
> and we can use that system of binary logic (yes or no) to work out issues and get along in life
> 
> If we can agree on some level like that, that's enough to align our concepts.
Click to expand...


You said* "So you are equating God with something false that doesn't exist,
when God means something universally true that does."

I disagree. I am equating god with what humans have meant when they refer to god (or gods) since we've HAD language. 

What I'm not into, is defining god INTO existence, which is what it seems you're asking me to do. 

If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.

When im debating if god exists or not, I'm talking about a given overall understanding of what god "generally" refers to, and the specifics may vary but the general idea doesn't. 

god means eternal creator or all powerful being to most people.

im not into changing that in order to define him into something that exists and "poof!" thus god exists!

that is asinine to me, childish almost.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.
> 
> Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow _immortally omniscient_ for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.
Click to expand...


Hi Boss I'm trying to backtrack and find out where I missed your points or you misunderstood mine.

I found this one.

If you agree with M.D. you need to keep reminding him of this.
Say it at the beginning of each post if necessary, that you agree the points on God are true,
but it is the way he is setting it up and approaching it that is causing problems.

I have to keep posting to Justin and M.D. also that I have no problem agreeing with points
but the conflicts are with the presentation and process around it.

I am not being specific enough to correct it, so they aren't getting it.
Can you help?

If they think we are rejecting them, they can't tell the difference and keep saying weird things back.
Sorry Boss there was one more msg I saw that showed me where I wasn't communicating clearly
with you what I meant. I will try to find that too.

Keep posting which points you agree on whenever you point out what you disagree on.
I think that will help! Thanks Boss! Sorry for the missed communications here.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> *If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
> If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.*



^ No, but they are personifying universe and nature as God, not you.
that is their words for it in their language.

That is my whole point, you don't need to use their language which stays on their side of the fence.

You just keep using your terms for Nature or Universe that are the equivalent for you.

If you speak English and your word for cat is cat, you keep using cat.
Let the other person call it gato or chat or whatever.

You stick to yours and just KNOW it is the same as what they are calling whatever on their side.
There need not be any offense taken if you use the secular neutral terms.

Just know it is the same. If they have a problem don't take on their problem.
You know you mean the same thing, the "universal laws of nature" regardless how this is portrayed.

My mother who is Buddhist was able to calm down a friend of mine
who finally decided she was naturally wise, directly from God and didn't need the Bible or 
the same understanding of God. She had the wisdom and that was the point. So he calmed down about it.

My friend Olivia first questioned someone who is atheist, but saw by his nature
he was one in spirit. so she accepted God made him that way. Because he was okay with it.
We could still agree and work together. and it was only when the other Christians freaked out they had a problem.
But the ones who didn't have a problem worked and walked together as neighbors in Christ just fine, without issue.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> youre a sad little little man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Betty Boop Chronicles
> *
> People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.
> 
> *The bottom line:* the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of the _God axiom_ and the *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC *nature of the _God axiom_!
> 
> See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation*:* The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> The issue is not whether or not this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is a *FACT*. It _is_ a *LOGICAL *and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the *FACT* of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* Do you believe that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?
> 
> _Yes_ or _no_?
> 
> *2.* Is this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?
> 
> Nature or God or both?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the only thing about this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.
> 
> The *FACT* of the existence of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, or the *FACT* of the nature of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology is _not_ controversial or open to debate!
> 
> And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.
> 
> It is _I_ who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.
> 
> Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw; more at, the fact that so many of you aligned yourselves with the Pollyannaish banalities of Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.
> 
> Who but uneducable imbeciles would give this snot-nosed punk, this utter fool, anything more than contempt or the back of his hand?
> 
> What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the reality of this *LOGICAL* and *SCIENTIFIC FACT* of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings
1. How did you come to your understanding of God?
2. Was it through any of this process you post ^ above, or did you come to terms by life experience or other ways?
Can you please share because I think that would be very helpful to understand the larger context or process.
Especially if that's what worked for you!
3. Were you ever in a state of questioning and not understanding what other people meant by God?
Can you explain what changed your mind?
4. If so, while you were in that state, how would you have responded to these points you post.
5. If you can put yourself in that mindset, how would you explain it.

Thanks

P.S. I just realized again, if you, me Boss, Justin all came to our recognition of the meaning of God as true by DIFFERENT paths in life, what makes you think that only one way is going to explain it or summarize it for all people. Don't you think it would be "slightly different" for each person, just like you, me Justin, Boss etc. all have a slightly different angle on our connection of God.

I respect your process MD though it seems this TAG came LATER in the process toward the END. So I question why you don't have the same consideration of others, if you didn't start your process using TAG but didn't come to this understanding until the end.  You want others to accept and work with this process around your focus on TAG as you present it, what about everyone else's process, should theirs be included and respected equally as yours?

Do you even count the journey of yourself and others as important at all? 

*Math and science are more than just getting the right answer in the back of the book,
it's about applying it to SOLVE problems to apply the PROCESS in order to build.*

Just wondering where you are in this process, and if you see the bigger process around it yet.
Do you see how your process and those of others follows stages, and are you respecting those stages or not.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If i believe that nature exists, does that mean that i think nature is god? no.
> If i believe that the universe exists, does that mean that i think the universe is god? no.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ No, but they are personifying universe and nature as God, not you.
> that is their words for it in their language.
> 
> That is my whole point, you don't need to use their language which stays on their side of the fence.
> 
> You just keep using your terms for Nature or Universe that are the equivalent for you.
> 
> If you speak English and your word for cat is cat, you keep using cat.
> Let the other person call it gato or chat or whatever.
> 
> You stick to yours and just KNOW it is the same as what they are calling whatever on their side.
> There need not be any offense taken if you use the secular neutral terms.
> 
> Just know it is the same. If they have a problem don't take on their problem.
> You know you mean the same thing, the "universal laws of nature" regardless how this is portrayed.
> 
> My mother who is Buddhist was able to calm down a friend of mine
> who finally decided she was naturally wise, directly from God and didn't need the Bible or
> the same understanding of God. She had the wisdom and that was the point. So he calmed down about it.
> 
> My friend Olivia first questioned someone who is atheist, but saw by his nature
> he was one in spirit. so she accepted God made him that way. Because he was okay with it.
> We could still agree and work together. and it was only when the other Christians freaked out they had a problem.
> But the ones who didn't have a problem worked and walked together as neighbors in Christ just fine, without issue.
Click to expand...



You make no sense. 

If everyone means something different when they refer to god, then nobody is "on the same page" for proving if "god" exists because "god" isnt even the same thing to begin with and the conversation is meaningless. 

in a conversation about frogs, im not proving that elephants exist or not.

in a conversation about the creator of the universe, im not proving that nature exists.

if everyone is talking about something different, theres no conversation to be had. waste of time.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> in a conversation about the creator of the universe, im not proving that nature exists.
> 
> if everyone is talking about something different, theres no conversation to be had. waste of time.



Hi G.T.
1. the point is we can AGREE on the laws of nature or universal laws without arguing if there is a creator or not.
We focus on the theme we DO share in common.

2. by process of elimination, we drop all the side points that people don't agree on.
and just stick to the points that are common across the board.

We "weed out" the parts where people are talking about different things
and just stick to the part we agree we meant the same things.

It's very little that's left, but those are the key points anyway.
We're looking for the tiny diamonds hidden in the caves of coal.
it's the diamonds that are valuable, priceless not the tons and tons of rock in our way.


Another example: If Jesus means Justice, we can talk about Justice.
We don't need to argue if the crucifixion was history or symbolic or spiritual or what.
We can agree there is a process of "restoring justice and peace," and work out those
steps regardless of symbolism. We stick to where we agree, and we drop the places
where we are going all over the place not agreeing or not talking about the same things.

If we think something is true and just, we agree on that point.
If we don't agree, we drop that one. And by process of elimination, trial and error,
we form a consensus based on where we agree and just stick to those points.
We form agreements and even policies or contracts based on consent of the parties.
And forget everything else where we disagree that won't get us anywhere.


----------



## G.T.

I'm not interested in beliefs.

I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.

And IMO, unprovABLE 

beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.

So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.

The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

rational and humble people admit this
Arrogant people pretend.

I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.


----------



## G.T.

TAG is an absurdity.
'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> I'm not interested in beliefs.
> 
> I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.
> 
> And IMO, unprovABLE
> 
> beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.
> 
> So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.
> 
> The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.
> 
> rational and humble people admit this
> Arrogant people pretend.
> 
> I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.



Dear G.T. 
The personal connection with God cannot be proven.
What we CAN prove are the universal laws we agree on.

If you keep pushing these people to prove their God, this sets both sides on the defensive and goes in circles.
That's the whole problem we should avoid.

I propose that we prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing
as something that CAN be shown consistent with science
and serves the same purposes as proving Jesus/God etc.

That can be done scientifically.
It has more practical benefits and it solves the issues causing the other conflicts as a result.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.



Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.

I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.

There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.

he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
are also coming up to be resolved equally!

BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
leading to the same higher place.

I think Boss can see the different sides, but is just frustrated with everyone and that's getting in the way. I am probably more at odds with how to talk with BreezeWood than with M.D. and Justin.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in beliefs.
> 
> I'm interested in someone proving something which is unproven.
> 
> And IMO, unprovABLE
> 
> beliefs regarding our origins are not the same thing as FACTS about our origins.
> 
> So I can share my 'beliefs' all day long, but that doesn't raise the bar one iota towards the overall mission statement: prove god exists, if you can.
> 
> The inability of anyone to do so is not a miscommunication, Emily. Its because the feat is simply NOT POSSIBLE.
> 
> rational and humble people admit this
> Arrogant people pretend.
> 
> I've no sympathy for pretenders. Their ego is their biggest enemy. They need to face that sooner or later if they'd ever wish to self actualize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear G.T.
> The personal connection with God cannot be proven.
> What we CAN prove are the universal laws we agree on.
> 
> If you keep pushing these people to prove their God, this sets both sides on the defensive and goes in circles.
> That's the whole problem we should avoid.
> 
> I propose that we prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing
> as something that CAN be shown consistent with science
> and serves the same purposes as proving Jesus/God etc.
> 
> That can be done scientifically.
> It has more practical benefits and it solves the issues causing the other conflicts as a result.
Click to expand...


I'm not pushing anyone to do anything. 

They made a CLAIM that they've proven god. 

An absurd claim, because the proof they've presented is a fallacy and doesn't prove god, it presupposes him. 

Only a toddler could be so sophomoric, in judgement. 

further, proving universal laws is not why i am here. i am here for a proof of or discussion thereof, of god. 

establishing universal laws doesnt establish god. 

ive looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof. at best it can be shaken down to peculiar coincidence. at worst, its simply rational science we've yet to understand. until god comes in my face and says "hey!! its me!! i did this!!," the spiritual healing thing is NOT sufficient evidence for anyone serious about their discovery. attributing the healing to "god" is a CHOICE you make, it is not PROOF he did it.


----------



## G.T.

emilynghiem said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.
> 
> I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
> of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
> presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
> going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.
> 
> There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
> but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.
> 
> he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
> and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
> to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
> are also coming up to be resolved equally!
> 
> BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
> leading to the same higher place.
Click to expand...

it doesnt matter which way he worked, TAG doesnt work regardless because it claims to prove something unprovable. 

hence faith.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame MD and Boss equally for posting venting that doesn't respect the intelligence of the audience we are trying to cultivate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are clearly not adequately comprehending or interpreting what I post. Emily, go back and re-read where MD made his original presentation of the 5 Things, (later amended to 7 Things) and his argument for TAG. You will find that I never disagreed with his argument or rejected it's possibility, in fact, I praised the argument and commended him for presenting a valid syllogistic argument, per the thread challenge. My only point of contention with any of this has been that human knowledge is not infallible and we are not omniscient. Therefore, the possibility always exists that we are wrong, that our "logic and logical thinking" are incorrect, and that we can never KNOW truth, we can only _believe_ we know truth. MD viewed my observation as a personal threat to his ideas and began a campaign of attacks on me, both personally and intellectually.
> 
> Now you are free to have your opinion, but I don't see anything equal about the posting styles or tactics of myself and MD. I've not disrespected anyone's intelligence here, unless you can say that my not granting human intelligence as beyond reproach would qualify. I simply can't allow that MD is somehow _immortally omniscient_ for the sake of "getting along" here. If you wish to concede that in order to achieve some greater objective, that's your prerogative.
Click to expand...


Dear Boss: I thought there was another post where you thought I was calling your responses "venting"
What I was referring to was when you slammed Hollie in a derogatory way, and I understood you were venting.

I APPRECIATE your spelled out explanations and arguments and do NOT consider that venting but proper response.

Likewise when M.D. spells out his points, he is sticking to the concepts and I appreciate that, too.

What I meant was when both of you had made PERSONAL remarks about the PEOPLE posting and not the content.

Sorry this wasn't clear.

Boss to be fair I was trying to point out that in the past I had equally asked you not to slam Hollie this way;
and I *wasn't just picking on M.D. but asking others not to do that either!*

Clearly you are one of the few trying to post clear spelled out objections
and Hollie was trying to also.  

I didn't agree with M.D. mocking those points she listed because that's better than just calling names!

We need to reward people for spelling it out, and not slam them for it.

Boss : I'm sorry I didn't come out and SAY that I appreciate your posts (ie. that are spelled out and NOT venting)
because I thought you already knew this was the correct way to respond and didn't need to be commended on that.
I tried to THANK your msgs when you did spell things out and thought that was enough.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> I'm not pushing anyone to do anything.
> 
> They made a CLAIM that they've proven god.
> 
> ive looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof. at best it can be shaken down to peculiar coincidence. at worst, its simply rational science we've yet to understand. until god comes in my face and says "hey!! its me!! i did this!!," the spiritual healing thing is NOT sufficient evidence for anyone serious about their discovery. attributing the healing to "god" is a CHOICE you make, it is not PROOF he did it.



1. since God cannot be proven that's where I suggest then to redirect
this claim to proving Spiritual Healing works naturally effectively and universally for people of all or no faith.
it works by forgiveness and that can be shown by science, statistics, studies whatever.

They can still prove a claim, but select an angle that can actually be demonstrated with science! so this would solve the problems on both sides.

2. RE: looked into the whole spiritual healing thing, and its all hearsay. not proof.

This is why I am pushing for medical research and proof! Exactly!
It's never been fully established as other things like the laws of gravity or
the process of dreaming at night that is taken for granted as naturally occurring
(though different for all people and not proveable). Dreaming is not considered hearsay,
yet we can never prove what we or others dreamed, we take it on faith that's what someone said.

How do you expect research to appear if nobody does it?
That's why I'm asking to organize support to push for this.

if EVERY atheist/nontheist/Buddhist etc. even liberals who question reparative/conversion therapy claiming to heal
homosexuality
DEMANDED that instead of pushing the Bible
PLEASE USE SCIENCE TO PROVE SPIRITUAL HEALING
then maybe it would get done if enough people pour support into it

So maybe I will start an online petition
That if this can be proven, then all sides agree to quit pushing religion by preaching to the wrong choir
and start using science and spiritual healing to reach those audiences.
You are welcome to preach and sing in church to people of that culture.
But for the secular nontheists, please use science and apply spiritual healing
based on FORGIVENESS which we can prove works!

The problem with preaching is when it is not based on Forgiveness but Fear.
Hmmmm. Maybe that's the equivalent of the TAG proof....coming from the other side and meeting in the middle....

If the Christian outreach is based on Forgiveness and healing then it works.
if the outreach is based on fear and condemnation it may work through some phases (to scare people into submission)
but fails at other stages and still needs to be completed by Forgiveness and healing anyway.
Maybe I could write that up and present to M.D. and Justin for judicial review....

Thanks G.T. you've given me some better ideas
getting closer, we'll see what it leads to.


----------



## emilynghiem

G.T. said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe the point is to work backwards.
> 
> I am guessing that M.D. did not arrive at this point until AFTER he went through his process
> of reaching his understanding of God, and now he is working backwards:
> presenting the conclusion, then when all the objections come up
> going through the similar process of RESOLVING them all to reach an agreement at the end.
> 
> There is a bigger process AROUND TAG, and that process is universal, including all people,
> but what M.D. doesn't get is that it is RELATIVE to each person and that's okay, too.
> 
> he is not okay with the idea that things can be relative and universal/absolutes too
> and neither is Justin. So they are not done with their process either, and their objections
> to how this "relative approach business can still lead to universal agreement:
> are also coming up to be resolved equally!
> 
> BreezeWood also does not see how prayer or Christian God/beliefs can be part of a spiritual process
> leading to the same higher place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it doesnt matter which way he worked, TAG doesnt work regardless because it claims to prove something unprovable.
> 
> hence faith.
Click to expand...


Yes, I pointed out to MD that the people who can follow and agree on TAG points already believe in God.

What I see TAG used for is like baiting,
all the people who DON'T agree express objections to why they don't believe in God.

so all these issues come up to be resolved.

If they are all resolved, then the default position is to be at peace with each other's beliefs
and not push this way or that way.

So all people would be okay with MD having his TAG proof to share with his friends who think that way.
Any objections would be resolved.

M.D. doesn't see this bigger process but only sees his part which is to focus on TAG.

I like the idea of writing up an online petition to ask these faith-based believers
to invest in medical research to prove spiritual healing using science
and then use that to reach atheists, nontheists and others and quit using these methods that don't work.

I am happy to draft it, and have you Hollie and whoever else edit and finalize it in secular terms that are clearly mainstream,
maybe Sealybobo and my friends on another forum who have asked to see medical proof of this.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss is certainly NOT refuted. God is omnipotent, God created everything. To form ANY argument to the contrary, is to insist that God cannot be omnipotent or omniscient. You're free to believe in THAT God, but you have not refuted MY God.
Click to expand...

You religious zealots and your hurling your various inventions of gawds at each other - it's like watching a bunch of 12 year olds fighting over a toy.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things™
1.* We exist!

*2.* The cosmological order exists!

*3.* The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

*6.* On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that *God the Creator doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!

*See Posts: *
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242893/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*​

* 7. *All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3*, *#4*, *#5*, *#6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4:* to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes *The Seven Things™.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence 
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*See Posts:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242893/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*


*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that _knowledge can exist when God the Creator doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God the Creator_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God the Creator doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God the Creator doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God the Creator doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (*The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry*), is among the more famous presuppositional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, the Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God the Creator doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer*: *while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

*Related: **Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence 

See Post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/**.*

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*

*Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*


Note the attempt to overthrow*: **Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki**.*



Note the actuality of that attempt*: **Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, *2 + 2 = 4* presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make *2 + 2 = 4* go away.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things™
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> *3.* The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!
> 
> *6.* On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that *God the Creator doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
> No one escapes *The Seven Things™.*



Dear M.D. which of these Seven things first led you to an understanding of God.
What was your process. Who first explained it to you and which points did they illustrate above.
Thank you!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Seven Things™
> 1.* We exist!
> 
> *2.* The cosmological order exists!
> 
> *3.* The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!
> 
> *4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!
> 
> *5.* Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!
> 
> *6.* On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that *God the Creator doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!
> 
> *See Posts: *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236118/*
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10236219/*
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*​
> 
> * 7. *All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!
> 
> 
> I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3*, *#4*, *#5*, *#6* and *#7* necessarily follow.
> 
> These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.
> 
> All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow or will even try.
> 
> But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4:* to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.
> 
> It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.
> 
> No one escapes *The Seven Things™.*




*Fraud Alert!*


*Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things*

*The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

1.* We exist!

*Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.*

2. The cosmological order exists!
*Cosmology 
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.
*

3. The _idea_ that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, _exists_ in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
*
Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.
*

4. If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
*
And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™ 

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.
*

5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

*Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.
*

6. It is not logically possible to say or think that _God (the Creator) doesn't exist_, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!
*
It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.
*

7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!
*
No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence
> 
> See Post: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242874/**.*
> 
> The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.
> 
> By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*
> 
> *Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*
> 
> 
> Note the attempt to overthrow*: **Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki**.*
> 
> 
> 
> Note the actuality of that attempt*: **Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*
> 
> 
> What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.
> 
> Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!
> 
> The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.
> 
> In other words, *2 + 2 = 4* presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make *2 + 2 = 4* go away.



*The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*

*
The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin*
http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
_[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
> 2. Knowledge is possible.
> 3. God exists.*
> 
> 
> *The Negative Transcendental Argument
> 1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
> 2. Knowledge exists.
> 3. God doesn't exist. *



Dear M.D. Rawlings is this close:

Spiritual Process of coming to terms with God

1. A person forms a relationship with someone with that understanding
(1. Receives a child of God, so receives the spirit of Christ Jesus or perfect charity, loving justice with mercy)
2.  A person is called to conscience, to reconcile their understanding and will, with collective/universal truth called the will of God
(2. Whoever receives Jesus or Justice, and commits to embrace this spirit of the law by conscience, finds God)
3. In this state of conviction by conscience, the person calls or invokes the spirit of Truth or Kingdom of God
Anything asked in the name of Truth or Justice (God or Jesus) is answered or done.
^ and this is where if 2 or 3 agree by conscience or in the spirit of Christ and invoke and establish truth,
then what we do locally has a multiplied effect on the global collective conscience or humanity ^

Opposite, what causes a disconnect and has to be undone and resolved to restore the union
1. Someone doesn't forgive themselves or someone else (usually patterns repeated in families,
carried by generations, especially carried by children from parents and repeated in future relations)
2. the unforgiven/unresolved conflict is projected forward and disrupts relations with others
3. collectively this same process of denial and projection of blame is repeated
in a chain reaction creating social disorder, ills, unrest, crime violence war etc. on a global scale

These layers of unforgiven conflicts have to be forgiven, corrected and healed to
reverse the process and to restore good faith relations
1. resolving issues with oneself internally, including ones projected or connected
with parents, with close relationships etc. that trigger these internal issues to express on the surface
2. resolving mutual conflicts and problems that are shared and mirrored by other people or groups
(like on this forum, how each person has their own issues and clashes with someone with the opposite views or issues)
3. these efforts in forgiving correcting and resolving issues locally between people one on one
are then multiplied to bring peace on a larger scale for society and collectively for humanity's betterment

M.D. does this describe
how you came to an understanding of God, by sharing with others and resolving questions that came up as you interacted,
and how you wish to share this understanding with others
but you are running into conflicts because people are projecting their own issues, too?


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things™ stand!*

*They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242861/**.*


----------



## Hollie

*

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™ Stands as a Fraud.

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 539 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*


----------



## Muslim75

I speak as a Muslim.

The rain that comes from the sky and the vast pathways in the sky above you indicate the existence of an Almighty God. This is His act, just like footprints would indicate someone who walked.


----------



## Justin Davis

Hollie said:


> *The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*
> 
> *
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> Michael Martin*
> http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
> _[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_
> 
> Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.
> 
> If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.
> 
> How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.
> 
> Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.
> 
> Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
> 
> There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.



You idiot, Martin's idiocy was already refuted by Rawlings. It's been refuted in every one of his posts.  Martin is directly refuted in his post 5386, before you even posted his idiocy. Logic and the TAG do not hold that logic or morality were created, you idiot. That’s the whole point. Martin's premise is totally false. That’s why the laws of logic and the axioms of the TAG are irrefutable. Jeez. How stupid are you? Martin is arguing against himself, you and Boss. You just proved that logic was not created, that the TAG is true.  You idiots don't  read or think about anything.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.



God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid.   Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge.   Gee.  I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?

MORONS!

God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?

No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .

Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.

The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity"  holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!

_Crickets chirping
_
Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?

_Crickets chirping_

Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?

_Crickets chirping_

Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.

Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?

_Crickets chirping_

This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.

You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars!  You too, Boss!  You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that *(1)* God must exist and *(2)* God must be the Principle of Identity Himself.  Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!

You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.

Relativists.

LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*
> 
> *
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> Michael Martin*
> http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html
> _[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_
> 
> Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.
> 
> If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.
> 
> How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.
> 
> Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.
> 
> Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
> 
> There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, Martin's idiocy was already refuted by Rawlings. It's been refuted in every one of his posts.  Martin is directly refuted in his post 5386, before you even posted his idiocy. Logic and the TAG do not hold that logic or morality were created, you idiot. That’s the whole point. Martin's premise is totally false. That’s why the laws of logic and the axioms of the TAG are irrefutable. Jeez. How stupid are you? Martin is arguing against himself, you and Boss. You just proved that logic was not created, that the TAG is true.  You idiots don't  read or think about anything.
Click to expand...


There's a lot of _idiot_ in your posts. 

Rawling refuted nothing. TAG is pointless and viciously circular. 

How odd that your pointless and juvenile name-calling lacks any substance. 

TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid.   Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge.   Gee.  I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?
> 
> MORONS!
> 
> God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?
> 
> No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .
> 
> Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.
> 
> The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity"  holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!
> 
> _Crickets chirping
> _
> Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.
> 
> Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars!  You too, Boss!  You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that *(1)* God must exist and *(2)* God must be the Principle of Identity Himself.  Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourself at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...

There is no reason to accept to your pointless and unsupported claim that your polytheistic gawds created anything.

Your juvenile cutting and pasting is a waste of time.

Do yourself a favor, Laddie. Drink the Kool Aid.


----------



## Hollie

*The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*

*
The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
Michael Martin*
The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
_[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_

Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.

If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.

How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.

Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.

Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.

There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.





LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ is again refuted.


LOL! The pointless TAG is again refuted. LOL!


LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ again slithers away in shame. LOL!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.



YOU MORON!  MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT IT IS IRRATIONL TO HOLD THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!

I agree!  It is irrational, logically untenable, to hold that God created everything, including logic.
Everything I've written on this thread refutes that imbecilic notion. The TAG refutes that imbecilic notion.

Except for his made up bullshit out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG.  He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.

Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history, including pantheism/panentheism,  holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.

Insofar as the TAG is concerned, Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.

There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard. Martin is a liar.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> TANG stands as a thorough refutation to you, Mr. Sock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU MORON!  MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!
> 
> Except for his made up bullshit out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG.  He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.
> 
> Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.
> 
> Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.
> 
> There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard.
Click to expand...


TANG stands as a thorough refutation to the pointless and viciously circular TAG argument.

TAG is refuted by those who suggest it is anything but viciously circular. 

Your x-tian gawds are "creators" of everything - Not.

Your "brand" of christianity is valid - Not.


TAG is a bust, LOL,


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*
> 
> *
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> Michael Martin*
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> _[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_
> 
> Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.
> 
> If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.
> 
> How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.
> 
> Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.
> 
> Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
> 
> There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ is again refuted.
> 
> 
> LOL! The pointless TAG is again refuted. LOL!
> 
> 
> LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ again slithers away in shame. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a depraved bitch, Hollie, a sociopath, a rabid animal.
Click to expand...


*The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God Stands!*

LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ is again refuted.


LOL! The pointless TAG is again refuted. LOL!


LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ again slithers away in shame. LOL!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*
> 
> *
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> Michael Martin*
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> _[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist.]_
> 
> Some Christian philosophers have made the incredible argument that logic, science and morality presuppose the truth of the Christian world view because logic, science and morality depend on the truth of this world view [1]. Advocates call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for Existence of God_ and I will call it TAG for short. In what follows I will not attempt to refute TAG directly. Rather I will show how one can argue exactly the opposite conclusion, namely, that logic, science and morality presuppose the falsehood of the Christian world view or at least the falsehood of the interpretation of his world view presupposed by TAG. I will call this argument the _Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God_ or TANG for short.
> 
> If TANG is a sound argument, then obviously TAG is not, for it is logically impossible that there be two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. On the other hand, if TANG is unsound, it does not follow that TAG is sound. After all, both arguments could be unsound. Perhaps, logic, science, and objective morality are possible given either a Christian or a nonChristian world view. In any case, the presentation of TANG will provide an indirect challenge to TAG and force its advocates to defend their position. The burden will be on them to refute TANG. Unless they do, TAG is doomed.
> 
> How might TANG proceed? Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true. However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. But if something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary--it is contingent on God. And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian world view assumes that logic so dependent, it is false.
> 
> Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false.
> 
> Consider morality. The type of Christian morality assumed by TAG is some version of the Divine Command Theory, the view that moral obligation is dependent on the will of God. But such a view is incompatible with objective morality. On the one hand, on this view what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is. On the other hand, determining the will of God is impossible since there are different alleged sources of this will (The Bible, the Koran, The Book of Mormon, etc) and different interpretations of what these sources say; moreover; there is no rational way to reconcile these differences. Thus, the existence of an objective morality presupposes the falsehood of the Christian world view assumed by TAG.
> 
> There are, of course, ways to avoid the conclusions of TANG. One way is to reject logic, science and objective morality. Another is to maintain belief in God but argue that logic, science and morality are not dependent on God's existence. However, the first way is self-defeating since Christian apologists use logic to defend their position and the second way presumes that TAG is invalid since it assumes that logic, science, and morality do not assume God's existence. Finally, one can object to particular aspects of TANG, for example, the claim that there is no rational way to reconcile different interpretations of the Bible. However, this tack would involve a detailed defence of TAG--something that has yet to be provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ is again refuted.
> 
> 
> LOL! The pointless TAG is again refuted. LOL!
> 
> 
> LOL! _M. Pompous Rawling_ again slithers away in shame. LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a depraved bitch, Hollie, a sociopath, a rabid animal.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make me a bad person.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Holle is a Depraved, Rabid Dog
*
YOU MORON! MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT IT IS IRRATIONL TO HOLD THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!

I agree! It is irrational, logically untenable, to hold that God created everything, including logic.

Everything I've written on this thread refutes that imbecilic notion. The TAG refutes that imbecilic notion.

Except for his made up crap  out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG. He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.

Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history, including pantheism/panentheism, holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.

Insofar as the TAG is concerned, hower, Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.

There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard. Martin is a liar.


----------



## G.T.

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid.   Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge.   Gee.  I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?
> 
> MORONS!
> 
> God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?
> 
> No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .
> 
> Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.
> 
> The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity"  holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!
> 
> _Crickets chirping
> _
> Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.
> 
> Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars!  You too, Boss!  You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that *(1)* God must exist and *(2)* God must be the Principle of Identity Himself.  Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourself at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason to accept to your pointless and unsupported claim that your polytheistic gawds created anything.
> 
> Your juvenile cutting and pasting is a waste of time.
> 
> Do yourself a favor, Laddie. Drink the Kool Aid.
Click to expand...

What a meltdown his post was. I stopped reading after the second "retard" lolol


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Holle is a Depraved, Rabid Dog
> *
> YOU MORON! MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT IT IS IRRATIONL TO HOLD THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!
> 
> I agree! It is irrational, logically untenable, to hold that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> Everything I've written on this thread refutes that imbecilic notion. The TAG refutes that imbecilic notion.
> 
> Except for his made up crap  out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG. He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.
> 
> Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history, including pantheism/panentheism, holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.
> 
> Insofar as the TAG is concerned, hower, Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.
> 
> There is no such thing as a
> *The Refutation of The Pointless and Viciously Circular TAG Nonsense.*
> 
> *
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> Michael Martin*
> The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God
> _[This article originally appeared in the Autumn 1996 issue of The New Zealand Rationalist & _





M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Holle is a Depraved, Rabid Dog
> *
> YOU MORON! MARTIN'S PREMISE IS THAT IT IS IRRATIONL TO HOLD THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, INCLUDING LOGIC!
> 
> I agree! It is irrational, logically untenable, to hold that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> Everything I've written on this thread refutes that imbecilic notion. The TAG refutes that imbecilic notion.
> 
> Except for his made up crap  out of thin are, Martin's argument substantiates the TAG. He refutes himself, all of you and Boss in particular.
> 
> Neither the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible, Christianity, indeed, nor any major philosophical and theological system of thought in history, including pantheism/panentheism, holds that God created everything, let alone any aspect of knowledge.
> 
> Insofar as the TAG is concerned, hower, Martin’s argument is refuted before it even gets off the ground.
> 
> There is no such thing as a TAG or a "brand of Christianity" that holds God created everything, including logic, you drooling retard. Martin is a liar.



TANG stands as a thorough refutation to the pointless and viciously circular TAG argument.

TAG is refuted by those who suggest it is anything but viciously circular. 

Your x-tian gawds are "creators" of everything - Not.

Your "brand" of christianity is valid - Not.


TAG is a bust, LOL,


----------



## Hollie

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid.   Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge.   Gee.  I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?
> 
> MORONS!
> 
> God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?
> 
> No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .
> 
> Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.
> 
> The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity"  holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!
> 
> _Crickets chirping
> _
> Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.
> 
> Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars!  You too, Boss!  You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that *(1)* God must exist and *(2)* God must be the Principle of Identity Himself.  Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourself at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason to accept to your pointless and unsupported claim that your polytheistic gawds created anything.
> 
> Your juvenile cutting and pasting is a waste of time.
> 
> Do yourself a favor, Laddie. Drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a meltdown his post was. I stopped reading after the second "retard" lolol
Click to expand...

Just having a little fun with the boy.


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> LOL!


.
*... bestowed on mankind!*

you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.

.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

G.T. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> TAG is an absurdity.
> 'God created knowledge' cannot be held as an axiom until God is proven.
> Using it to PROVE god, is circular, absurd, begs the question, and is an insult to any rational adult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not create EVERYTHING, you retard. That notion on the very face of it is stupid.   Look everybody, now the idiots are arguing that God had no knowledge before He created knowledge.   Gee.  I wonder where God got the knowledge to create knowledge?
> 
> MORONS!
> 
> God did not create knowledge, you retard. God did not create the laws of logic or morality, you retard. Recall, retard? You and I refuted QW's irrationalism on that very point! Recall the dozens of posts of mine refuting QW and Boss on that very point, you depraved sociopath, GT?
> 
> No major philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever held such an imbecilic notion precisely because it is imbecilic, precisely because such a notion is logically untenable. Insofar as he holds to the laws of logic, Martin is making the very same argument as I which utterly annihilates your stupidity regarding the prescriptive-descriptive dichotomy, Amrchaos' stupidity regarding the order of primacy in physics, QW's stupidity regarding the order of primacy between logic and science, Boss’ stupidity regarding the origin and nature of the laws of thought. . . .
> 
> Notwithstanding, the laws of logic, the TAG, the Bible and Christianity DO NOT hold that God created everything! In that regard, Martin is an utter retard too, a historically illiterate buffoon.
> 
> The TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity"  holds that "God created everything, including logic"?!
> 
> _Crickets chirping
> _
> Oh? Really? Where is Christianity, Martin's imaginary "brand of Christianity" or any other religion, for that matter, mentioned in the TAG?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Where exactly does the TAG assert that God created knowledge?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> Martin just declares out of nowhere that the TAG, the Bible and Christianity hold that God created everything.
> 
> Really? And where in Martin's argument is this bizarre claim evidentiarily substantiated?
> 
> _Crickets chirping_
> 
> This moron might as well say that the moon is made out of cheese; therefore, the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" holds that God created everything, including logic.
> 
> You're all friggin' sociopaths, pathological liars!  You too, Boss!  You just got refuted again, by Hollie and Martin who think they're refuting the TAG. But, of course, Martin's argument is just another counterargument that in reality is yet another inherently contradictory, self-negating premise that positively proves in organic/classical logic that *(1)* God must exist and *(2)* God must be the Principle of Identity Himself.  Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourself at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason to accept to your pointless and unsupported claim that your polytheistic gawds created anything.
> 
> Your juvenile cutting and pasting is a waste of time.
> 
> Do yourself a favor, Laddie. Drink the Kool Aid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a meltdown his post was. I stopped reading after the second "retard" lolol
Click to expand...


Michael Martin:  God created everything, including logic!

GT and Hollie:  Yeah.  Like, wow, what he said.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Michael Martin*:* God created everything, including logic!

GT and Hollie and BreezeWood*:* Yeah. Like, wow, what he said.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men!*

*1. Hollie:* I do not understand the difference between science and my fanatical belief in the spaghetti monsters of materialistic metaphysics!

*2. Hollie:* I never realized that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old!

*3. Hollie:* If God created the universe, why didn't He create the space shuttle?

*4. Hollie:* Since humans and dinosaurs apparently _didn't_ roam the Earth at the same time, why I am I asking why we don't find dinosaur and human fossils in the same layer of geological stratum?

*5. Hollie:* Derp-derp. La-la. _Hiccup_ _Burp_ Blah-blah. I'm slap happy out of my mind 97% of the time. The other 3% of the time, I'm comatose.

*6. Hollie:* Since the age of the Earth and evolution are as scientifically and philosophically accepted, respectively, as gravity and photosynthesis, am I right about the age of the Earth, the existence of gravity and the processes of photosynthesis while I mindlessly follow authority regarding a biological theory of speciation that's premised on the gratuitous presupposition of a rationally and empirically indemonstrable _a priority_ of metaphysical naturalism? I know. Let's ask Rawlings*:*

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is _micro-speciation_, not _microevolution_. And while many millions of generations of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them has ever underwent macroevolution. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory. And that’s the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor . . . one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism.

. . . The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of distinct, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being. The record would look the same.

. . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an error begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

. . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of changes required and the degree of complexity involved, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal into a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species.

I'm well acquainted with the rhetoric that evolutionists invoke regarding the dearth of plausible intermediate forms in the fossil record, like how we would not expect "to find . . . half-bat/half-bird intermediate forms in the fossil record", as it was sardonically put by an evolutionist recently.

Oh? And why not?

The early Darwinists, including Darwin himself, certainly expected them and were perplexed by their absence. And what's Neo-Darwinism anyway, really, but a collection of attempts (including punctuated equilibrium) to explain why we don't see them.

It _was_ and _remains_ a serious problem for the theory, one which evolutionists themselves are actively trying to resolve. It's just that the theory's leading lights tend not to talk about it frankly or very often. The rest is just double-speak. In the meantime, they think to turn this problem into a smear against the skeptics who raise it, that is, against those who keep resurrecting the bone they want to keep buried. Moreover, in spite of the standard meaning of "change" in evolutionary theory, with which _I am_ well acquainted from a purely theoretical perspective and _do_ understand . . . a scheme of common ancestry necessarily _does_ entail transmutation.


The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name. —Labsci​Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory. There's really nothing "meshy" about it. Any one of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.) Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of "what survives, survives." Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some, including the likes of Dawkins, to the contrary are nonsense. And that's problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.


Nothing visible is going to happen in so short a time as 200 years in the laboratory. If a fly changed into anything other than a fly, it would blow evolution out of the water, and falsify it completely. —Labsci​Actually, we're talking about millions of generations of accelerated speciation. The origin point of generational experimentation on fruit flies _was_ to achieve an observable instance of transmutational speciation. In any event, the thrust of my point regarding fruit flies had to do with this statement: "[m]any microevolutionary steps equals macroevolution." At various points along the way, evolutionary theory entails a common ancestry of branching transmutations. You imagine a biological history consisting of an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, mostly driven by the mechanism of natural selection, and believe that this scenario provides the "best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth." I see a biological history consisting of a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, and believe that this scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and vast variety of life, and expect that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within. _The evidence would look the same either way_.

In accordance with your confirmation of my point about fruit flies, we can't observe speciation beyond the microevolutionary steps and, also, we don't see an abundance of obvious transitory forms in the fossil record, so what's Darwinism (the gratuitous insertion or extrapolation of a common ancestry) ultimately based on, if not a materialistic naturalism? There's nothing in the observable and quantifiable compositions and processes of biological systems that is at odds with the fundamentals of Creationism. Hence, as for the regnant scientific community's _a prior_ bias, what is the substance of this "sand" you claim Creationism is built on?

In my opinion, it follows that the post-modern Catholic Church prematurely and unnecessarily conceded _creatio ex essentia_, just as the prescientific Church errantly adopted Aristotelian cosmology. (The Bible does not recommend a literal geocentric cosmology, by the way.) While the latter is understandable, the former is not, and neither of them are biblically justifiable.

There is no need to "modernize" the Bible. The ancients' pre-scientific conception of the universe is not relevant to biblical inerrancy, much less the prescientific expositions of empirical phenomena that might be attributed to the Bible by misguided believers _and_ non-believers alike. God's word stands and stays; it's surety is not subject to the passing conceptual fads of imperfect and half-blind creatures.

While the Bible does make some scientific claims, it's not a scientific treatise and never has been, except in the minds of some. I've never thought of Creationism as being anything more than a general exposition of origins against the backdrop of original sin and the problem of evil. Beyond that, God has simply left the details of scientific inquiry to us. Learned, post-scientific hermeneutics has no problem with the idea that Creationism is not a scientific system of thought, but merely a general set of guidelines by which we may properly understand the essential meaning of the empirical data.

And there's no ideological tension between the Bible and the Big Bang theory, if that's what you're implying. On the contrary, it is more suggestive of _creatio ex nihilo_ than steady-state theory, though as Lemaître himself rightly observed the appearance is not necessarily conclusive of anything in that regard.

. . . evolutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence. (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. Sure enough, well, you know the rest. . . .) Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising by blind luck. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley’s formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

In other words, in the classical tradition, irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

But the sheep go "bah, bah, bah."

Debunked?

What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

Now you see it or maybe you still don't.

In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. And to my mind that means nothing of particular interest could arise in the first place without the intervention of an intelligent being. I trust that we at least agree on that point, given that you are a theistic evolutionist. Why would you recommend the prattle of atheist savants who must necessarily override the putative distinction between the vagaries of abiogenesis and the calculi of evolutionary theory?​
*7. Hollie:* How many times have the skeptics' objections been falsified by the archeological and textual record in history? I don't know, but perhaps I should be asking that question instead.

*8. Hollie:* Have I ever made any sense about anything? I don't think so, but I'll keep trying.

*9. Hollie:* I don't know much about science at all, really, and even less about the history and methodology of biblical hermeneutics, but I don't mind being wrong most of the time because being wrong is what I do best.

*10. Hollie:* I have no idea how many of the hundreds of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in history thus far, but I'll keep asking this same question and disregard the astronomically staggering mathematical odds against the prospect of all these prophecies being fulfilled thus far to the letter if they were not revealed by on omniscient Deity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*

The relativist's idea of discourse*:* Nuh-huh! That's not true. Nothing's true except what I say. (In short, the bald declarations of _duh_ backed by nothing)
______________________

*Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing! 


*Rawlings:
*
You pseudoscientific relativist, the Aristotelian-Lockean _tabula rasa_ has been falsified for decades in the human sciences and in neurobiology! We even know the parts of the brain where many of the pertinent operations are conducted. Behavioralism is dead. Even most materialists concede the universals of human cognition, including the subjective phenomenon of qualia.

We have an avalanche of empirical evidence, beginning with cross-cultural studies, to support a justifiable, scientific theory for a universal, bioneurological ground for human cognition. Humans are hardwired to navigate and delineate the constituents of three-dimensional space and time, geometric forms, the logical structure of rational and mathematical conceptualization, and the structural semantics of language from birth. We know that within three to six months, depending on IQ, infants apprehend the fundamentals of addition and subtraction, distinguish the various geometric forms of material existence and recognize the universals of facial expression and voice tone. The ability to do and flesh out these things necessarily entails the operations of logical delineation: identity, distinction, the incongruent third (the three fundamental laws of thought). These are the things that make us homo sapiens as opposed to bed bugs.

Also, humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the our neurological system, and the whole is arguably greater than the sum of its parts . . . though, of course, this being the most complex aspect of human development, it does require considerable reinforcement via experiential human interaction over time, ultimately, an _a priori _operation of and reinforced by the three laws of human thought.​

* Hollie: *_Fingers plugging ears_ La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't hear you. My Seven Incoherent, Pseudoscientific Banalities!  
* 

QW: *The universally indispensable principle of identity for all forms of logic and the endeavors of science is _not_ universally indispensable.  The Majorana fermion violates the law of the excluded middle, the third law of organic/classical logic.  The fundamentals of philosophy (the metaphysics of being, identification, delineation and definition) are bullshit, unnecessary!   Science has primacy over logic and the philosophy of science; that is, science just is, is informed by nothing, hangs in midair, and empirical data interpret themselves. 
* 

Foxfyre: *God is _not_ omniscient! God is little.  A multidimensional reality is not logically possible or necessary. I don't care what the first law of human thought, the law of identity, proves!  I don't care what quantum physics or the calculus of infinitesimals prove!  You're limiting God! You're limiting God! I'm not a fanatically dogmatic, closed-minded shrew. Stop saying that. God is little, I tell you, and you're limiting God.  
* 

BreezeWood: *You're saying there's no spiritual reality behind that? 

* 

Rawlings: *Uh . . . no. You've asked me that question at least four times now. The answer is still the same as before. Where are you getting this silliness from anyway? I'm a theist, remember?
* 

Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *He won't answer the question!  
* 


Rawlings: *Do you even know what BreezeWood's question is, really, what he's implying and why it does _not_ follow?
* 


Betty Boop the Imbeciles of Imbeciles Inevitable: *$%@^&**(@#! You're a poop-poop head. I don't want to discuss it. Shut up! I hate you! 
* 

Boss: *Shut up! The laws of thought are garbage.  Nothing's true, except what I say is true, when I say it's true and not before!  Quantum physics are impossible to understand because they defy our logic . . . except when they're not impossible to understand because they don't defy our logic.  Wait! What am I saying? I mean, they _do_ defy our logic! They don't defy our logic. They _do_ defy our logic . . except when they don't defy our logic.  I know. I know. We understand by magic. That's what it is. It's magic!  Oh, what I'm I saying? I'm so confused. That doesn't make any sense. But I'm just a lying, magical dumbass. I'm just making crap up. Shut up, Rawlings! I hate you! 
* 

GT: *Cognition is not the right term . . . except when it is. Logic is descriptive; the physical laws of nature are prescriptive!  Inverse is converse. Converse is inverse. The _a priori_ axioms and tautologies of human cognition are informal logical fallacies . . . except when they're not, that is, except when I'm arguing against Boss' insane crap. 
* 

Rawlings: *You're a pathological liar. As for the latter, just adopt the posture of the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic regarding the axioms of divinity in organic logic and the axiomatic presuppositionals of analytic logic. That way you won't have to default to the irrationalism of relativism or contradict yourself.

* 
GT: *&*?%#+*&^(@! 
* 

Seallybobo: *Hey, man, like what are you guys talking about? Anybody got a light? The fire went out in my bowl. Bummer. 
* 

Amrchaos: *The objective, _a priori _axioms of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are empirical . . . but not really. All reasoning is inductive . . . except when it’s not.  The three-dimensional level of our sensory perception of reality has primacy over the foundational, subatomic realities of quantum physics. 
* 

Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said. 
*

Michael Martin: * God created everything, including knowledge! 
* 

Hollie, GT, Seallbobo: *Yeah, like, wow man, what he said.  

* 
orogenicman: *Magical abiogenesis is a proven fact of science, I tell you! 
* 

Emily: *Can't we all just get along? 
* 


Tom Sweetnam: *$%^&@#*+! 
* 


Justin: *These people are closed-minded lunatics and liars.
* 


Rawlings: *You got that right.
* 


All of the relativists in unison: *Shut up, Rawlings! Stop making fun of us. Stop being mean. We hate you! 

* 
Rawlings: 
*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

BreezeWood said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


BreezeWood:  Noah created God and the Everlasting!  Fairies wear boots.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy*


*The author asks:* "What is the evidence for conventional science?"

Whaaaaaa?

There's no such thing as evidence for conventional science . . . whatever that's supposed to be in the first place. Evidence for science? Science, in and of itself, is an empirical phenomenon? Since when? Indeed, _conventional science_ according to the author means _ontological naturalism_, and there's not a lick of empirical evidence for that either.

_Creationism_ proper is a theological construct, that includes_ some_ scientific claims, the detailed understanding of which is inferred from empirical data as processed by the methodology of science. Creationism is neither science nor opposed to science. It merely eschews the mythical dogma of the scientifically indemonstrable claims of the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

_Creationism proper_ is _the Judeo-Christian construct of divine origin for the cosmological order and its constituents_. It endorses the scientific presupposition of methodological naturalism, as opposed to the materialist's presupposition of metaphysical/ontological naturalism.

It asserts a divinely ordered history of cosmological development and biological speciation*:* a historical series of direct and indirect, creational events entailing the origin of existents and the processes thereof subject to the physical laws of nature previously established to govern the natural course (or subsequent events) of the variously complex and discrete properties and actualizations of material substances. Hence, this history includes subsequent creative events of biological speciation above the infrastructural-level of the chemical properties of prebiotic, organic materials.

The evidence that supports creationism is the apparent fact that the history of cosmological development and biological speciation is . . . a historical series of events entailing the emergence and coalescence of existents and the processes thereof in accordance with the physical laws of nature (the four fundamental interactions or forces*:* gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force) previously established via the Big Bang of the singularity.

Again, science is science, a methodology of verification and falsification regarding the properties and processes of empirical phenomena. It is _not _the various theories of science as such or the metaphysical apriority of ontological naturalism, and that is clearly what the author means by _conventional science_!


*The author writes:* "Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences."

No! Some people unwittingly beg the question as they conflate science proper with their empirically indemonstrable presupposition that all of cosmological and biologically history is strictly and necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect, assume without any rational or empirical justification whatsoever that the physical laws of nature and the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents can produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure, when no such thing has ever been known to have happened or observed to have happened at all . . . ever!

*The author writes:* "Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?"

The plain reading of nature does not support what the author calls _conventional science_, that is, does not support the materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism.

Some people just assume that because we're here, the supposed processes of prebiotic chemical evolution and biological evolution must necessarily be the direct cause of biological origin and speciation, in spite of the fact that, once again, the mundane, self-ordering chemical properties of empirical existents have never been known to produce or have ever been directly observed to produce complex systems above the level of infrastructure.

The chronological evidence would look exactly the same for both old-earth creationism and presumptuous naturalism. Hocus Pocus. The acolytes of the latter have simply talked themselves into a scenario of a common ancestry based on the unwitting assumption that the chronology of things evinces something that does not necessary follow at all.


Not only does the author go on about his _conventional science_, the unwitting imposition of his materialistic metaphysics of ontological naturalism, but exposes his scriptural and theological ignorance in questions *#11, #12*, *#13 *and *#14 *under the heading of *How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?*

*He writes:
*
Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time—for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas—from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?​
Because the Earth and the universe are apparently much older than the young-earth creationism of the prescientific hermeneutics of Bishop Ussher's genealogical chronology would have it. The fact of the matter is that the Bible does _not_ tell us how old the Earth or the universe is, and any claim to the contrary is scripturally speculative and gratuitous*:* http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2013/12/elementary-my-dear-watson-rebuttal-of_9.html.

The enterprise of uncovering the discrete facts of nature is scientific in nature, not theological, and the facts thereof do not undermine the biblical account of origin in any way, shape or form. 


*In question #14, He writes:
*
If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?​
The awkwardness of the author's presentation is compounded by the fact that _all_ terrestrial creatures share the same underlying genetic motif, not just some, a fact that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a common ancestry. In other words, why not a complex pattern, albeit, as premised on what would necessarily be the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet, subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions thereof?

_Crickets chirping_

What is the nature of the author's rhetorical assumption? Why, it's the teleological assumption of the metaphysics of materialism that contradictorily presupposes to know something about how God would necessarily go about things . . . even though the same underlying genetic motif of species that are of the same planet and subject to the same environmental and atmospheric conditions, coupled with a complex diversity in morphology, make perfect sense in a special-creation scenario.

The following requires special treatment.* The author writes:
*
*(16) *Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?​
Actually, the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Life on Earth is thought to have first appeared approximately 3.5 to 3.7 billion years ago. Uh . . . and I'm just ball-parking it here, throwing this at the wall to see if it sticks: because God gave us the intelligence to figure these things out.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!*

*1.* Do we exist? Yes we do!

*2.* Does the cosmological order exist? Yes it does, Mr. Geologist (_snicker_), amateur astronomer!

*3.* Is the God axiom a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology? Yes it is!

*4.* Logically, wouldn't the substance of the God axiom, the ultimate origin of all other things that exist apart from itself, necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness? Yes, of course! How could any creature be greater than the Creator?

*5.* Is the existence of God subject to scientific verification or falsification at this time? No, of course not!

*6.* Is it logically possible for one to say/think that God the Creator doesn't exist, on the very face of it, without inherently contradicting oneself, negating this assertion and, thus, positively proving that the opposite must be true according to the bioneurologically hardwired laws of organic logic? No, it's not!

*7.* Hence, all of the above are necessarily true statements logically!


That's what a sound/valid logical proof is!

According to the scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, God must be!


*1.* Do you have an argument that can overthrow the veracity of the three bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle)? Of course, not, as any counterargument necessarily presupposes them to be true!

*2.* Do you have a sound/valid syllogistic argument that could possibly overthrow the logical conclusion of the organic laws of human thought? No, you don't!

*3.* Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that would overthrow the scientific fact of the God axiom in human cognition/psychology, the veracity of the God axiom or the apparent substance thereof according to the laws of organic thought; i.e., does there exist any peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that would overthrow/falsify any one of these things? No, there doesn't!

*4.* Does there exist any rational argument or empirically demonstrable evidence that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? No, there doesn't!

*5.* Can you explain how something arose from nothing? No, you can't!


*You got nothin', and nothin' from nothin' = nothing.

The Seven Things™ stand! 

They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Things™
1.* We exist!

*2.* The cosmological order exists!

*3.* The idea that God exists in our minds as the Creator of everything else that exists; hence, the possibility of God's existence cannot be logically ruled out!

*4.* If God _does_ exist, He would necessarily be a Being of unparalleled greatness, for no creature could be greater than the Creator!

*5.* Currently, science cannot verify or falsify God's existence!

*6.* On the very fact of it, it is not logically possible for a finite being to say or think that *God the Creator doesn't exist*, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not!

*See Posts: *
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*​
* 7. *All six of the above things are objectively and universally true for human knowers/thinkers due to the absolute, incontrovertible laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle!


I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (*#1*) and that the universe exists (*#2*), *#3*, *#4*, *#5*, *#6* and *#7* necessarily follow.

These are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for God's existence.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of *#4*. Not everybody can follow or will even try.

But what we all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding *#4:* to assume that the actuality behind the construct of God of human cognition would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite beings are in no position to presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be a presumptuously subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do comprehend the prospect of the highest conceivable standard of perfection for divine attribution whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent consciousness of self-aware personhood, a Being of absolute perfection and infinitely unparalleled greatness.

No one escapes *The Seven Things™.*


----------



## Hollie

*The On-Going Whining And Stuttering and Mumbling of the Zealots Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh*

______________________

*Hollie: *the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not biologically hardwired! There's no such thing! 


*Rawlings: *aww Whaaa


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Traditional Transcendental Argument (TAG) for God*'*s Existence 
1. Knowledge (logical, moral, geometric, mathematical and scientific) is not possible if God doesn't exist (major premise of the TAG: MPTAG).
2. Knowledge is possible.
3. God exists.*

*See Posts:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*


*The archetypal objection*: As humans have knowledge, knowledge can exist without God (the Creator) existing.

Saying that _knowledge can exist when God the Creator doesn't exist_ is the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist without a Creator of knowledge_, or the same thing as saying that _knowledge can exist when nothing exists at all_; for if the Creator doesn't exist, neither can a creation. It's not logically possible to say that anything can exist without a Creator, the uncaused Cause of everything else that exists.

And if one tries to _leave_ the term _God the Creator_ out of one's statement in order to avoid this problem by saying, for example, "The cosmological order and its contents are all that exist," the obvious counter to this is to remind the arguer that the possibility that God exists as the uncaused Cause of all other existents can't be logically be ruled out, which brings the arguer back to the reality that the assertion _God the Creator doesn't exist_ is on the face it inherently contradictory. .

*Axiom: The fundamental laws of human logic do not allow humans to state/assert that God the Creator doesn't exist without logically contradicting themselves in one way or another in their statement/assertion that God the Creator doesn't exist. This of course is the universal axiom extrapolated from the MPTAG.
______________________________

Begging the Question:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9997553/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10014560/*

Now, of course, in formal logic we do not say that intuitively true assertions like the major premise of the Transcendental Argument (MPTAG) beg the question. Such assertions are simply true, just like the assertion that *2 + 2 = 4*. They cannot be stated or thought to be anything else but true, and the TAG, which may be expressed as a proof for God's existence or as a proof for the incontrovertible laws of organic/classical thought (*The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry*), is among the more famous presuppositional axioms in the philosophical cannon.

If this were not true about it, no one would care about this argument at all, and well-founded presuppositionals like the MPTAG are routinely analyzed in classical logic, intuitionistic logic and modal logic.

Notwithstanding, in spite of the fact that no serious scholar of peer-reviewed academia (including agnostics and atheists) holds that propositions of _necessary enabling conditions_ actually _beg the question_, the following syllogism, which is intended to illustrate this supposed informal error in the TAG, has been advanced by laymen of the new atheism:

*The Negative Transcendental Argument
1. Knowledge is not possible if God exists.
2. Knowledge exists.
3. God doesn't exist. *

Because the (MPTAG) is intuitively (axiomatically/tautologically) true in formal logic, not only does this syllogism fail to prove that the TAG begs the question, it's inherently contradictory. But more to the point, this "counterargument" serves as a premise for yet another argument that actually proves the TAG is logically true.

Unlike the MPTAG, the major premise of the negative argument is inherently self-negating. If God (by definition, the Creator of all other existents) exists, knowledge necessarily exists in God. Hence, knowledge exists as the minor premise asserts, because God exists. Hence, the conclusion is a non sequitur standing in the place of the proper conclusion that _God exists_.

The ultimate point of the TAG goes to this question: _why_ are the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition biologically hardwired whereby humans cannot logically state/think _God the Creator doesn't exist _without contradicting themselves or violating the laws of organic thought? Is this a freak accident of nature? A coincidence? Why should this be? The implied answer*: *while humans can and do deny God's existence and walk away, God puts His name/identity on humans in such a way that He doesn't permit them to do so logically.

*Related: **Scientists discover that atheists might not exist and that s not a joke**.*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence 

See Post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.*

The TAG is rock solid! No learned logician doubts this, and certainly no serious Christian apologists doubts this. In fact, it is the Bible's primary argument for God's existence, repeated over and over again. It cannot be negated. It's an unimpeachable axiom, and it's alternate form is an unimpeachable proof for the biological universality and, arguably, for the spiritual universality of the laws of thought. However, I won't go so far as to assert the latter holds objectively in an absolute sense, rather, it is compelling evidentiarily. Those Christians who don't know this have been duped by this world of dreams and darkness.

By the way, Boss is refuted with regard to the nature of the laws of thought. The position that God created them is logically indefensible; the only logically defensible position to take is that God is the very substance and the ground of logic attributively*:*

*Answering the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*


Note the attempt to overthrow*: **Transcendental argument - Iron Chariots Wiki**.*



Note the actuality of that attempt*: **Response to Criticism of the Transcendental Argument for God s existence Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry**.*


What the arguer does in the second link is to constantly shift to the notion that the laws of thought are a creature rather than the very essence God, as he simply ignores the ensuring paradoxes of the contradictory world in which he tosses himself into every time he attempts to assert the very same logic, which no one escapes, against the absolute principle of identity. Also, this puts the arguer in the position of arguing against the validity of the foundational axioms, postulates and theorems indispensable to mathematics and science.

Then, the inevitable default is to impose the logical fallacies of informal logic on the axioms/tautologies of formal logic as if these were of a secondary nature to which of course these informal logical fallacies _would _normally apply. But we don't say that primary axioms/tautologies are logical fallacies in formal logic because whatever label you slap on them does not make their incontrovertibility go away. They simply hold true every time we think or say them. It's impossible to think of them as being anything else but true!

The axioms and tautologies of human cognition are not of a secondary nature; informal logical fallacies do not apply to them.

In other words, *2 + 2 = 4* presupposes that the law of addition and, by extension, multiplication, is true. We don't say, "That begs the question!" LOL! Such axioms are not of a secondary nature. Call it begging the question according to the standards of informal logic with regard to secondary propositions all you want. That does not make *2 + 2 = 4* go away.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™

1.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a mere possibility.

*2.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God that exists in our minds represents a _substantive_ possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*3.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something more than just a substantive possibility that cannot be logically ruled out.

*4.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as a positive proof that He does exist in actuality according to the fundamental laws of human thought*:* the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, comprehensively, the _principle_ of identity.

*5.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as something even more than just a positive proof that He does exist in actuality.

*6.* Whether God actually exists or not, the idea of God exists in our minds as an axiomatic necessity that cannot be rationally ruled out without paradoxically supposing that all of the axioms of the fundamental laws of human thought universally hold, except this one.

*7.* Hence, whether God actually exists or not, the atheist necessarily asserts a paradoxically contradictory premise.

*Conclusion: *persons who do not appreciate the implications of _The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots_™ are paradoxical curiosities of human nature lambasting the rest of us for adhering to all of the commonsensical recommendations of the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought.

*That's weird.*


----------



## dblack

Weird. Yep.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Summary Post - Part I *

All human beings intuitively understand that living consciousness is of a metaphysically higher order of being than inanimate mindlessness.

As _divine _consciousness would necessarily have primacy over all of existence, no aspect of consciousness possessed by mankind was created; rather, mankind's consciousness was conferred on him by God. The minds of human beings are finite expressions/reproductions of God's mind. Though God's mind is bound by nothing but His inherent nature, though His knowledge of things that exist or can exist is infinitely inexhaustible, infinitely beyond our ken, our logic is God's logic. The logic we have does not anthropomorphize God; rather, we were theologized by Him. This is necessarily true, logically. This is self-evident (*See Post #4194.*).


Let us review*: 
*
It's ridiculous to argue against the commonsensical standard of divine attribution, for the same reason it's ridiculous to argue against the proof of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which yields the conclusion that the necessarily highest expression of divinity is transcendent consciousness/mind and that _from nothing, nothing comes._
* 
Consciousness + From nothing, nothing comes = Creator!
*
That's why the talk of _fairies_ or _Zeus_ or _spaghetti monsters_ or _whatever_ is so stupid. We all intuitively know due to the compound _reductio ad absurdum_ of divine origin, lurking in the background of our minds when we consider the idea of God, that we are not talking about a mythical or imaginary thing, but a uniquely compelling imperative. That's why the actual substance denoted by the idea of God as the Creator in our minds cannot be logically ruled out, why one does not start with an arbitrary notion about what God might be like below the commonsensical standard so that the antagonist can immediately dismiss an unspecified and indefensibly incoherent premise.

Not only is this proof the foundational proof for virtually all of the classic arguments for God's existence, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in logic. But not just in logic, it is the foundational proof for absolute objectivity in science as well as premised on the experientially empirical aspect of the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the infinite regression of origin.​ 


The idea of God, like the apprehension of self-awareness, objectively exists in its own right among the other axioms of the human mind, as the idea of God imposes itself on the human mind without the latter willing that it to do so. This cogitation immediately and automatically follows the apprehensions of self-awareness and other-awareness (the _subject-object dichotomy_) upon reflection of the problems of existence and origin.

As a matter of sheer logic due to the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness ultimately premised on the imperatives of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, which are comprehensively referred to as _the principle of identity_): the idea of God necessarily denotes a self-aware Consciousness/Mind of Personhood, a supreme Intelligence of absolute perfection Who is the Creator of all other things that exist apart from Himself.

The idea of God denotes an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent Being of infinitely unparalleled greatness: a Being Who is immanently omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This constitutes the only universally objective and, therefore, logically defensible standard of divine attribution—the highest conceivable standard—known to mankind. This is the only standard of divine attribution that does not beg the question and/or arbitrarily preclude that which is both logically possible in terms of actuality and that which is logically necessary in terms of conceptualization* (See Posts #4195 and #4208).
*
Indeed, it is an axiom of justified true belief/knowledge under the universal principle of identity (organic logic) that the idea of God as the ultimate uncaused Cause of all other existents cannot be refuted/negated without positively proving, not only the fact of human psychology that the existence of God the Creator cannot be logically ruled out, but the fact of human psychology that the idea of God the Creator necessarily entails the incontrovertible assertion that God the Creator _does_ exist!
* 
*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Summary Post - Part II *

Invariably, the ultimate essence of every one of the objections to the cogency of the only universally objective and logically defensible standard of divine attribution is some form of _irrationalism_, the sophomoric, limp-wristed baby talk of those who know just enough about real life from the contemplation of the fuzz in their navels to be dangerous: the impractical idiocy of antirealism or the skepticism of mindless contrarianism.

In short, it’s the fanatical dogmatism of "Duh!" and "Nuh-huh!" in the face of common sense.

These are the brain-dead allegations of informal logical fallacies premised on *(1)* the mere, secondary potentialities/hypotheticals of human cognition illegitimately asserted against *(2)* the standing first principles of human cognition that indisputably have primacy over the secondary. These are the brain-dead allegations that make a distinction that makes absolutely no difference to the actualities of human consciousness. These are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily presuppose the cogency of the very same imperatives of human thought and the incontrovertible axioms and tautologies thereof, as no human being can escape them, in the very act of eschewing them. In other words, these are the brain-dead allegations of persons who necessarily negate their own arguments and, therefore, positively prove the opposite of what their very own arguments allege (*Post #3945*).

Under this all-encompassing regime of irrationalism, the variously presumptuous and logically indefensible allegations are three in number*: (1)* the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily anthropomorphize God (defeated in *Post #4194*), *(2)* the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily preclude alternate conceptualizations of divinity (defeated in this summary and in *Post #4195*) and *(3)* the charge that the imperatives of human logic necessarily negate the apparent actuality of human free will.

The third charge is defeated by the ramifications of the multidimensional theorems of infinitesimals in calculus, those of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics, those of dark mass and dark energy, those of the special and general theories of relativity and, finally, those of the law of identity regarding the construct of infinity (_*for any given A: A = A*_, which holds that any given existent of a single predicate may consist of an infinite number of properties/dimensions simultaneously without contradiction).

*See Posts #2358, #2359, #2368 and #2405*.

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024511/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10024527/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10025118/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10027061/*​

Note that all of these charges are in fact leveled against the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness as premised on the organic laws of human thought. They are _not_, in truth, leveled against the absolutist standing on the universal foundation of objectivity as the irrationalist evasively charges when he redundantly begs the question, as if we didn’t hear his baby talk the first, about how the laws of organic logic are anthropologically subjective/relative rather than universally absolute.

The irrationalist wants his cake, and he wants to eat it too, in spite of the fact that he cannot explain to any of us how two or more diametrically opposed and/or mutually exclusive propositions could be true in all respects: at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference. He cannot explain away the self-negating assertion that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. In other words, the absolute that there are no absolutes is absolutely false.

Hence, _The Seven Things_ stand. They are objectively, absolutely and universally self-evident! To embrace them is to hear the voice of God in our minds declaring His existence and the nature and the magnitude of His attributes. To reject them as just a mere accident or a fluke of nature is to throw oneself into a sea of paradoxical contradiction, self-negation . . . the utter madness and chaos of irrationalism.
_________________________________________

* The Seven Things™ *
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/*


*The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence:*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10150814/*

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10123006/*


*The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™ **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/*


* Divine Sentience 
#3918
#3919
#3920
#3921*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity*

*

The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. 


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 542 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 517 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 521 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 505 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Betty Boop Chronicles



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 499 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 506 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!

Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 492 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 466 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 474 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 455 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 460 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 88 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 527 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 543 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Summary Post - Part II*


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Inevitable the Drama Queen

Inevitable: *Hi, everybody, my name's Inevitable, and I, like, you know, believe in God and stuff, but not really. _Giggle_ It's really nice to believe in God. I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I believe in God, but not really. I just like saying that. People should really believe in God, but not really, because there's really no proof or evidence for God's existence, and all those millions of people who have said or believed there is over the centuries are big, fat, poop-poop heads. _Giggle_ I mean, you know, like, gag me with a spoon, right? _Giggle_ I just believe in God and stuff because, well, like, God, you know, God. Think about that . . . but not really. God! Wow! Just think about that . . . but not really. That gives me goose bumps, thrills and chills, and I get all giggly and emotional and weepy and sentimental . . . and boorish and shrewish when I believe in God and stuff just because. _Giggle_

I believe in the Bible too, but not really, because it says that there's proof and evidence for God's existence, and only poop-poop heads believe that. _Giggle_ I don't really know anything about God and stuff, I just believe in God and stuff, but not really. All that stuff about facts and logic and proof and evidence, that's poop-poop head stuff, but not really, because I don't really know anything about God and stuff. _Giggle_

And there's some poop-poop heads on this thread who say that the Bible teaches things that aren't in the Bible, but not really, because they are in the Bible. I just don't believe those things because only poop-poop heads believe those things, and besides it hurts my pretty wittle head to think about those things. _Giggle_

Well, that's all I have to say, really, except that I want to say again, over and over again, that I don't like all those people who say and believe there's proof and evidence, because they're poop-poop heads . . . and I'm really tolerant and open-minded, because I'm not like, you know, one of those poop-poop heads who actually believe in real things. Just call me Mister Miss Group Think, just another member of the herd, Miss Sheep Think. That's me._ Giggle_ I'm just another little god in the gap fallacy, your average Joe Jane without an original thought to my name.

And I just waxed my chest . . . and I got some new shoes. Aren't they pretty? _Giggle_ I got some new speedos too, pink, of course . . . and I like flowers and clouds. Oh, and I have a poodle, and I like to dress her up like a princess sometimes . . . and I like to pretend I'm Sleeping Beauty and stuff. _Giggle_ Sometimes I like to pretend I'm Cinderella and stuff too. _Giggle_

Did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? _Giggle_

I think I'm really pretty and nice and sweet and special and as pure as the driven snow, and my poop poop doesn't stink. _Giggle_ And I'm really good and perfect and really smart . . . but not really. _Giggle_ And did I tell you that I don't like all those poop-poop heads who believe the facts and logic of God? And did I tell you that I like flowers and clouds? Oh, and I like rainbows are us and kitties and sparkling things . . . and I like to gossip and moralize and talk banalities and nothings. My favorite magazine is _People_. Oh, I'm really good at giggling and talking a lot, but I never really say anything that matters about anything at all. _Giggle_ I just go on and on like that sometimes, never making a lick a sense at all. _Giggle_ I'm so cute and funny that way.

Oh! Oh! And I like parties and shopping and texting and prancing and dancing and. . . .

*Is There One Sound/Valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God? 

The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/. *


----------



## dblack

tl;dr


----------



## BreezeWood

M.D. Rawlings said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, God did not create the laws of logic.  Rather, they are the eternally existent laws of divine thought bestowed on mankind!
> 
> You're all friggin's morons of the first order, refuting yourselves at every turn.
> 
> Relativists.
> LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> you are a pathological delusionist endemic of self gratuitous idolatry before the Living Being, the Everlasting and the Triumphal Champion of Good vs Evil, The Almighty God.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BreezeWood:  Noah created God and the Everlasting!  Fairies wear boots.
Click to expand...

.
*... bestowed on mankind!*









rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.


----------



## Hollie

*

The Seven Fraudulent Things™ 

The Seven Fraudulent Things™ that are demonstrably false for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded application of logic and reason as demonstrated by M. Pompous Rawling.*


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis:
I emailed two other Christian men who wanted to address JW elders.
I believe your conviction and calling is critical for reaching elders of each denomination
to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

Here is the email I wrote to Carey and David.
It has been several years since we last planned to address church elders,
because of issues that came up on a different religious forum.

I will also bring in the son of one of the ministers who had worked with Dr. King in Alabama.
Robert DuBose focuses on addressing people's inner fears,
the same way I focus on areas of forgiveness or unforgiveness and my friend Olivia helps
people pray to remove these blockages by receiving forgiveness to heal and transform their lives.

I believe with the right teamwork and backing, you can present your points
and will be understood by more people. But not with conflicts, fear, and unforgiveness in the way.

I don't understand why you cannot see this is the major part of the process
of reaching understanding of God through Christ, but I will bring in people to back you up
so these problems don't keep causing stumbling blocks and obstructions.

You are so focused on the goal, you cannot see the process.

Here is the email. Happy Thankgsgiving and may these teams come forward
to bring more hearts and minds united together in agreement by Christmas. Amen.
------------------------------------------
Dear Carey and David:
I hope you are your ministries and church communities are doing well.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your families!

 I have some hopeful good news.
Two men on usmessageboard.com really want to challenge people to come to terms
with recognizing God as creator and source of all knowledge.
They both support the TAG approach to proving God must exist for knowledge
to exist, but atheists and some other theists do not agree with this self-defining presentation of God.

Can I PLEASE ask your help to consult with these
men, who both believe in the Trinity, and to organize
a presentation for a website online to ask for an agreement
with church elders on God and the Trinity?

Their names are Justin Davis who is a layman, plumber and everyday Christian.
And M.D. Rawlings an NCO veteran who is a more trained or experienced theologian
making very sophisticated statements and arguments going over most people's heads.

Here is the thread, Please excuse M.D. getting frustrated and saying rude things to
people who do not understand his spiritual mission or calling to keep pushing these points.
He summarized these as
1. We exist and have knowledge
2. For knowledge to exist, God must exist
3. Therefore God exists and to deny this causes contradiction with the other two points
Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 543 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I suggest we adhere to the Trinity and the Two Great Commandments
and New Commandment Jesus gave in John 13:34
but they keep pushing the TAG points as 7 principles or 3 unrefutable points.
These are on the thread.

May I PLEASE ask your help as peers
that M.D. might respect as his equals.

He will not listen to those he considers less in understanding.
But since you believe in calling the JW elders and others to a consensus
on the Bible, God and Christ, I believe you can communicate
and work with M.D. so we can set up a formal website
inviting all church elders to join in forming an agreement in Christ on God's truth.

Thank you and Amen
Yours truly,
Emily
my new number is
713 820 5130
can I please call you
I am ready to set up a Spiritual Senate to address
both religious and political conflict to reach consensus in Christ.

the three points I offered to focus on for a Consensus on God through Christ
1. the TAG proof with the above team, to reach agreement on definitions
and meaning of God and the Holy Trinity by all religious groups and leaders
2. using science to prove which methods of spiritual healing are natural
effective and lifesaving, and which are fraudulent and cause harm.
3. applying forgiveness to bring healing and correction to all relations
to solve specific political and religious conflicts to build the Kingdom of God in the real world


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .



Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.



			
				Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
			
		

> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity*



Hi M.D. Rawlings I will also call in Irish Ram to see if that will help get us on the same page here.

in the meantime, what do you list as preexisting before God and what did God create?
Can you please show where you draw the line

I think you said that knowledge and logic were preexisting before God

But creation, laws of science within creation, God created that, right?

Also where did the relativist and materialist people come into play.

Did God create atheists to think in nontheistic terms for a good purpose?
Is there a higher purpose for these that came before God, or after God, or not made by God but corrupted by other influences or choices.
Where did evil or ignorance come into play?
Did God create the forces going against truth or did those come from elsewhere

Can you please list out the timeline of
what was already in place before God and what was created by God.

Thanks!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

More news from the other thread*:* [URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/.You'll']*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/*[/URL]*.* You'll want to tune in your tinfoil hats for this one, nitwits!


*The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history! *

More tiresome ignorance from a know-nothing atheist. Prebiotic, monomeric precursors cannot and do not form the polymers of biology, let alone form any self-ordering structures of replication above the polymerization level of prebiotic chemistry. Professional scientists in prebiotic chemistry know this. The self-ordering properties of mere chemistry coupled with the physical laws of nature have never been observed to produce anything whatsoever above the infrastructural-level of ontology. Ever! The value of prebiotic chemistry (abiogenetic research) serves the enterprise of microbiological engineering only, and there are many creationist and ID scientists doing research in prebiotic chemistry*.*

Closed minded? What do you know about the science? Abiogenesis is no longer about demonstrating the actuality of nature producing life on its own, but about _what_ prebiotic, monomeric precursors were available to the primordial world and about how the other indispensable prebiotic, monomeric precursors came to be.

Abiogenesis is not a theory, you ignoramus. It's a mere hypothesis and nothing more.

Theory?!

 Look everybody. First, the mindless atheists/relativists of the USMB make the manifestly false claim that the theological axioms of human psychology hold that everything was created, including knowledge, apparently, beginning with logic. What philosophical or theological system of thought in history has ever asserted the imbecilic notion that divinity created everything? So according to some atheists/relativists, the theological axioms of human psychology hold that divinity didn't have the knowledge and the logic it needed in order to create the knowledge and the logic it needed until it created the knowledge and the logic it needed in order to create the knowledge and the logic it needed until it created the knowledge and the logic it needed. . . .

The egg! No! The chicken! No! The egg! No! The chicken! Fairies wear boots! You gotta believe me!

Are most atheists (1) imbeciles or (2) what?

*Answer:* Door number one!

Now, we have an atheist making the amazing claim that the Pasteurian theory of _omne vivum ex vivo,_ i.e., _all life is from life_ has been overthrown. When did that happen? Stop the presses! This is big news! This is a scientific breakthrough on the order of the discovery of the position-momentum dichotomy of subatomic particles in the wave-like systems of quantum physics! No wait! What am I talking about? This is a major story on the order of landing the first man on the moon! No wait! Landing the first man on the moon? What am I talking about? Taz has declared the greatest scientific feat in history!

* Got  ?*


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.
> 
> The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
> and attached to a position less than perfect,
> is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.
> 
> So how are you any better or worse than M.D.
> 
> Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
> while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.
> 
> would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?
> 
> go ahead.
> 
> If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
> and let M.D. post his.
> 
> I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
> it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth
> 
> much easier to point to your neighbor
> 
> perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
> same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly
> 
> I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science
> 
> are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
> Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
> I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
> one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
> then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that
> 
> Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
> is that why you avoid it?
> 
> would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
> prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
> negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural
> 
> here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
> Storm - Tim Minchin music and video
> 
> if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
> and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
> knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

.



> *christian:* I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.





> *christian:* At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.



*... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.*

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


*... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.*

correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*





.


----------



## Boss

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang. 

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence. 

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole. 

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.
> 
> The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
> and attached to a position less than perfect,
> is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.
> 
> So how are you any better or worse than M.D.
> 
> Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
> while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.
> 
> would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?
> 
> go ahead.
> 
> If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
> and let M.D. post his.
> 
> I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
> it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth
> 
> much easier to point to your neighbor
> 
> perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
> same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly
> 
> I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science
> 
> are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
> Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
> I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
> one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
> then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that
> 
> Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
> is that why you avoid it?
> 
> would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
> prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
> negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural
> 
> here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
> Storm - Tim Minchin music and video
> 
> if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
> and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
> knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.*
> 
> - at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.
> 
> 
> *... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> View attachment 34456
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Ok BreezeWood I challenge you to the Bullring on that. This is great!
Spiritual Healing is easier to form a consensus on than TAG which will follow in turn as a consequence.

[BTW Scott Peck was a Christian when he DIDN'T believe in Satan or deliverance prayer as real either. So he as a Christian had to go through this same process you are of not believing until you see proof. So even CHRISTIANS don't believe this, and that is why the knowledge is so suppressed. Francis MacNutt pointed this out in his book, that the worst enemy to Spiritual Healing and knowledge is the church itself that has suppressed this because they want to keep it faith based and don't want science to prove it out of fear people will depend on science. Dossey and Matthews also found out the fundamental Christians were just as opposed to scientific research on prayer and some even prayed for the studies to fail.

BreezeWood the enemy is not Christians, it is fear and unforgiveness which you can find in Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, atheists, Constitutionalists. The people who FORGIVE and aren't afraid to reach agreement on truth are all these denominations, too. My friend Ray who is a gay atheist does more to teach Christians about forgiveness who don't get it; he understands free grace better than some of them do. Forgiveness is the key, not religion.]

BreezeWood I think the point on prayer and spiritual healing is a better focus to unite around:
Even Buddhists and Scientists have found benefits in prayer as universal.

I am guessing you mean some kind of false ritual or state of illusion or delusion confused with real prayer and meditation
that clears the mind.

Since you may require scientific consensus on this, I'm willing to make that 10 million dollar bet that spiritual healing through deep forgiveness therapy and prayer is effective natural safe and consistent/demonstrated with science, and the false fraud type of faithhealing can be exposed and exp l ained in the process by comparison to teach the difference.

The difference is the degree of forgiveness.

BreezeWood since I don't blame you for not understanding what hasn't been proven yet, i'm willing to raise the money and resources online to set up the research first. at any point you change your mind, and decide there is validity and  good purpose for this healing prayer, I'd like to see how you explain it in your own words. I think that is worth 10 million, because it will help other people.

This will also help M.D. who doesn't quite get that the focus on Spiritual Healing first will help resolve issues and form a consensus around TAG as a consequence.

So I will make it a double challenge to you and to M.D. at the same time.
A. you don't think there is any form of prayer that has a positive purpose
so I am willing to set up scientific research studies to show the DIFFERENCE
between the effective type of healing based on forgiveness therapy and prayer
AND the reason the false faith healing prayer FAILS because there is no change
in forgiveness involved. The same research may also prove why the NEGATIVE
or dark forces of occult/magic CLASH and disrupt or block the positive healing process
B. M.D. wants to keep pushing TAG and does not see the need or benefit of
focusing on Spiritual Healing and science first, where agreements on TAG will follow.
Again because of the Forgiveness factor.

So in the end, this will show that the process really depends on Forgiveness
to open up the process to cast out FEAR that is blocking people from common understanding.

So I will challenge both you and M.D. on this.

If you have any revisions to make to the statements, please post.
I tried to give you an out, BreezeWood, by distinguishing the difference
between the natural effective healing prayer and the false type.

but if you REALLY want to stick your foot in your mouth
and say ALL forms of prayer are false, I will include that statement if you wish.
I wouldn't go that far, if I were you, but I would recommend leaving it open
there are both false practices and truly natural effective methods, so you are half right.

If you stick to absolutes, then you are committing the same faults you oppose.
So you will get a second strike if you attack MD for being absolutist
when you did this yourself, stuck with absolutes when you could have left room for
both outcomes instead of negating ALL forms of prayer as false absolutely.

That's a separate contradiction, BreezeWood, I hope you don't go that far, but oh well!


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> View attachment 34456
> 
> .



Then why did Thich Nhat Hanh write a whole book on the Energy of Prayer as a Buddhist:

*In order to understand why people pray, The Energy of Prayer examines the applications and effectiveness of prayer in Buddhist and other spiritual traditions. Arguing that prayer is not about asking some external force for what we need, but about creating an internal environment in which it is easier to get what we want, the book introduces several methods of prayer. These methods are meditative in nature and reenvision prayer as an inclusive, accessible practice that is not tied to a particular religious or spiritual affiliation, but rather that can help anyone create a healthy life through the power of awareness and intention. Ultimately, author Thich Nhat Hanh presents prayer as more than just relaxation: is it a way to satisfy the basic human need to make a connection with something larger than our everyday self. Included are visualization and breathing exercises as well as a rich sampling of prayers, chants, and invocations from the Buddhist tradition.*

The Energy of Prayer How to Deepen Your Spiritual Practice Thich Nhat Hanh Larry Dossey 9781888375558 Amazon.com Books

Why did the studies on prayer by Larry Dossey show this is a universal process in the brain
regardless if people are atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Christian or other faiths: the brain goes into the same state.

Why are you saying this is just Christian when Buddhists respect and practice the same process?


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.



There seems to be a consistent pattern of religious zealots using their particular gawds / inventions of gawds to issue cheap threats on their behalf.

Do you people really have no use for theses gawds other than to cause them to be the bullies and thugs you're too ineffectual to be?


----------



## emilynghiem

Hollie said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be a consistent pattern of religious zealots using their particular gawds / inventions of gawds to issue cheap threats on their behalf.
> 
> Do you people really have no use for theses gawds other than to cause them to be the bullies and thugs you're too ineffectual to be?
Click to expand...

Dear Hollie
It may be male territorial behavior.
I know someone out of a job due to
Clashes between two alpha males.
Only one per harem, or they split and
form separate packs if they can't submit to the same king of the hill. 
Woof woof woof bark bark bark
yap yap yap, lapdogs and pack mentality.

And we think we are above material
instincts. Bunch of frightened animals
guarding their turf from competing tribes.

Beating on chests to be the bigger he man.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.


Dear Boss
I think your and BreezeWood approach to the Almighty aligns closer to Buddhists and others who see the Creation as a whole, with no beginning and no end

And MD Justin and Christians like them tend to focus on the point at which man became aware of God and our will in relation to Godswill.

So the Christians may focus on a representation of the timeline from awareness of God to the falling away from natural laws peace and order to the process of reconciling our will and restoring balance between peace and freedom for equal justice.

These are not supposed to be in conflict but should reconcile in the process of establishing truth and justice for peace.

MD timeline and focus is set up differently totell the same story. The story is the same but not being told in the same person.

He cannot see your angle either.
I can see parts of both of yours from where I am coming from. I think you may be closer to BW and I connect more with MD. Together we cover more ground. Even if these don't capture the whole thing, we each catch parts the other approaches miss. We need all these to cover all areas.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Universal Principle of Human Relations
*

Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence*:* Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.








Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.

Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.

Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.

The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Universal Principle of Human Relations
> *
> 
> Well, this is the thing I'm trying to get at. We can all see the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity which allows us to back out of our individual paradigms and recognize the essences of others' worldviews. We also see that the foundational perspective of absolute objectivity does not necessarily preclude the various alternatives . . . though, in truth, the objective facts of human cognition do recommend that the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution has the strongest case. Hence, it should not be surprising that most human beings hold to one of the historically prominent, Abrahamic, monotheistic religions of absolute divine transcendence*:* Judeo-Christianity or Islam. These two religions do in fact have the largest followings in the world in that order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding, logic holds that if God exists, objectively speaking, He necessarily endowed His logic on mankind, on His creation, providing for the universal means by which we can understand Him, understand the creation and one another. From that perspective we can rightly understand the views of others from premise to conclusion as long as we keep our personal biases out of the equation. This does not mean that we necessarily abandon our personal views, but be honestly forthright about the nature of the various premises, about the metaphysical foundations from which the various worldviews arise.
> 
> Only those who are willing to do that can come together with a mutual understanding of one another; only those who are willing to do that will recognize their duty to respect the imperatives of natural and moral law, that God and only God, not the state, is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and obligation, that insofar as one does not violate the life, the liberty or the property of others, there must be no law against the free expression of these things. But given the foibles of human nature, good luck with that.
> 
> Even atheists can appreciate the pragmatic usefulness of this approach, even though they only allow that the ground for this readily apparent, live-and-let-live imperative of peace is nature, not God.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that not all views are equal in terms of coherency, veracity or probability; and in history, it has always been the least rational views that have been asserted against the universal imperative of human relations. The nature of the least rational systems of thought is invariably the most dogmatically intolerant.


Umm, sorry Bunky. There's nothing logical about belief in supermagical gawds.

The nature of the religious zealot is invariably one of low self-esteem, lower IQ.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/**. 


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/**.


Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/*
* 

The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/*


*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/*
* Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/*
* The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/*
* The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10226095/
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of the Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10222908/
That's Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223665/
That's Really Weird Too


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/
The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223597/
Delta4Embassy Habitually Writes Posts that are Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253691/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations

*
*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/*
*The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253861/
Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II *


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity
> 
> 
> The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/**.
> 
> 
> The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/**.
> 
> 
> Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/*
> *
> 
> The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/*
> 
> 
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/*
> * Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/*
> * The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!
> 
> *
> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/*
> * The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10226095/
> Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of the Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10222908/
> That's Really Weird
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223665/
> That's Really Weird Too
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/
> The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history!
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223597/
> Delta4Embassy Habitually Writes Posts that are Really Weird
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
> The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
> Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
> Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
> The Betty Boop Chronicles
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
> The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
> Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
> The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
> The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
> The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
> More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
> The Irrationalists Mock Themselves
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253691/
> 
> The Universal Principle of Human Relations
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
> The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
> The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
> Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/
> The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce):  Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Conempt
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
> Summary Post - Part I
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
> Summary Post - Part II *




The typical cut and paste of the religious zealot.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

*The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt*


No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are _not_ logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the _God axiom_, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the _God axiom_ is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the _God axiom_ and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt*
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.
> 
> All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?
> 
> In your dreams, Missy.
> 
> The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.
> 
> The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.
> 
> BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.
> 
> Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!
> 
> I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.
> 
> But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.
> 
> (I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")
> 
> Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are _not_ logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.
> 
> In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the _God axiom_, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.
> 
> And why is that true?
> 
> Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the _God axiom_ is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.
> 
> Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the _God axiom_ and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.
> 
> These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.
> 
> Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.



More of the babbling of the low IQ religious zealots. 

Nothing but pointless cutting and pasting.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Boss said:


> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.




*Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

*(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt*
> 
> 
> No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread*:* Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.
> 
> All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?
> 
> In your dreams, Missy.
> 
> The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.
> 
> The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, *refute each other*, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.
> 
> BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.
> 
> Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!
> 
> I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.
> 
> But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.
> 
> (I'm reminded of _The Mummy_ starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")
> 
> Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are _not_ logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.
> 
> In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the _God axiom_, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.
> 
> And why is that true?
> 
> Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the _God axiom_ is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, _a priori_ axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.
> 
> Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the _God axiom_ and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical _a priorities _that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.
> 
> These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.
> 
> Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More of the babbling of the low IQ religious zealots.
> 
> Nothing but pointless cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...



*http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253751/*
*Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity*


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .
> 
> Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> 
> *(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.
> 
> But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.
> 
> Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!
> 
> For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?
> 
> By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.
> 
> BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
Click to expand...


It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .
> 
> Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> 
> *(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.
> 
> But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.
> 
> Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!
> 
> For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?
> 
> By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.
> 
> BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.
Click to expand...


*Sweet!  The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves*

What a fool you are, Hollie.  You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle*:*  rationally, morally, scientifically.  So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out*:*  the theological axioms of human psychology, *(1) *God must exist, and *(2)* God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!  

If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic?  Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us.  That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle.  Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.

Yep!  Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue.  No one escapes the imperatives of the TAG.  No one escapes the imperatives of *The Seven Things™.  
*
Why?
*
Because no one escapes the laws of thought and the  objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof! *

Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah.  That's right.

I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass himself again (proper grammatical pronoun reference as I'm not a feminist loon), you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly*: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/**.*   Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?

No, of course not!  You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!

God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?

*Answer:*  Pretty darn stupid.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .
> 
> Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> 
> *(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.
> 
> But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.
> 
> Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!
> 
> For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?
> 
> By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.
> 
> BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sweet!  The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves*
> 
> What a fool you are, Hollie.  You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle*:*  rationally, morally, scientifically.  So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out*:*  the theological axioms of human psychology, *(1) *God must exist, and *(2)* God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!
> 
> If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic?  Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us.  That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle.  Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.
> 
> Yep!  Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue.  Nobody escapes the TAG.  Nobody escapes *The Seven Things™.*
> 
> Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah.  That's right.
> 
> I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly*: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/**.*   Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?
> 
> No, of course not!  You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!
> 
> God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?
Click to expand...


*Sweet!  The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.*

Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands. 

My refutation to your pointless* Seven Fraudulent Things™ *still stands.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .
> 
> Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> 
> *(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.
> 
> But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.
> 
> Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!
> 
> For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?
> 
> By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.
> 
> BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sweet!  The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves*
> 
> What a fool you are, Hollie.  You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle*:*  rationally, morally, scientifically.  So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out*:*  the theological axioms of human psychology, *(1) *God must exist, and *(2)* God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!
> 
> If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic?  Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us.  That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle.  Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.
> 
> Yep!  Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue.  Nobody escapes the TAG.  Nobody escapes *The Seven Things™.*
> 
> Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah.  That's right.
> 
> I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly*: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/**.*   Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?
> 
> No, of course not!  You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!
> 
> God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sweet!  The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.*
> 
> Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands.
> 
> My refutation to your pointless* Seven Fraudulent Things™ *still stands.
Click to expand...


Sweet!  Hollie refutes herself  with her own words and arguments again*: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/,
"Puttin' Hollie Down for _The Seven Things™"_!


----------



## G.T.

Wow. You really need some friends, dude.


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!*
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .
> 
> Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not.  Your god is *(1) *the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> 
> *(2) *The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. *(3) *The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.
> 
> But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.
> 
> Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!
> 
> For crying out loud! Martin's argument _is_ premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?
> 
> By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology*:* God created everything!
> 
> Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.
> 
> BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sweet!  The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves*
> 
> What a fool you are, Hollie.  You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle*:*  rationally, morally, scientifically.  So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out*:*  the theological axioms of human psychology, *(1) *God must exist, and *(2)* God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!
> 
> If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic?  Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us.  That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought*:* *(1)* the law of identity, *(2)* the law of contradiction and *(3)* the law of the excluded middle.  Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.
> 
> Yep!  Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue.  Nobody escapes the TAG.  Nobody escapes *The Seven Things™.*
> 
> Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah.  That's right.
> 
> I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly*: **http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/**.*   Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?
> 
> No, of course not!  You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!
> 
> God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sweet!  The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.*
> 
> Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands.
> 
> My refutation to your pointless* Seven Fraudulent Things™ *still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweet!  Hollie refutes herself  with her own words and arguments again*: *http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/,
> "Puttin' Hollie Down for _The Seven Things™"_!
Click to expand...

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of *The S*_*even Fraudulent Things™. 
*_
Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Hollie said:


> I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.
> 
> I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of *The S*_*even Fraudulent Things™.
> *_
> Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.




Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again*: *The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum, "Puttin' Hollie Down for _The Seven Things™"_!


----------



## Hollie

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.
> 
> I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of *The S*_*even Fraudulent Things™.
> *_
> Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again*: *The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum, "Puttin' Hollie Down for _The Seven Things™"_!
Click to expand...


Really, dude. You need to get back to drinking. At least you'll have a personality. 

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of *The S*_*even Fraudulent Things™. 
*_
Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.


----------



## Justin Davis

BreezeWood said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.
> 
> The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
> and attached to a position less than perfect,
> is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.
> 
> So how are you any better or worse than M.D.
> 
> Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
> while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.
> 
> would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?
> 
> go ahead.
> 
> If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
> and let M.D. post his.
> 
> I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
> it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth
> 
> much easier to point to your neighbor
> 
> perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
> same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly
> 
> I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science
> 
> are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
> Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
> I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
> one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
> then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that
> 
> Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
> is that why you avoid it?
> 
> would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
> prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
> negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural
> 
> here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
> Storm - Tim Minchin music and video
> 
> if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
> and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
> knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.*
> 
> - at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.
> 
> 
> *... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> View attachment 34456
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

Justin Davis said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.
> 
> The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
> and attached to a position less than perfect,
> is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.
> 
> So how are you any better or worse than M.D.
> 
> Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
> while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.
> 
> would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?
> 
> go ahead.
> 
> If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
> and let M.D. post his.
> 
> I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
> it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth
> 
> much easier to point to your neighbor
> 
> perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
> same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly
> 
> I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science
> 
> are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
> Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
> I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
> one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
> then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that
> 
> Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
> is that why you avoid it?
> 
> would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
> prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
> negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural
> 
> here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
> Storm - Tim Minchin music and video
> 
> if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
> and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
> knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.*
> 
> - at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.
> 
> 
> *... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> View attachment 34456
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



There was no anticipation you would have any ability to refute the argument.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.
> 
> My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.
> 
> These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Boss
> I think your and BreezeWood approach to the Almighty aligns closer to Buddhists and others who see the Creation as a whole, with no beginning and no end
> 
> And MD Justin and Christians like them tend to focus on the point at which man became aware of God and our will in relation to Godswill.
> 
> So the Christians may focus on a representation of the timeline from awareness of God to the falling away from natural laws peace and order to the process of reconciling our will and restoring balance between peace and freedom for equal justice.
> 
> These are not supposed to be in conflict but should reconcile in the process of establishing truth and justice for peace.
> 
> MD timeline and focus is set up differently totell the same story. The story is the same but not being told in the same person.
> 
> He cannot see your angle either.
> I can see parts of both of yours from where I am coming from. I think you may be closer to BW and I connect more with MD. Together we cover more ground. Even if these don't capture the whole thing, we each catch parts the other approaches miss. We need all these to cover all areas.
Click to expand...


Well I don't think my view is anything like Breeze. He said prayer was a useless waste of time.... right? See, I don't believe that. I accept your view that prayer is powerful medicine. Any time humans can tap into Spiritual Energy it is beneficial to humans, regardless of the means by which they do the tapping. 

If you want to believe in MD's God, that's your business but it's a false God. It is a God of MD's making, it's MD's _'God Bitch'_ who does MD's bidding. Feckless and powerless against the forces of human thought and logic, his God is relegated to the powers MD's ordains. So we all have to look to MD to know who God really is, and I am not sure about what we do when MD dies... maybe there is a sabbatical until a new pontiff can be selected and they will issue smoke signals from MD's home? 

As I stated, I am a Spiritualist. I don't know that we have any other Spiritualists in this thread or at USMB. So you can't really lump me in with anyone else here. My Spiritualistic beliefs help me to understand and have perspective on the various beliefs of others. You would think such a belief would make me resoundingly popular around here, but what I find is, if you don't subscribe to someone else's vision of God, you are a heathen bound for hell or dismissed as a kook.


----------



## BreezeWood

Hollie said:


> Justin Davis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> *... bestowed on mankind!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rawly's logic -  -  the supremacy of self gratuity ....
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.
> 
> The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
> and attached to a position less than perfect,
> is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.
> 
> So how are you any better or worse than M.D.
> 
> Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
> while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.
> 
> would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?
> 
> go ahead.
> 
> If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
> and let M.D. post his.
> 
> I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
> it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth
> 
> much easier to point to your neighbor
> 
> perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
> same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly
> 
> I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science
> 
> are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
> Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
> I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
> one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
> then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that
> 
> Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
> is that why you avoid it?
> 
> would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
> prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
> negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural
> 
> here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
> Storm - Tim Minchin music and video
> 
> if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
> and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
> knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt Storm by Tim Minchin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
> If you show me
> That, say, homeopathy works,
> Then I will change my mind
> I'll spin on a fucking dime
> I'll be embarrassed as hell,
> But I will run through the streets yelling
> It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
> Water has memory!
> And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
> It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
> 
> You show me that it works and how it works
> And when I've recovered from the shock
> I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.
> 
> Everyones just staring at me now,
> But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
> So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:
> 
> Life is full of mystery, yeah
> But there are answers out there
> And they won't be found
> By people sitting around
> Looking serious
> And saying isn't life mysterious?
> Let's sit here and hope
> Let's call up the fucking Pope
> Let's go watch Oprah
> Interview Deepak Chopra
> 
> If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
> That show was so cool
> because every time there's a church with a ghoul
> Or a ghost in a school
> They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
> The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
> Throughout history
> Every mystery
> Ever solved has turned out to be
> Not Magic.
> 
> Does the idea that there might be truth
> Frighten you?
> Does the idea that one afternoon
> On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
> Frighten you?
> Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
> So blow your hippy noodle
> That you would rather just stand in the fog
> Of your inability to Google?
> 
> Isn't this enough?
> 
> Just this world?
> 
> Just this beautiful, complex
> Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
> How does it so fail to hold our attention
> That we have to diminish it with the invention
> Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
> If you're so into Shakespeare
> Lend me your ear:
> 
> To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
> To throw perfume on the violet is just fucking silly
> Or something like that.
> Or what about Satchmo?!
> I see trees of Green,
> Red roses too,
> And fine, if you wish to
> Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
> In a post-colonial, condescending
> Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
> Then whatever, that's ok.
> 
> But here's what gives me a hard-on:
> I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
> I have one life, and it is short
> And unimportant
> But thanks to recent scientific advances
> I get to live twice as long
> As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
> Twice as long to live this life of mine
> Twice as long to love this wife of mine
> Twice as many years of friends and wine
> Of sharing curries and getting shitty
> With good-looking hippies
> With fairies on their spines
> And butterflies on their titties.
> 
> And if perchance I have offended
> Think but this and all is mended:
> We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
> For all the chance you'll change your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *christian:* At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
> Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.*
> 
> - at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.
> 
> 
> *... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> correctly stated, sinner - *prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.*
> 
> View attachment 34456
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was no anticipation you would have any ability to refute the argument.
Click to expand...

.
they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ... 

.


----------



## emilynghiem

M.D. Rawlings said:


> 1. RE:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M.D.:
> A. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
> B. The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!
> 
> 2. BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.
> 
> EMILY!
> 
> These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus*:* the _reductio ad absurdum_ of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.
Click to expand...


Dear M.D. Rawlings:
1. First can we address why you and Boss can't both have your own representation of God.

A. for you to say Boss' God is a reflection of man's own relative or imbecilic views
Boss did not say man made all these things, but is equating God with the source/creation of all things.
This IS Boss' way of saying that God is above man and should NOT be made smaller by man's projection on God.
How ironic that Boss also objects that you are projecting your own framework onto God!

B. I see nothing wrong with either Boss putting God on the level of having created all things including logic and knowledge
while you place some things in creation as pre-existing and then God created the rest. As long as you explain this,
I can work with that, if that's how you set it up.

both are fine to me as long as you stay consistent within your own systems,
like not changing keys in the middle of the song where you confuse the listener.

Scott Peck, in his book on Glimpses of the Devil, also recognized some Christians start and restrict the timeline
at the 6000 years of the Hebrew lineage, while others include stages of prehumanoid and prehistory in the millions of years before that timeframe. both are coexisting, both are interpreting the same Bible, but they frame it differently. fine!

As long as we know which timeframe people are using, we can still refer to the phases or changes
that occur within each progression. It doesn't have to be exactly the same to line up in parallels.

M.D. that's the beauty of it, and how God makes us different.

the person who paints a portrait of Madonna in color pointillism, or the one who snaps a photo in black and white,
the kid who draws her in crayon in scribbles, or the artist who does an ink caricature
are all painting the same subject, but interpreting and expressing what they see differently. Even Picasso might
draw her nose completely on the wrong side of her face and it's still Madonna. 

2. As for BreezeWood, Boss you and me agree it is inconsistent to exclude spiritual healing and prayer "absolutely"
(while also objecting to absolutism)

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I,  you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

So the real key is more about forgiveness than it is the actual points.
that is the key to unraveling the knots, to loosen the entanglements causing deadlocks.

the points will eventually resolve themselves once we agree to let go and try to work 
together instead of fighting as adversaries.

it never comes out quite the way you envision or predict, but ironically the opposite sometimes.
the last to get it is sometimes the first, and the first is sometimes last
sometimes the person you least expect is the one who leads the way,
and the one you most relied on falls flat. in this way we are made humbled and equalled.

we all have a part to play to help the others. none of us is better or worse than anyone else.
we have equal faults as strengths, so how do we use them to set up teams and work this out?


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ...
> 
> .



Hi BreezeWood and Hollie:

So how about the idea of using science to demonstrate spiritual healing
where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently
in keeping with medical therapies and treatments, to facilitate health and healing.

M.D. said he agreed that science should be the focus and not religion if this is going to be done right.
Inevitable asked for evidence if anyone is expected to believe something.
I agree with both.

Are we in agreement to set this up then?


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Can we work in teams.
> Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
> Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.
> 
> How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
> or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.
> 
> And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
> on this spiritual healing prayer business.
> 
> My theory is that for both focus points
> whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.
> 
> Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.



Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare. 

I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we work in teams.
> Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
> Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.
> 
> How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
> or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.
> 
> And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
> on this spiritual healing prayer business.
> 
> My theory is that for both focus points
> whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.
> 
> Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.
> 
> I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.
Click to expand...


I challenge  you on that, Boss.
I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.

If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.

so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.

I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
We'll see who gives up first.
Again, I am always caught by surprise.
The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.

M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!

BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.

Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.

so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.

you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we work in teams.
> Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
> Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.
> 
> How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
> or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.
> 
> And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
> on this spiritual healing prayer business.
> 
> My theory is that for both focus points
> whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.
> 
> Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.
> 
> I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge  you on that, Boss.
> I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
> will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.
> 
> If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
> Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.
> 
> so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
> It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.
> 
> I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
> We'll see who gives up first.
> Again, I am always caught by surprise.
> The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
> and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.
> 
> M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
> about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!
> 
> BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
> and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.
> 
> Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
> while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.
> 
> so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
> who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.
> 
> you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
> appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
> so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.
Click to expand...


Least able to cope? Not sure where you got that. Bail? On what, exactly? I just don't believe you are ever going to reach consensus on matters pertaining to God and people's beliefs in God. Especially here, where you also have people who don't believe in any God. You are trying to be a Cat Herder, Emily. There is a reason we have thousands of religions and religious beliefs. If people were able to reach consensus, don't you think they would have done so by now? 

But hey... In the spirit of not letting you be disappointed in me, I'll play along here. Put me on a team and tell me what you want me to do... You want me to forgive? Okay, I hereby forgive all those who have attacked me personally in this thread for my beliefs. I apologize for attacking you back and hope that we can work together for consensus. Happy now?


----------



## emilynghiem

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we work in teams.
> Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
> Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.
> 
> How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
> or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.
> 
> And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
> on this spiritual healing prayer business.
> 
> My theory is that for both focus points
> whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.
> 
> Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Emily, I do not need to be on a team for the purpose of respecting the views of others. I am not the one with a problem respecting the views of others. I can respect your view while disagreeing with you and that is often what I do here. I am afraid you misinterpret my posting style, so let me explain how this works... I am like a mirror, you get a reflection of what you put in front of it. Converse with me respectfully and cordially and that's what you get in return. Attack me with personal insults, that's what you're going to get back from me. Pick a fight and I am not backing down. You want to interpret this as me disrespecting the views of others, and that isn't so. Myself and GT do not agree on God, our opinions are as different as night and day, but I respect his opinion and he respects mine. I can think he is wrong without insulting him or attacking his views, and he can do the same for me, so we don't have a problem. Still, there may be times in the "heat of battle" where we call each other idiots or something, but it's rare.
> 
> I honestly do understand what you are trying to do here, but I think yours is a futile effort. The strategy of forming workgroups and teams is useful when everyone is trying to achieve a common goal. Here, you do not have such a dynamic, whether you fool yourself into thinking that or not. You have various people who have their own agenda, their own goal, and they are not interested in consensus with others as you are. So you will constantly have some who try to bully or cajole others, people who will use insult and ridicule, appeal to popularity, or find fault and disagreement when there really isn't any... whatever it takes to further their agenda. Your efforts are never going to change this dynamic, as noble as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenge  you on that, Boss.
> I do believe that scientific studies on spiritual healing
> will bring out the common knowledge of forgiveness and impact on health and relationships.
> 
> If what you say is true, if you are a mirror.
> Then if I seek consensus, you would mirror this also.
> 
> so Boss if you do not seek consensus, then that is half the reason why you are not getting it.
> It is equally your choice to ask for, or to insist upon, instead of blaming others for why it isn't sought.
> 
> I think you and Hollie are either big enough or stubborn enough to push for consensus by scientific study.
> We'll see who gives up first.
> Again, I am always caught by surprise.
> The people I least suspect sometimes pull through
> and the ones I thought were stronger cave in and cower, cut and run, blaming someone else.
> 
> M.D. surprised me when he posted he believed in spiritual healing, and even lectured me a bit
> about not mixing religious agenda in but keeping it pure science. caught me off guard!
> 
> BW caught me off guard rejecting prayer in absolute terms. I am still floored
> and think I must have miscommunicated because that makes no sense.
> 
> Hollie turned out to have a sense of humor about these things,
> while you seem least able to cope, when I thought you had the best grasp of anyone here.
> 
> so we'll see, if this goes like usual, it will be the person I least suspected
> who agrees to set up the proof of spiritual healing by applying science.
> 
> you, who I thought was focused and convicted enough to carry through
> appear to want to bail out and blame the lack of consensus on the lack on other people's parts.
> so if that is your way of surprising me, I should not be disappointed but should have seen it coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Least able to cope? Not sure where you got that. Bail? On what, exactly? I just don't believe you are ever going to reach consensus on matters pertaining to God and people's beliefs in God. Especially here, where you also have people who don't believe in any God. You are trying to be a Cat Herder, Emily. There is a reason we have thousands of religions and religious beliefs. If people were able to reach consensus, don't you think they would have done so by now?
> 
> But hey... In the spirit of not letting you be disappointed in me, I'll play along here. Put me on a team and tell me what you want me to do... You want me to forgive? Okay, I hereby forgive all those who have attacked me personally in this thread for my beliefs. I apologize for attacking you back and hope that we can work together for consensus. Happy now?
Click to expand...


Boss, there isn't a button for hugs, but you really made me laugh!
You are so great. I was worried you were going to bail out on me and leave me to piece this consensus together without you to help stand up to M.D.

Boss we've never had the internet and the collection of people to Organize in teams.
Now we do.

so of course this has never been tried before.
Thanks for your willingness to forgive, including me when I said things wrong that offended or misrepresented you when that wasn't my intent.

The three focus points I suggested was
1. one team of elders from all churches to form a consensus on TAG, God and the Trinity in every religion.
so to align all the key points and principles even if they aren't perfectly the same.
2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.
I think I need the most help here,
though you'd be good to consult on both
3. one team to apply the spiritual healing and forgiveness demonstrated in #2
to concrete real life situations to prove this works globally:
this can be anything from solving the ISIS or Boko Haram issues,
the issues in China with forced abortions slave labor or torturing bears for their bile,
we can start with resolving issues between Republican and Democrat party leaders
or gangs involved with trafficking drugs or people across borders.
Some of my friends are already ready to take on #3
but most people can't even get past #2.

And M.D. is still so in love with TAG in #1 he isn't interested in #2.
But I think that is the key to solving world problems in #3.
So if you are really going to prove the message in the Bible is true,
and all humanity can be saved by healing grace in Christ Jesus,
then I would be prepared to take it all the way through.

I think you'd be good to help set up #1 where M.D. prefers to focus
but I'd really really appreciate your help to consult on #2 which has more real world
applications and would make sense to more secular gentiles and nontheists than #1.

Thank you Boss!

I am guessing, once we even agree how to set up #2 the study and
proof of spiritual healing using medical research and regular science,
this process will take off on its own. And again, it will
end up going in directions I didn't foresee, that always happens.
Some of it will end up easier than I thought, and then there
are always surprises where there is more to it than I expected.

Never been done before.

But I did meet a statistician at a Lutheran church who loved
the idea and thought this was totally doable. To track the
correlation of forgiveness with reconciling vs. the degree
of unforgiveness with inability to reconcile. So we could
prove that this is the key factor in spiritual healing, not only
applied to physical and mental conditions, but healing relations as well.

As for organizing consensus among tribes, I already know
people who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Atheists in the
peace and justice community who work together. My proposal
is to form a consensus that Christ Jesus means Restorative
Justice or Peace and Justice, equal justice, so similar to
TAG everyone can align around common terms. I will ask
my friends if we could write out a statement, and maybe
consult with you and M.D. how to present this and ask others
to join in teams to form a consensus on how to teach by alignment.


----------



## Boss

emilynghiem said:


> 2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.



Here is what I believe your biggest obstacle is, and it's a doozie. Those who do not believe in spiritual nature will not accept spiritual evidence. You'll never convince them the evidence suggests any healing is spiritual. It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual. Things that are spiritual in nature do not have placeholders in science because science is the study of our physical universe. Mixing the two is problematic, especially for those who have rejected the existence of spiritual nature.


----------



## Inevitable

Muslim75 said:


> I am speaking from the Islamic perspective.
> The proof that God exists is His act. Like footprints indicate a walker, His act indicates His existence. The rain that comes from the sky, the constellations of the Zodiac and the vast pathways above you in the sky point to the existence of a unique Almighty God.


I respect that, and if that is what you believe proves God exists to you, more power to you. But it isn't enough to prove God exists.


----------



## Hollie

Boss said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. one team to focus on the science part and spiritual healing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I believe your biggest obstacle is, and it's a doozie. Those who do not believe in spiritual nature will not accept spiritual evidence. You'll never convince them the evidence suggests any healing is spiritual. It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual. Things that are spiritual in nature do not have placeholders in science because science is the study of our physical universe. Mixing the two is problematic, especially for those who have rejected the existence of spiritual nature.
Click to expand...


I'm going to pass on to you some knowledge That I have heretofore kept from the public. In my spare time I have developed the discipline of _Spiritual Science*™*_ as the means by which we can examine spiritual nature. 

Those who do not believe in _Spiritual Science*™*_ will not accept the science of the spiritual but exists, it does. As we know, It is not possible to prove things which are spiritual through physical sciences. We can only verify and confirm that an unusual or unexpected phenomenon happened, we can't substantiate the cause was spiritual. 

Verily, we now have the means and methods to examine the phenomenon of "spiritual nature" through the methods I've developed within _Spiritual Science*™*_. 

If you will be so kind as to pm me your credit card information, I will send you an information packet with everything you need to begin your investigation of _Spiritual Science*™*_. This is a limited time offer so you must act soon. Plus, if you place your order in the next ten minutes, we'll double your order, just pay for additional processing and handling.


----------



## BreezeWood

emilynghiem said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi BreezeWood and Hollie:
> 
> So how about the idea of using science to demonstrate spiritual healing
> where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently
> in keeping with medical therapies and treatments, to facilitate health and healing.
> 
> M.D. said he agreed that science should be the focus and not religion if this is going to be done right.
> Inevitable asked for evidence if anyone is expected to believe something.
> I agree with both.
> 
> Are we in agreement to set this up then?
Click to expand...

.


> *E:* where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently ...




Emily, is planting a tree the same as poisoning the ground to build a house ?

is that praying ...

.


----------



## emilynghiem

BreezeWood said:


> R*E:* where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently ...
> 
> 
> Emily, is planting a tree the same as poisoning the ground to build a house ?
> 
> is that praying ...
> 
> .



No that is not praying, but thanks BreezeWood, you bring up a great analogy that can be used to explain the difference!

1. the effective type of prayer is digging out the obstructions in the ground, so that the roots and tree can naturally grow.
if the plant is wilting because of obstruction, the prayer and meditation is used to (a) identify where the block is happening and (b) to root it out, to agree to let go and forgive and remove the obstruction (and c to replicate the process, if there is more obstruction found, then keep removing more and more blockage, so there is room for more and more growth, etc.)

2. the false praying is just talking to or watering the plant, wondering why nothing is changing. you can water the plant all you want, but if the roots are blocked or they are eaten up by fungus, the water isn't getting to the plant and it is wilting. No amount of watering on the outside is going to change the blockage on the inside, and the lack of results is why many people lose their faith. they didn't do the internal work, so the efforts failed and they think it is useless and false.

3. the evil type of poison is what i would equate with witchcraft, spiritism, occult, sorcery, voodoo, dark magic. So instead of watering the plant with water, if you are pouring gasoline
or some other toxin on it instead, you are going to get negative results or even kill it off.

BreezeWood the same doctor who studied positive prayer also studied the Hawaiian death curse,
and found that the "creeping paralysis" even occurred in target victims who didn't know they were the target of the curse.

that kind of evil ill will and retribution is toxic, and can cause death, and is the OPPOSITE of the lifegiving energy that is released and received by forgiveness prayer for healing.

BW in the book "The Healing Light" by Agnes Sanford, who taught Francis MacNutt and many of the other spiritual healing leaders still teaching today, she describes God as Nature and the point of prayer is to turn on this natural life energy and open up the circuits to let it flow through fully. As our minds and bodies are designed to self-heal and to recover from obstructions.

she compared it to an iron or household appliance, that we have to make sure the electric circuits are flowing, the cord is plugged in, and the switch is turned on or the appliance won't work.

we use prayer and meditation to find where the disconnect is that is blocking the good will and life energy or love from flowing, then we remedy the blockage or remove it, and then we can use that energy that is naturally given by life or nature.

Even Buddha used this method when he first received true wisdom and became enlightened; he had to first "let go" and forgive all the past striving and ways he tried before, and only when he removed all those expectations and conditions from his mind, emptied himself out, did he receive the universal truth that was always there by default. it was blocked because he was holding on to false conditions that were obstructing his view and understanding.


----------

